Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Call Centres In Bristol And Newport To Move To India


Recommended Posts

You know, the funniest thing I hear as a reason to dislike offshoring of white-collar jobs is the working conditions of the staff offshore. Anyone who has ever visited a facility in India would find that laughable.

I can't comment on the manufacturing offshore facilities though.

Basically, the Indians are doing our jobs for less thanks to telecommunications. The Polish are doing our jobs for less thanks the the EU border laws.

It's just a big leveller.

Ah, the point is that those nice offices in Calcutta are resting on the back of lax environmental laws and a huge supply of cheap labour further down the chain (e.g. the guys who built the offices, the people who clean them etc.) You cannot just point to the working condition of the particular workers, but the structure they are imbedded in.

The reaons the poles can do these things for less is that (for a while at least) they can buy a higher standard of living in their home country than a Brit can for the same amount of USD. That is wage arbitrage. Any country that keeps its costs low or does not pay the externalities (e.g. environmental, worker health, age care etc. across the whole spectrum of society) will be able to undercut workers in societies that do pay the true cost of sustainable employment. It is a race to the bottom in terms of environment, workers rights etc. Those on the right side of the arbitrage at any point in time are all right Jack - and the relative quality of their life imporves...but this isn't cost free in the long run.

It isn't just a leveller. It is a race to the bottom in standards. If country A is willing to pollute, let people work 80 hour weeks, discard people who are injured in the work place without decent state support, destroy people's homes without fair compensation etc. then they will, all other things being equal, be able to out compete country B which does not do those things. It is a drive to a lower quality of life for most.

Edited by Tiger Woods?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You know, the funniest thing I hear as a reason to dislike offshoring of white-collar jobs is the working conditions of the staff offshore. Anyone who has ever visited a facility in India would find that laughable.

I can't comment on the manufacturing offshore facilities though.

Basically, the Indians are doing our jobs for less thanks to telecommunications. The Polish are doing our jobs for less thanks the the EU border laws.

It's just a big leveller.

It would be interesting to know what careers advisors are saying about computer sciences at schools/colleges. I don't think it looks good as it is so easily achieved remotely by whatever cheapest bidder. Really good quality programmers yes, the rest might as well forget it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a sad fact that, especially over the last 20 years, there has been, and will continue to be, a process of global wage arbitrage and most of us in the west are going to be losers. What is missed is that the externalities are not paid by offshorers - a good reason for tariffs based on environmental and employment conditions in the source country imho. Without something like that, we are heading towards a rather unpleasant world for most.

It is not your fault as an enabler, as if you don't do it and benefit from it, someone else will and you have no power to change it. Where the blame lies is the politicians. I just find it depressing that mainstream politics is so short sighted and so devoid of character that it isn't willing to do anything about it.

I truly fear for any children I have.

I struggle a bit with the whole concept of externalities when we move from theory to practise. There are a few main reasons for this :

- Some of the costs that we would like to recoup are self imposed because we think that we are rich nations. We have no moral basis to try to recoup them from others who have chosen not to impose the same costs upon themselves in their quest to become rich nations too.

- We accrued many of the same costs (and possibly in larger amounts per unit of production) ourselves when we were at a similar stage of economic development as some emerging countries. We have no moral right to try to recoup these costs from less mature countries when we didn't pay them ourselves when we were at a similar level of economic maturity.

My basic thesis is that we have already industrialised and became rich. We have squandered this wealth through very poor policies and our "winner takes all" approach to returns to labour and capital. We are now desperately trying to slow down the rate at which we lose wealth by saying that what other countries are doing is unfair because they won't pay the externalities that we either didn't have to pay ourselves or have imposed upon ourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to know what careers advisors are saying about computer sciences at schools/colleges. I don't think it looks good as it is so easily achieved remotely by whatever cheapest bidder. Really good quality programmers yes, the rest might as well forget it.

At present I do exactly this. I work remotely in Australia for the UK. I'm not particularly cheap though. I do know various people who get very good quality work done by Russians for next to nothing.

As I said before, we are heading even further towards a winner take all world where the bulk of the population have a very low quality of life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I struggle a bit with the whole concept of externalities when we move from theory to practise. There are a few main reasons for this :

- Some of the costs that we would like to recoup are self imposed because we think that we are rich nations. We have no moral basis to try to recoup them from others who have chosen not to impose the same costs upon themselves in their quest to become rich nations too.

