SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (32891)3/4/2004 12:05:58 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794039
 
Friedman catches up with globlization.



Small and Smaller
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

BANGALORE, India

Jerry Rao wants to do your taxes.

Ah, you say, you've never heard of Jerry Rao, but the name sounds vaguely Indian. Anyway, you already have an accountant. Well, Jerry is Indian. He lives in Bangalore. And, you may not know it, but he may already be your accountant.

"We have tied up with several small and medium-size C.P.A. firms in America," explained Mr. Rao, whose company, MphasiS, has a team of Indian accountants able to do outsourced accounting work from across the U.S. All the necessary tax data is scanned by U.S. firms into a database that can be viewed from India. Then an Indian accountant, trained in U.S. tax practices, fills in all the basics.

"This is happening as we speak — we are doing several thousand returns," said Mr. Rao. American C.P.A.'s don't even need to be in their offices. They can be on a beach, said Mr. Rao, "and say, `Jerry, you are particularly good at doing New York returns, so you do Tom's returns." He adds, "We have taken the grunt work" so U.S. accountants can focus on customer service and thinking creatively about client needs.

Mr. Rao's ability to service U.S. accounts this way is at the core of a business revolution that has happened over the past few years. I confess: I missed this revolution. I was totally focused on 9/11 and Iraq. But having now spent 10 days in Bangalore, India's Silicon Valley, I realize that while I was sleeping, the world entered the third great era of globalization.

The first era, from the late 1800's to World War I, was driven by falling transportation costs, thanks to the steamship and the railroad. That was Globalization 1.0, and it shrank the world from a size large to a size medium. The second big era, Globalization 2.0, lasted from the 1980's to 2000, was based on falling telecom costs and the PC, and shrank the world from a size medium to a size small. Now we've entered Globalization 3.0, and it is shrinking the world from size small to a size tiny. That's what this outsourcing of white-collar jobs is telling us — and it is going to require some wrenching adjustments for workers and political systems.

Globalization 3.0 was produced by three forces: First is the massive installation of undersea fiber-optic cable and bandwidth (thanks to the dot-com bubble) that have made it possible to globally transmit and store huge amounts of data for almost nothing. Second is the diffusion of PC's around the world. And third (what I missed most) is the convergence of a variety of software applications — from e-mail, to Google, to Microsoft Office, to specially designed outsourcing programs — that, when combined with all those PC's and bandwidth, made it possible to create global "work-flow platforms."

These work-flow platforms can chop up any service job — accounting, radiology, consulting, software engineering — into different functions and then, thanks to scanning and digitization, outsource each function to teams of skilled knowledge workers around the globe, based on which team can do each function with the highest skill at the lowest price. Then the project is reassembled back at headquarters into a finished product.

Thanks to this new work-flow network, knowledge workers anywhere in the world can contribute their talents more than ever before, spurring innovation and productivity. But these same knowledge workers will be under more pressure than ever to constantly upgrade their skills in this Darwinian environment.

"We created a worldwide network which connected all the resource pools on the planet, and suddenly we changed the rules of the game," said Nandan Nilekani, C.E.O. of the Indian software giant Infosys — which last year received nearly one million applications from Indian techies for 9,000 software jobs. You cannot wish away this new era of globalization, he added. "It will not go away."

So now I wonder: when they write the history of the world 20 years from now, and they come to this chapter — Sept. 11, 2001, to March 2004 — what will they say was most important? The attack on the World Trade Center and the Iraq war? Or, as Mr. Rao suggests, the convergence of PC's, telecom and work-flow software into a tipping point that allowed India to become part of the global supply chain for services the way China had become for manufacturing — creating an explosion of wealth in the middle classes of the world's two biggest nations, India and China, and giving both nations a huge new stake in the success of globalization. I wonder?

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: Lane3 who wrote (32891)3/4/2004 8:51:06 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 794039
 
Post editorial.


All Jobs Count

Thursday, March 4, 2004; Page A22

NOBODY CAN SAY for sure how many U.S. jobs will be "offshored" to places such as India, but the best estimates are around 3.5 million between now and 2015. If that number sounds scary, try this one: The total number of U.S. jobs destroyed over the same period is likely to be well over 300 million. Capitalism eliminates jobs constantly, but except during recessions it creates new ones even more quickly: In 1999 alone, 33 million jobs were destroyed and 36 million created.



In short, the loss of a few hundred thousand jobs per year to offshoring is a small part of the churning that goes on in the U.S. labor market. Precisely because every job loss is painful, it makes more sense to think of ways of stimulating employment generally than to craft legislation to address 1 percent of the problem.

That has not stopped state and federal legislators from touting 1 percent solutions. Sen. John F. Kerry, the leader in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, has sponsored a measure to require phone-based service workers -- IT support people and so on -- to inform callers of their location. A measure buried in the recently signed omnibus spending bill stipulates that certain work for the federal government may not be done overseas. According to the National Foundation for American Policy, more than 30 bills have been introduced in more than 20 states, including Virginia and Maryland, seeking to regulate or slow offshoring.

These efforts are misguided, and not just because they are the equivalent of trying to stop illegal immigration by reinforcing the patrol on a 10-mile section of the Mexican border. Why, for example, is it important that consumers know if their call is being answered in Bangalore or Austin? If the service is poor, they can take their business elsewhere; if the service is good, what's the difference? The answer is that there isn't any difference, which is why there is no consumer outrage on this issue. There is, however, political outrage, reflecting insecurity over jobs -- insecurity that really reflects the lack of new job creation in the economy overall, not the small phenomenon of offshoring.

Restrictions on government contract work being done abroad are no more logical. If pursued at a federal level, they undermine the U.S. position in global trade diplomacy: The United States has pressed for government procurement around the world to be open to international competition. At a state level, procurement restrictions create a new layer of red tape that is more costly than it's worth. In New Jersey, for example, a contract with a call center was canceled because 12 jobs would have moved abroad; the extra cost to the state's taxpayers was $900,000. Marylanders, beware: Two bills restricting state contracts are floating around the legislature.

Politicians want to be seen responding to the job anxiety of the moment. But they would do better to think big about the job market. They should struggle to improve public education. They should invest more in retraining for laid-off workers. They should minimize taxes that directly penalize job creation. And they should fight against changes in the tax code that benefit the wealthy, exacerbating the inequality that technology and globalization tend to accentuate.