Hey folks, I'm looking for some opinions on Outsourcing for a course I'm taking, ideally from an accounting or business perspective, though all outlooks are welcome.
I double checked and got mod approval for this, its a quick 10 question survey on SurveyMonkey (the same software that PA uses!) Shouldn't take longer than 2 minutes.
Hey folks, I'm looking for some opinions on Outsourcing for a course I'm taking, ideally from an accounting or business perspective, though all outlooks are welcome.
I double checked and got mod approval for this, its a quick 10 question survey on SurveyMonkey (the same software that PA uses!) Shouldn't take longer than 2 minutes.
Just general outsourcing/contracting, which offshoring is a branch of.
EDIT: To clarify, if it is offshoring but staying within the same company, it really would not qualify. But any time it is work being done by an outside party it would qualify, even if its 2 different companies in the same town/city.
And thank you again to everyone that has participated so far.
Typical micro/macro confusion. While doing unpaid work may improve your individual chance of landing a paid job, it doesn't increase the number of paid jobs that the group will receive. It just shuffles around who gets it to those most able to do unpaid work.
Unless you want to tell a big time supply-side story where the absence of unpaid internships would decrease human capital accumulation so much that it would result in lower employment. That seems a stretch though. I would want to see data to back that up.
I don't see how a decrease in human capital accumulation would result in lower employment. Such a statement would imply that the employment/population ratio was always increasing (because human capital accumulation is, roughly, always increasing). Since such a thing isn't happening and since we have better reasons to believe that productivity does not have a long term macro effect on unemployment* you would have to have some fucking amazing data to back it up
*Specifically we tend to believe that wages will float with productivity (which is based on human capital). People, for the most part, are willing to work for any wage since any wage is better than no wage (the people for whom this is not true of in the long term are not a significant portion of the population to matter) and so, unless a reduction in human capital accumulation results in people being so unproductive that they cannot be hired at any wage then our employment numbers don't depend on productivity.
Edit: It could result in a loss of GDP but that is still a hard story to sell.
I don't see how a decrease in human capital accumulation would result in lower employment. Such a statement would imply that the employment/population ratio was always increasing (because human capital accumulation is, roughly, always increasing). Since such a thing isn't happening and since we have better reasons to believe that productivity does not have a long term macro effect on unemployment* you would have to have some fucking amazing data to back it up
*Specifically we tend to believe that wages will float with productivity (which is based on human capital). People, for the most part, are willing to work for any wage since any wage is better than no wage (the people for whom this is not true of in the long term are not a significant portion of the population to matter) and so, unless a reduction in human capital accumulation results in people being so unproductive that they cannot be hired at any wage then our employment numbers don't depend on productivity.
Edit: It could result in a loss of GDP but that is still a hard story to sell.
Playing devil's advocate for the supply-side story I don't believe in, I would justify it by saying that the lack of human capital accumulation leads to higher structural unemployment for the affected group. I would point to higher long term unemployment and lower labor force participation rates at the less trained end of the labor force as evidence.
Mix in a story about incentives to work not existing down to the $0 wage due to social assistance, homemaking opportunity cost, and the underground economy. And then top it off with a cherry about the minimum wage now having priced some people out of the market on account of lack of unpaid internships having permanently decreased their earnings potential.
The question is: do other advanced economies use unpaid internships, and what effect does that have on their level of employment in professional sectors?
I mean I get the reasoning behind an unpaid internship at first: it was a way for a kinda well off person without connections to short circuit nepotism in order to gain access to some of the nicer jobs. But now you need a fair share of nepotistic practices to even GET an unpaid internship and if you're living without parental assistance supporting yourself while having an unpaid internship is something most people can't do (my girlfriend can, bless her heart, but she works 80 hours a week and that's just...insane)
That's probably skewed by the fact that paid internships are much more prevalent in tech fields such as engineering and software design. You can see that reflected in the starting salaries.
So this is pretty scummy, but apparently legal because they aren't threatening the current incentives, only the availability of future ones? It's not like it would be a union in the typical American sense anyway, but any hint of unionization is apparently quite abhorrent to Tennessee Republicans.