- We accrued many of the same costs (and possibly in larger amounts per unit of production) ourselves when we were at a similar stage of economic development as some emerging countries. We have no moral right to try to recoup these costs from less mature countries when we didn't pay them ourselves when we were at a similar level of economic maturity.

My basic thesis is that we have already industrialised and became rich. We have squandered this wealth through very poor policies and our "winner takes all" approach to returns to labour and capital. We are now desperately trying to slow down the rate at which we lose wealth by saying that what other countries are doing is unfair because they won't pay the externalities that we either didn't have to pay ourselves or have imposed upon ourselves.

You are quite right. But we are where we are and I think there is a moral case to be made to preserve standards/effectively force them onto others, as if we don't market forces will drive all of us into a very sorry state. Two wrongs don't make a right etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the point is that those nice offices in Calcutta are resting on the back of lax environmental laws and a huge supply of cheap labour further down the chain (e.g. the guys who built the offices, the people who clean them etc.) You cannot just point to the working condition of the particular workers, but the structure they are imbedded in.

The reaons the poles can do these things for less is that (for a while at least) they can buy a higher standard of living in their home country than a Brit can for the same amount of USD. That is wage arbitrage. Any country that keeps its costs low or does not pay the externalities (e.g. environmental, worker health, age care etc. across the whole spectrum of society) will be able to undercut workers in societies that do pay the true cost of sustainable employment. It is a race to the bottom in terms of environment, workers rights etc. Those on the right side of the arbitrage at any point in time are all right Jack - and the relative quality of their life imporves...but this isn't cost free in the long run.

It isn't just a leveller. It is a race to the bottom in standards. If country A is willing to pollute, let people work 80 hour weeks, discard people who are injured in the work place without decent state support, destroy people's homes without fair compensation etc. then they will, all other things being equal, be able to out compete country B which does not do those things. It is a drive to a lower quality of life for most.

The problem is that global wealth is currently concentrated in a few countries with relatively small populations. For this wealth to be redistributed in a more equitable way, a small number of people (as a percentage of global population rather than as a proportion of the local population) in previously wealthy countries are going to be a lot worse off and a large number of people in currently poor countries are going to be slightly better off.

Until the situation for those at the very bottom begin to improve materially, there is no way that standards for those close to the top (on a global rather than local basis) can stop worsening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At present I do exactly this. I work remotely in Australia for the UK. I'm not particularly cheap though. I do know various people who get very good quality work done by Russians for next to nothing.

As I said before, we are heading even further towards a winner take all world where the bulk of the population have a very low quality of life.

I work for al large electrical generation (+gas supplies and networks) company in u,k and seems to me that we are being really hammered by Health & Safety. Our business plan is all about HS & Environment with generation almost appearing as an afterthought. Upper management seem to have no real care for output and their bonus is based mainly around achiving the H&S targets as opposed to availability, start reliability & efficiency. This has got to stop because it costs power stations a fortune with very little gain. People would probably be amazed at how some power plants are managed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are quite right. But we are where we are and I think there is a moral case to be made to preserve standards/effectively force them onto others, as if we don't market forces will drive all of us into a very sorry state. Two wrongs don't make a right etc.

In really rough numbers, 10% of the world's population live in the first world and roughly 90% of the world's population live in the third world.

I am not sure that 10% of the world's population has any right to dictate terms to 90% of the world's population.

An additional problem is the numbers involved. If 40% of the 10% suffer in relative terms on a local basis, that doesn't make that much of a difference to the 90% in absolute terms after incomes have been redistributed from the first world to the third world.

I completely accept your implication that global businesses are taking advantage of the shift in wealth and production from the 10% to the 90% as it suits their goals but I (perhaps naively) see this as an inevitability and a co-incidence rather than something that global businesses have engineered in isolation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I work for al large electrical generation (+gas supplies and networks) company in u,k and seems to me that we are being really hammered by Health & Safety. Our business plan is all about HS & Environment with generation almost appearing as an afterthought. Upper management seem to have no real care for output and their bonus is based mainly around achiving the H&S targets as opposed to availability, start reliability & efficiency. This has got to stop because it costs power stations a fortune with very little gain. People would probably be amazed at how some power plants are managed.

In your industry, you have two types of customer :

- A relatively large captive customer base (residential and necessity retailing / manufacturing) which has to eat the compliance costs imposed upon you until they go bankrupt

- A relatively small discretionary customer base which can move to a lower cost environment over time where self imposed costs aren't as large

Many other industries do not have such a large proportion of captive customers and are collapsing.

As a matter of interest, do you think that the 80/20 rule applies to your business? In this case, could you provide 80% of the H&S protection at 20% of the cost?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In really rough numbers, 10% of the world's population live in the first world and roughly 90% of the world's population live in the third world.

I am not sure that 10% of the world's population has any right to dictate terms to 90% of the world's population.

An additional problem is the numbers involved. If 40% of the 10% suffer in relative terms on a local basis, that doesn't make that much of a difference to the 90% in absolute terms after incomes have been redistributed from the first world to the third world.

I completely accept your implication that global businesses are taking advantage of the shift in wealth and production from the 10% to the 90% as it suits their goals but I (perhaps naively) see this as an inevitability and a co-incidence rather than something that global businesses have engineered in isolation.

It isn't so much dictating standards, as altering trade rules so that advantage cannot be taken.

In any case, the problems are intractable. 7 billion of us cannot live in first world standards. Malthus warned us about this in the early part of the 19th century. Technology which he did not foresee allowed us to dodge the bullet for the past couple of centuries, but I think he is going to be proven correct over the next 200 years. There will be a nasty reckoning unless the energy problem is resolved (e.g. fusion power would be a game changer). There is no reaons for we lucky few to throw ourselves on the pyre as well out of a misplaced feeling of guilt.

The simple fact of the matter is that I care more about my relatives and friends, community and country (in that order) than I do about complete strangers. I don't want my community/country destroyed in a futile attempt to fix the world's problems that will probably only be resolved by a mass die off. Selfish I know, but then selfishness is what go the world into this problem in the first place.

(I'd be more than happy to accept a lower standard of living for the benefit of others if I felt everyone would do so...but that isn't how the world works.)

Edited by Tiger Woods?
Link to post
Share on other sites

In your industry, you have two types of customer :

- A relatively large captive customer base (residential and necessity retailing / manufacturing) which has to eat the compliance costs imposed upon you until they go bankrupt

- A relatively small discretionary customer base which can move to a lower cost environment over time where self imposed costs aren't as large

Many other industries do not have such a large proportion of captive customers and are collapsing.

As a matter of interest, do you think that the 80/20 rule applies to your business? In this case, could you provide 80% of the H&S protection at 20% of the cost?

80/20 rule sees like the way to go IMO. The current H&S demands are just unbelievable. We essentially obstruct essential work due to the 'risk' element,. ask any contractors who work on power station sites and they wil all answer the same response to the way we do things. It is completely over the top and I am trying to make sure all thes additional requirements stand up to scrutiny. This involves going up against a department that weilds more power than anything else in the organisation. Example of me challenging this was over the DSE regs (display screen equipment). Some fool wanted a risk assessment comleted (two pager) every time the control rom staff changed shift as they were effectively 'hot desking', I managed to get rid of this crap with some logcal reasoning+justification. This is just one example of the stupidity forced o us by the persons in H&S department trying to justify their existance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

80/20 rule sees like the way to go IMO. The current H&S demands are just unbelievable. We essentially obstruct essential work due to the 'risk' element,. ask any contractors who work on power station sites and they wil all answer the same response to the way we do things. It is completely over the top and I am trying to make sure all thes additional requirements stand up to scrutiny. This involves going up against a department that weilds more power than anything else in the organisation. Example of me challenging this was over the DSE regs (display screen equipment). Some fool wanted a risk assessment comleted (two pager) every time the control rom staff changed shift as they were effectively 'hot desking', I managed to get rid of this crap with some logcal reasoning+justification. This is just one example of the stupidity forced o us by the persons in H&S department trying to justify their existance.

I had to move a filing cabinet from a landing once...it was in a dead end alcove 6m from the stairs and not in the wildest set of circumstances could it block the stairwell during a fire. It was okay to stick it in a narrow hallway behind a door to the stairs however. Common sense goes out the window with H&S sometimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to move a filing cabinet from a landing once...it was in a dead end alcove 6m from the stairs and not in the wildest set of circumstances could it block the stairwell during a fire. It was okay to stick it in a narrow hallway behind a door to the stairs however. Common sense goes out the window with H&S sometimes.

