IBM Tries To Patent Offshoring 242
Ian Lamont writes "IBM has filed a patent application that covers offshoring employees. Application 20090083107, dated March 26, 2009, is a 'method and system for strategic global resource sourcing.' Figure 2 gives a pretty good idea of what's involved — it shows boxes labelled 'Engineer,' 'HR,' and 'Programmer' with crossing arrows pointing to cylinders labelled 'India,' 'China,' and 'Hungary.' The article speculates that IBM may apply the methodology to its own staff — it reportedly plans to lay off thousands of employees and has even started a program to have IBM workers transfer to other countries at local wages."
Title way too sweeping (Score:5, Informative)
What wasn't in the summary (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Relax (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USTrade1991-2005.png [wikipedia.org]
Re:The thing about IBM (Score:1, Informative)
Microsoft: 4.9%
IBM: 0.3%
Hewlett-Packard: 0.2%
Apple Computer: 0.9%
Re:The thing about IBM (Score:5, Informative)
Company : H1B/Total Employees : Percentage
Microsoft: 4437/57,588 : 7%
IBM: 1413/130,000 : 1%
Hewlett-Packard: 520/65,000 : <1%
Apple Computer: 291/20,000 : <1%
I also found an interesting article [businessweek.com] talking about how many jobs the ipod creates. The result is 13,920 in the US, and 27,250 outside the US. This breaks down to $753 million in the US and $318 million outside the US. Something to think about.
Re:Tariffs (Score:2, Informative)
I hope you are trying to be funny here, because that was how most of the world used to work, till the US used it's muscle to tear down tarriffs and barriers. Countries like India did not have any means to compete with the capital intensive manufacturing like automobiles and other consumables that the US used to produce. Well, now, all that lobbying and bribing for reciprocal removal of tariffs in the belief that we could sell our goods has come back to haunt us.
The tide has changed and now we want tariffs on imports? That is truly a joke, if countries impose tariffs on us too, that will pretty much be the end of the American economy...
Re:Won't get that far (Score:3, Informative)
I got three better words: In re Bilski. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Relax (Score:3, Informative)
this ridiculously high standard of living that makes companies outsource
Oh? And what are you willing to do without? Because let me tell you something: to be on par with the standards of living in India and China, you can say 'bye-bye' to having your own place to live. Instead, you and three generations of your clan will be living in a studio apartment. You won't be able to afford a car, you won't be able to afford decent clothes, and you won't be able to afford to eat anything not obtained from a frickin' soup kitchen.
If that's how you want to live, fine. But don't impose your ideals on the rest of us, thanks.
Re:The thing about IBM (Score:2, Informative)
Like I said, that can only happen so much, and the pie gets smaller and smaller each time. It's not like there is an infinite amount of jobs and they merely get shuffled around between industries.
Now wait, it's this sort of misconception that makes people start to think protectionism is a good idea. Do you realize that there are more jobs in the US than there were 20 years ago? Despite advances like robots and computers making us more efficient, and things like outsourcing, there are still more jobs. This is the way humans are: when it appears we have nothing left to do, we find something new and more interesting to do. I sure don't lament the loss of all the farming jobs from the invention of the tractor. It was kind of lame for my grandpa, who had to get trained in a non-farming skill, but he got paid more working for the phone company than he ever would have farming.
I'm not saying that protectionism is an ideal strategy, but it's better than giving away our standard of living while getting nothing in return.
You will always lose from protectionism in the long term, and often in the short term. The best strategy is to help these countries improve their standard of living, until there is no point in outsourcing because it costs just as much there. Then they can take care of their own programming needs, and we can take care of our own programming needs.
Re:How many IBMers drive Japanese cars.. (Score:3, Informative)
Except that that worker is a line worker doing very 'boring' jobs similar to a helpdesk line in the IT world which makes $12/hour tops. The actual wage of a GM line worker is around $25-30/hour but because you need so many of them that is very unsustainable in an economy where 'the other ones' do it at less than half the price. In what sane IT company does a first line helpdesk jockey earn $30/hour when you can hire 2 or 3 for that price?
Re:The thing about IBM (Score:2, Informative)
Well, that's because nobody has thought to stop them.
To all intents and purposes, corporations are able to act exactly as an individual might given sufficient influence and resources. The difference is that most existing legal systems do not hold corporations culpable in the same way as they do an individual. It would be a refreshing change if directors of companies guilty of flagrant abuses occasioning death or injury could be subjected to the same custodial penalties as an individual, but that is just not going to happen in a legal system that values property over human life or rights.
Re:The thing about IBM (Score:3, Informative)
But how does that work in a bad economy?
I dunno, let's look at history. See this [wikipedia.org]
Re:The thing about IBM (Score:1, Informative)
Unless the employee counts are wrong that should be:
Microsoft: 4437/57,588 : 7%
Apple Computer: 291/20,000 : 1.45%
IBM: 1413/130,000 : 1%
Hewlett-Packard: 520/65,000 : 0.8%
(ie. apple is 1.45% & HP 0.8% - 1% isn't meaningful, it could be 0.1 or 0.99%)
Re:The thing about IBM (Score:3, Informative)