I hope the workers at that plant sent the TN GOP lots of nastygrams asking "Are you fucking stupid? You hate the idea of unionization that much, that you'd rather see the plant closed and unemployed, than let us unionize?"
Then they turn around and vote yes, followed by a public statement telling the GOP to go eat a dick.
I hope the workers at that plant sent the TN GOP lots of nastygrams asking "Are you fucking stupid? You hate the idea of unionization that much, that you'd rather see the plant closed and unemployed, than let us unionize?"
Then they turn around and vote yes, followed by a public statement telling the GOP to go eat a dick.
To be fair, it's not "Unionize or the plant closes" It's "The workers want to unionize, the plant agrees (because they're fucking GERMAN), so which union should represent them?" and Tennessee GOP went "Wait, unions? UAW?! GRUAIBNJKD JK:VC SDJK:"
Still stupid, but not as stupid as closing the plant because they didn't want the workers to unionize
Edit: Oh yeah, future employment could be hurt, but when was the last the GOP cared about the future?
Mindblowing. This is a case of VW having invited the UAW in because it's VW's only plant without a works council. TN can't even handle unions when the business is inviting one in? So much for free enterprise I guess. Nimrods.
It is indeed pretty amazing if your view of Republican's is one of a party with rational beliefs. But they are not. They are tribal. The UAW is not their tribe and so they get defensive
Eight Los Angeles police officers who violated department policy when they mistakenly opened fire on two women during the hunt for Christopher Dorner will be retrained and returned to the field, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said in a department-wide message Wednesday.
The LAPPL: We make your job so secure, you can't get fired even after you reload and fuck up some more.
Eight Los Angeles police officers who violated department policy when they mistakenly opened fire on two women during the hunt for Christopher Dorner will be retrained and returned to the field, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said in a department-wide message Wednesday.
The LAPPL: We make your job so secure, you can't get fired even after you reload and fuck up some more.
Please. Only a silly goose is going to blame this one on the union.
The Thin Blue Line always protects their own regardless if they are union or not.
Eight Los Angeles police officers who violated department policy when they mistakenly opened fire on two women during the hunt for Christopher Dorner will be retrained and returned to the field, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said in a department-wide message Wednesday.
The LAPPL: We make your job so secure, you can't get fired even after you reload and fuck up some more.
Please. Only a silly goose is going to blame this one on the union.
The Thin Blue Line always protects their own regardless if they are union or not.
Since this always comes up, unions are advocacy organizations. You pay them money to protect your interests right or wrong.
So unless you are one of those people who get mad at defence attorneys dont get mad at unions.
there are business interns at the corporate office where I work that have a 100% chance of "making it", being the kids of existing executives
then again those guys wouldn't be flipping burgers no matter what
edit: and that's the rub, the unpaid interns that get the good positions usually have ties that would have meant they'd do fine regardless in most businesses
Eight Los Angeles police officers who violated department policy when they mistakenly opened fire on two women during the hunt for Christopher Dorner will be retrained and returned to the field, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said in a department-wide message Wednesday.
The LAPPL: We make your job so secure, you can't get fired even after you reload and fuck up some more.
Please. Only a silly goose is going to blame this one on the union.
The Thin Blue Line always protects their own regardless if they are union or not.
Since this always comes up, unions are advocacy organizations. You pay them money to protect your interests right or wrong.
So unless you are one of those people who get mad at defence attorneys dont get mad at unions.
What do they need a union for this for? Shouldn't this be defense attorney territory?
It's the union's job to represent you in termination (and other job disciplinary) matters. It's the attorney's job to represent you in court. Two different forums.
Eight Los Angeles police officers who violated department policy when they mistakenly opened fire on two women during the hunt for Christopher Dorner will be retrained and returned to the field, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said in a department-wide message Wednesday.
The LAPPL: We make your job so secure, you can't get fired even after you reload and fuck up some more.
Please. Only a silly goose is going to blame this one on the union.
The Thin Blue Line always protects their own regardless if they are union or not.
Since this always comes up, unions are advocacy organizations. You pay them money to protect your interests right or wrong.
So unless you are one of those people who get mad at defence attorneys dont get mad at unions.
What do they need a union for this for? Shouldn't this be defense attorney territory?
HA! They weren't charged with a crime. Cops can cold blooded murder people without being charged with a crime. You think a little reckless endangerment (or whatever spraying bullets everywhere would end up as) is going to get charged?
No this was just over whether they would be fired.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
It's the union's job to represent you in termination (and other job disciplinary) matters. It's the attorney's job to represent you in court. Two different forums.
This is an exception where a union does too good a job at this. Cops aren't random employees at McDonalds, their job is vital to the country to keep the law working. Their organization being corrupted and crooked meant its tainted, puts every citizen at risk when they're let off for crimes that'd get an average employer fired before the day is out and builds distrust for the government when they can't keep law enforcement in line.
It's the union's job to represent you in termination (and other job disciplinary) matters. It's the attorney's job to represent you in court. Two different forums.
This is an exception where a union does too good a job at this. Cops aren't random employees at McDonalds, their job is vital to the country to keep the law working. Their organization being corrupted and crooked meant its tainted, puts every citizen at risk when they're let off for crimes that'd get an average employer fired before the day is out and builds distrust for the government when they can't keep law enforcement in line.
Do you really think the LAPD leadership was all "shucks, I really wanted to fire these guys, I did. But that mean old union just won't let me!"?
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
It's the union's job to represent you in termination (and other job disciplinary) matters. It's the attorney's job to represent you in court. Two different forums.
This is an exception where a union does too good a job at this. Cops aren't random employees at McDonalds, their job is vital to the country to keep the law working. Their organization being corrupted and crooked meant its tainted, puts every citizen at risk when they're let off for crimes that'd get an average employer fired before the day is out and builds distrust for the government when they can't keep law enforcement in line.
Do you really think the LAPD leadership was all "shucks, I really wanted to fire these guys, I did. But that mean old union just won't let me!"?
I'm sure the officers who broke laws on the job were satisfied having that union make it that much tougher for them to get discplined after they committed crimes that'd get people fired asap when their bosses hear about it.
It's the union's job to represent you in termination (and other job disciplinary) matters. It's the attorney's job to represent you in court. Two different forums.
This is an exception where a union does too good a job at this. Cops aren't random employees at McDonalds, their job is vital to the country to keep the law working. Their organization being corrupted and crooked meant its tainted, puts every citizen at risk when they're let off for crimes that'd get an average employer fired before the day is out and builds distrust for the government when they can't keep law enforcement in line.
The other option is firing every cop who has ever started a controversy over justified actions.
Nope, best practice is having the city on one side representing ther interest and the union on the other side.
It's the union's job to represent you in termination (and other job disciplinary) matters. It's the attorney's job to represent you in court. Two different forums.
This is an exception where a union does too good a job at this. Cops aren't random employees at McDonalds, their job is vital to the country to keep the law working. Their organization being corrupted and crooked meant its tainted, puts every citizen at risk when they're let off for crimes that'd get an average employer fired before the day is out and builds distrust for the government when they can't keep law enforcement in line.
The other option is firing every cop who has ever started a controversy over justified actions.
Nope, best practice is having the city on one side representing ther interest and the union on the other side.
This.
I don't think the problem is with the union being too powerful, I think the city is simply not interested in dealing with the corruption in its police department.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I mean, they don't like unions but would they rather the plant was elsewhere. And that's to say nothing of the ethical questions.
This is the worst sort of cronyism.
I'm sure they think the unions would fund Democratic campaigns.
Since the 60s and 70s southern Republicans have been following a smokestack development model, hocking their lower environmental standards, cheaper labor and special tax incentives to manufacturers. It's been relatively successful, but TN has also seen the most rapid unionization of any state in the southeast in recent years.
No doubt it frustrates them that, from their perspective, both the successful model that resulted from their political ascendancy and the political ascendancy itself could now be undercut by unionization.
It's the union's job to represent you in termination (and other job disciplinary) matters. It's the attorney's job to represent you in court. Two different forums.
This is an exception where a union does too good a job at this. Cops aren't random employees at McDonalds, their job is vital to the country to keep the law working. Their organization being corrupted and crooked meant its tainted, puts every citizen at risk when they're let off for crimes that'd get an average employer fired before the day is out and builds distrust for the government when they can't keep law enforcement in line.
Do you really think the LAPD leadership was all "shucks, I really wanted to fire these guys, I did. But that mean old union just won't let me!"?
I'm sure the officers who broke laws on the job were satisfied having that union make it that much tougher for them to get discplined after they committed crimes that'd get people fired asap when their bosses hear about it.
No, it's more like "Charging officers with a crime for 'doing their job' is a dangerous precedent to set" and no police chief wants to go there. Charging these officers will stop them from doing it again, of course, and may also stop future instances of officer's firing on innocent people, but it will also stop officers from firing on people who are not innocent who should be fired on and create a very dangerous atmosphere for officers who already work under a very large cloud of danger.
If you really want someone to blame, blame gun culture and anti-police culture. It has led officer's to assuming that every contact they make is with an individual who absolutely will pull a gun and shoot them at a moments notice. This leads to an incredibly heightened and usually false sense of danger on the officer's side which can make someone reaching for their wallet a credible threat that can be fired upon
Posts
yeah, let's not do it like the german car builders. I mean, what do the germans even know about cars?
just reposting since it got BOTP'd, also @Bowen I just tested again and it seems to work for me. If anyone else has problems let me know.
MWO: Adamski
Oh I see, that's weird.
You need to drag them. Hmph.
Edit: Nevermind, both ways are working now. Okay!
EDIT: To clarify, if it is offshoring but staying within the same company, it really would not qualify. But any time it is work being done by an outside party it would qualify, even if its 2 different companies in the same town/city.
And thank you again to everyone that has participated so far.
MWO: Adamski
Yglesias can go fuck himself.
Edit: In short, his argument boils down to "I went through this, so you should too."
Let me change the wording a bit:
Just because he gave his boss a rim job to get a job doesn't mean it should be common place, or acceptable.
Unless you want to tell a big time supply-side story where the absence of unpaid internships would decrease human capital accumulation so much that it would result in lower employment. That seems a stretch though. I would want to see data to back that up.
*Specifically we tend to believe that wages will float with productivity (which is based on human capital). People, for the most part, are willing to work for any wage since any wage is better than no wage (the people for whom this is not true of in the long term are not a significant portion of the population to matter) and so, unless a reduction in human capital accumulation results in people being so unproductive that they cannot be hired at any wage then our employment numbers don't depend on productivity.
Edit: It could result in a loss of GDP but that is still a hard story to sell.
And the Yglesias Idiocy Tour continues with an overentitled ode to Walmart.
Started out as a "safe" progressive blogger and got mainstream media gigs. Brain was promptly eaten by the D.C. Consensus.
Playing devil's advocate for the supply-side story I don't believe in, I would justify it by saying that the lack of human capital accumulation leads to higher structural unemployment for the affected group. I would point to higher long term unemployment and lower labor force participation rates at the less trained end of the labor force as evidence.
Mix in a story about incentives to work not existing down to the $0 wage due to social assistance, homemaking opportunity cost, and the underground economy. And then top it off with a cherry about the minimum wage now having priced some people out of the market on account of lack of unpaid internships having permanently decreased their earnings potential.
Soon coming to Mankiw blog post near you.
I mean I get the reasoning behind an unpaid internship at first: it was a way for a kinda well off person without connections to short circuit nepotism in order to gain access to some of the nicer jobs. But now you need a fair share of nepotistic practices to even GET an unpaid internship and if you're living without parental assistance supporting yourself while having an unpaid internship is something most people can't do (my girlfriend can, bless her heart, but she works 80 hours a week and that's just...insane)
It doesn't.
The sooner we dispell that myth, the better.
Steam: pazython
I wouldn't wish my internship experiences on anyone.
Fuck Florida IT in the ass. Except the few good eggs out there.
EDIT - German wreck cars, not make them.
That's probably skewed by the fact that paid internships are much more prevalent in tech fields such as engineering and software design. You can see that reflected in the starting salaries.
So this is pretty scummy, but apparently legal because they aren't threatening the current incentives, only the availability of future ones? It's not like it would be a union in the typical American sense anyway, but any hint of unionization is apparently quite abhorrent to Tennessee Republicans.
This honestly surprised me.
I mean, they don't like unions but would they rather the plant was elsewhere. And that's to say nothing of the ethical questions.
This is the worst sort of cronyism.
Then they turn around and vote yes, followed by a public statement telling the GOP to go eat a dick.
To be fair, it's not "Unionize or the plant closes" It's "The workers want to unionize, the plant agrees (because they're fucking GERMAN), so which union should represent them?" and Tennessee GOP went "Wait, unions? UAW?! GRUAIBNJKD JK:VC SDJK:"
Still stupid, but not as stupid as closing the plant because they didn't want the workers to unionize
Edit: Oh yeah, future employment could be hurt, but when was the last the GOP cared about the future?
The LAPPL: We make your job so secure, you can't get fired even after you reload and fuck up some more.
Please. Only a silly goose is going to blame this one on the union.
The Thin Blue Line always protects their own regardless if they are union or not.
Since this always comes up, unions are advocacy organizations. You pay them money to protect your interests right or wrong.
So unless you are one of those people who get mad at defence attorneys dont get mad at unions.
What an asshole.
there are business interns at the corporate office where I work that have a 100% chance of "making it", being the kids of existing executives
then again those guys wouldn't be flipping burgers no matter what
edit: and that's the rub, the unpaid interns that get the good positions usually have ties that would have meant they'd do fine regardless in most businesses
What do they need a union for this for? Shouldn't this be defense attorney territory?
HA! They weren't charged with a crime. Cops can cold blooded murder people without being charged with a crime. You think a little reckless endangerment (or whatever spraying bullets everywhere would end up as) is going to get charged?
No this was just over whether they would be fired.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
This is an exception where a union does too good a job at this. Cops aren't random employees at McDonalds, their job is vital to the country to keep the law working. Their organization being corrupted and crooked meant its tainted, puts every citizen at risk when they're let off for crimes that'd get an average employer fired before the day is out and builds distrust for the government when they can't keep law enforcement in line.
Do you really think the LAPD leadership was all "shucks, I really wanted to fire these guys, I did. But that mean old union just won't let me!"?
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I'm sure the officers who broke laws on the job were satisfied having that union make it that much tougher for them to get discplined after they committed crimes that'd get people fired asap when their bosses hear about it.
The other option is firing every cop who has ever started a controversy over justified actions.
Nope, best practice is having the city on one side representing ther interest and the union on the other side.
This.
I don't think the problem is with the union being too powerful, I think the city is simply not interested in dealing with the corruption in its police department.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I'm sure they think the unions would fund Democratic campaigns.
Since the 60s and 70s southern Republicans have been following a smokestack development model, hocking their lower environmental standards, cheaper labor and special tax incentives to manufacturers. It's been relatively successful, but TN has also seen the most rapid unionization of any state in the southeast in recent years.
No doubt it frustrates them that, from their perspective, both the successful model that resulted from their political ascendancy and the political ascendancy itself could now be undercut by unionization.
No, it's more like "Charging officers with a crime for 'doing their job' is a dangerous precedent to set" and no police chief wants to go there. Charging these officers will stop them from doing it again, of course, and may also stop future instances of officer's firing on innocent people, but it will also stop officers from firing on people who are not innocent who should be fired on and create a very dangerous atmosphere for officers who already work under a very large cloud of danger.
If you really want someone to blame, blame gun culture and anti-police culture. It has led officer's to assuming that every contact they make is with an individual who absolutely will pull a gun and shoot them at a moments notice. This leads to an incredibly heightened and usually false sense of danger on the officer's side which can make someone reaching for their wallet a credible threat that can be fired upon