Our central office had astair awareness day due to a couple of losers spilling a bit of tea down their pints while using them dangerous stairs. Have now dithered for three weeks trying to top up a SF6 (sulpherhexaflouride) Breaker due to some enviro regs where the person has to be 'competent.' Used to do that job in10 minutes. Plant manager ased if a steam leak from boiler drum was superheated, anyone who know steam tables and boilers should know that steam fom a boiler drum is saturated, thats why the liquid phase exists. He was more concerned about a waste skip being partially full. Calliber of these guys is not good. Don't get me started on Myas Briggs wastage (psyco stuff).

Edited for spelling & poor grammar.

Edited by wired01
Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't so much dictating standards, as altering trade rules so that advantage cannot be taken.

In any case, the problems are intractable. 7 billion of us cannot live in first world standards. Malthus warned us about this in the early part of the 19th century. Technology which he did not foresee allowed us to dodge the bullet for the past couple of centuries, but I think he is going to be proven correct over the next 200 years. There will be a nasty reckoning unless the energy problem is resolved (e.g. fusion power would be a game changer). There is no reaons for we lucky few to throw ourselves on the pyre as well out of a misplaced feeling of guilt.

The simple fact of the matter is that I care more about my relatives and friends, community and country (in that order) than I do about complete strangers. I don't want my community/country destroyed in a futile attempt to fix the world's problems that will probably only be resolved by a mass die off. Selfish I know, but then selfishness is what go the world into this problem in the first place.

(I'd be more than happy to accept a lower standard of living for the benefit of others if I felt everyone would do so...but that isn't how the world works.)

Your answer is completely fair.

Selfishness is completely understandable.

The prism though which we see the world determines whether we see individual / local sacrifice as being "worth it" on a global basis.

My own prism includes an inescapable irony. The left in wealthy nations are completely incapable of accepting that globalisation makes the local few worse off while making the global many better off. This inevitable outcome ought to be compatible with the global view of the left but is completely irreconcilable with their local views.

I also accept that a global view of fairness is a complex function of wealth and opportunity. The right are certainly not innocent bystanders.

Both ends of the political spectrum are guilty of local rather than global interests.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I work for al large electrical generation (+gas supplies and networks) company in u,k and seems to me that we are being really hammered by Health & Safety. Our business plan is all about HS & Environment with generation almost appearing as an afterthought. Upper management seem to have no real care for output and their bonus is based mainly around achiving the H&S targets as opposed to availability, start reliability & efficiency. This has got to stop because it costs power stations a fortune with very little gain. People would probably be amazed at how some power plants are managed.

Corporate Manslaughter Act has done this. Directors are no longer so confident at getting away scot free with killing workers ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to the globalists another 341 British tax payers have lost their jobs. :(

Actually, thanks to the compliance, housing and business premises costs of pretending that we are a rich country, at least 341 jobs (when you consider the spillover effects) have moved to a lower cost environment.

At some point, we need to accept that we are no longer special and that we need to compete globally rather than locally in the job retention / job growth market. The easiest way to do this is to dramatically lower housing, business premises and compliance costs.

There is nothing wrong with British workers as evidenced by the success of the British plants of many foreign businesses.

Everything seems to be wrong with the British business environment as evidenced by the dearth of British businesses employing British workers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to the globalists another 341 British tax payers have lost their jobs. :(

Actually, in this specific case I would guess that 341 British tax payers are about to be paid redundancy and have been given a headstart to find a new job before the large numbers of public sector lay-offs happen and they have to compete on the job market with them. Ultimately, Yell is a busted business model so, as tough as it is for these individuals, the off-shoring is simply postponing the inevitable failure of the company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In really rough numbers, 10% of the world's population live in the first world and roughly 90% of the world's population live in the third world.

Which is probably the main reason why the first world is the first world. No point moving wealth around without some kind of social reform. People should be allowed to have as many children as they want sure, however they need to be made aware of the implications of this.

Families in the first world (used to) have more disposable income to spend in the wider economy simply because they tend to have less mouths to feed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't so much dictating standards, as altering trade rules so that advantage cannot be taken.

In any case, the problems are intractable. 7 billion of us cannot live in first world standards. Malthus warned us about this in the early part of the 19th century. Technology which he did not foresee allowed us to dodge the bullet for the past couple of centuries, but I think he is going to be proven correct over the next 200 years. There will be a nasty reckoning unless the energy problem is resolved (e.g. fusion power would be a game changer). There is no reaons for we lucky few to throw ourselves on the pyre as well out of a misplaced feeling of guilt.

