Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Offshoring - The Moral & Economic Case"
Yes, given the current state of the market the best strategy appears to be to re-skill in something different than IT.
Most reasonably intelligent people can buy a book and "skill" themselves in a given programming language in a few months at the most. Low barriers to entry - hence the commoditisation of IT.
So yes reskill in something that has high barriers to entry either because (1) it is a closed shop, like being a barrister in England or (2) requires an IQ in the top level of the population or (3) requires a long series of gruelling exams like chartered accountancy.
As (1) or (2) are not possible for you, I would suggest (3).
I've been reading this thread trying to discern what your argument actually is. You seem to hop from 'its racist' to 'offshoring is ok' to some lightweight economic arguments.
I made the OP quite specific in the hope that it would stimulate some reasoned debate and AVOID getting bogged down in irrelevant offshoots. But you managed to screw that up. Funny thing about people who don't want to take the time to understand something is that they always try and bring everyone down to their level.
I've been reading this thread trying to discern what your argument actually is. You seem to hop from 'its racist' to 'offshoring is ok' to some lightweight economic arguments.
I made the OP quite specific in the hope that it would stimulate some reasoned debate and AVOID getting bogged down in irrelevant offshoots. But you managed to screw that up. Funny thing about people who don't want to take the time to understand something is that they always try and bring everyone down to their level.
QUOTE:
'It is about Indian staff are body shopped into UK offices. Last year there were by some estimates 55000 'offshore' people onshore. Many of these roles (in my experience) are not suitable to be located in India. So that's c.55000 UK redundancies.'
The core of your argument is completely wrong. 55k ICT's did not lead to 55k UK redundancies.
The options were, 55k ICTs come here to work or the work gets done by 55k Indians in India.
Which of these is best for the UK ??
PZZ
All my arguments are wrong to you as you don't even read the bits you quote.
If someone comes into the country from out with the EU to work then their employers should be forced to pay them the top percentile rather than the lowest percentile wages like just now, that way you can be sure the local labour market is truly exhausted and you are only hiring the very best from outside.
p.s. I don't go sarf of the river. Before you ask.
That's alright, I never go sarf of the river anyway. I'm not sure I would ever want to ride in a cab where the driver would go sarf, who knows what you could catch in that cab.
Leave a comment: