Hacker News Reader

Comment by bediger | Hacker News Reader

Wait, wasn't R&D the piece of a corporation's work that was going to stay in the US, because every worker here was talented, good at problem solving and so forth?

View on HN

The truth of the matter is that everything that can be outsourced will be outsourced. The idea that "brain work" would remain in the US was just a rationalization to enable the first wave of outsourcing to get underway.

In the 1980's the driving force was quality and the ones to emulate were the Japanese. Now the driving force is cost, quality is not that important, and the ones to emulate are the Chinese/Indians.

Exactly. The "brain work" rationalization was just a way to sell outsourcing to the middle class, enabling conservatives to break working-class political power. The next wave, well underway since the tech bubble reduced communication costs to zero, will break the middle class.

The quicker we can get the entire world to wage parity, the sooner we can stop arguing about nationality and outsourcing and get back to improving humanity.

Wage parity is a pipe dream. Each country has different social, political and educational systems that lead to uneven economic progress. You will wait a long time to get back to improving humanity.

Soon most of the management will be outsourced as well. It makes sense to have someone who understands the culture of the workers.

Not too wise.

Google for "787 Dreamliner outsourcing". It was costly experience for Boeing.

WSJ article seems to be talking about offshore R&D work, not necessarily outsourced R&D work. 787 Dreamliner problems seems to be due to outsourcing to contractors and subcontractors (combined with offshoring): http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/15/business/la-fi-hiltz...

I wonder what percentage of the companies surveyed plan to employ R&D employees directly. Were Boeing's problems due to offshoring or outsourcing?

See my comment above. You're confusing outsourcing, offshoring, and offshore outsourcing.

I've been thinking this for years. Why not just outsource management?

Because they're the ones deciding what gets outsourced.

You're right, of course, and I meant my comment more rhetorically than it appeared.

From the point of view of a board of directors or senior mgmt, if outsourcing is such a good idea, why not outsource management? It would be more cost-effective, and just as efficient.

Or the lawyering. The law department seems like a very costly line item, one that could be done remotely, as long as you set up the proper procedure for the outsourced lawyers to follw.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com