The simple fact of the matter is that I care more about my relatives and friends, community and country (in that order) than I do about complete strangers. I don't want my community/country destroyed in a futile attempt to fix the world's problems that will probably only be resolved by a mass die off. Selfish I know, but then selfishness is what go the world into this problem in the first place.

(I'd be more than happy to accept a lower standard of living for the benefit of others if I felt everyone would do so...but that isn't how the world works.)

+1

I'm certain the globalists mean well, but the laws of unintended consequences don’t give a frig about sentiment.

If I could wave a wand and put this country's (apparent) development back 10-15 years (I’m sure we can cope without everyone having German Saloons and Mobile phones) in exchange for automatic raising of living standards everywhere else, I would without a doubt. However as you say, the real world just doesn’t work that way.

All that will happen is a bigger concentration of wealth at the top, but on a global scale. Given the latest food political riots kicking off around the globe, I’m not sure this is even in the elite’s interest long term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why the pound needs to sink to a level at which such activity is not profitable.

Ultimately the value of the pound will reflect some combination of:

* the education of the UK workforce

* the stability of british institutions which guarantee property rights and provide infrastructure valued by individuals and businesses

* the income inequality of britain. Lower income inequality will sooner or later support a stronger pound, and will sooner or later result in affordable housing.

We need to start from square one, which is a very cheap pound.

Those thinking that interest rate hikes will substitute for any of the above are total fools.

Agreed.

You could also argue that the NMW is also driving the jobs abroad, as they aren't worth NMW rates when there are other countries doing the same (well, nearly as good) for less. Whether anyone would work here for less than NMW is another question*, but clearly there are those more desperate for work in other countries, who are more than happy to work for less.

* This starts opens the inequalities/benefits can of worms. Personally, I'd prefer a simpler benefits system, such as a citizens income, than price fixing in wages; it would stop such jobs going abroad unless they really were paying near nothing, as a CI would give a basic base existence (and help even out inequalities) which could be voluntarily topped up by work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing like looking on the bright side eh! :lol:

And I might agree with you if I could see growth ahead for Britain, but given the low skilled nature of this type of work, I'd suggest they'll need every penny of that (possible) redundancy before the inevitable. <_<

I mean, Newport and Glasgow, aren't known for their growing semi skilled sectors..

That's my point; the big public sector numbers haven't happened yet. The "good" news for these people is that they've hit the market before the masses, giving them a slight advantage.

What was the standard of living in Newport or Glasgow 50 years ago compared to today? Has the majority of the workforce increased their skills as exponentially?

The answer to these questions are the root cause of why off-shoring works. It's neither good nor bad, it just "is".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Google is pretty poor though if looking for things like local tradespeople - which I suspect back of local newspapers or a small local directory like Dentons are the first port of call after word of mouth.

Don't know if Google's search is poorly setup for that kind of requirement or tradespeople are missing a trick by not have a decent SEO website.

I'm able to ask every customer exactly where they found me - Small box add in back of local free paper is by far the most successful, almost double the internet, internet and word of mouth are both running about equal at the moment, Dentons, Local Pages, Thomson Local all just a few and Yellow pages 2 customers for £250 cost of advertising. None of the directories are worth the cost of advertising so far this year and if it carries on i won't bother paying for any of them next year. I can hear their whining reps now :rolleyes: i will relish those conversations as they were so persistent last year :lol:

Google Local is very good for me becuase i have my own website and i've taken the time to validate the google local listing (free so far) update with a picture and make sure the link and map location is right, I get people from quite un-local areas through it because it seems to rank disproportionately well in the area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cold calling by phone for mortgage busines is illegal , if you are getting it report it.

What about when they verbally spam me every time i pay money in at the bank. "Oh" She says feigning surprise "I notice you're eligible for one of our loans!" was the last one, house insurance was before that, then ISAs. I've started finding it funny to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could also argue that the NMW is also driving the jobs abroad, as they aren't worth NMW rates when there are other countries doing the same (well, nearly as good) for less. Whether anyone would work here for less than NMW is another question*, but clearly there are those more desperate for work in other countries, who are more than happy to work for less.

Imo, the best and only way of getting rid of NMW, is to erase any actual requirement for it.

Low House/Rent prices and a £10k tax threshold would be a good start, or a dose of deflation of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.