Dell cancels Indian tech support

[username]

"oh my god"

[winterminute]

Perhaps there is a measurable effect when the majority of people do not spend their paycheck right here in this country. Consider though, how this is exceedingly unlikely. Even Indians (and other immigrants) who work here and send money back home are absolutely forced to spend their money here. I?m not just talking about taxes, which is an entirely different discussion altogether, I?m talking about basics like rent, clothing, food, and electricity. Certainly you can easily recognize the benefit to the economy just by making ends meet. In short, let not your heart be troubled: money, countless amounts of it, is being spent everyday.

I guess it is the principal involved. People working in the US are receiving a lot of benefits just by being here. Don't worry I won't start an US is better than XYZ, in fact, I wasn't even born in the US. Paying taxes doesn't cover the "american life", but paying into our economy in addition to taxes (and other things) all provide the money to make the US go round.

This begs a bigger question: Should american companies (i.e. ones with headquarters in the US) be allowed to send jobs overseas when there is a qualified workforce without penalty?

I know your answer is "Yes, companies should be allowed to do what it takes to maintain a competitive edge". However, what economic benefits is the that comany seeing by "being US". Keep in mind, I am not talking about a comparison to India, specifically. Physical Safety & Security for employees and its property. A mature infrastructre (both raods & highways, but also a telco & internet). Without offending anyone, to my knowledge the highest concentration of top-of-the-line universities are in the US. US citizens are far more likely to stay in the US if they have grown up here.

2 ? A company must stay competitive to survive. And so must you. If you?re worried about being laid off, perhaps you should consider making yourself more valuable to the company. There are no guarantees in this life, save death and taxes, but you can at least try to do something to improve yourself instead of waiting for the other shoe to drop. You think the people who run the company thought that things would just work out? I doubt it. They took the initiative many times in their lives. They stayed late to finish projects. Spent their money to give that presentation the extra spice of life. They went after promotions when possible. They studied hard in college and made sure they had sound footing. Beyond that, you don?t think it was tough in the beginning to get started? You don?t think it?s difficult to maintain? These people understood early on that knowledge is power. This isn?t some catch phrase; it?s reality.

I don't want or feel like I deserve a free-ride, but what about the days where doing a great job was good enough. Assuming, I am highly qualified, if I work my butt of and if I do very well at my job (assuming my employer agrees), I shouldn't have to worry about losing my job on top of that. Is that life? Yup

This isn?t always the case. See my previous post about streaming-lining costs. Sometimes a cut in cost can lead to greater efficiency and result in a better product. Whether or not this was the case with Dell and India is debatable at best. Your argument makes a blanket statement and suggests that having tech support outsourced in India results in quality that is inherently inferior. Please elaborate: why? If you can?t think of a better reason than Indians are of lower quality than Americans, then you have no case on this point. After all, taking such a position requires that you deny the concept of human potential: essentially the point would be that some people are just inferior and do not have the ability and potential to improve. Put quite simply, there is no logical way to establish such a point as an irrevocable fact. Further, you again make an argument that fails to recognize the differences in economy operation. A 50%-80% cost reduction on Dell?s end actually leads to a pay increase to those outsourced by Dell. How could this be possible if not for the differences in the way diverse economies function?

I am not saying that you can't get a 5% decrease in costs for free or maybe a 10%, but the economics just don't make sense to say that you can cut costs by 80% (which what I heard some companies are claiming by going overseas) without losing it somewhere else. In Dell's case, they lost in customer satisfaction. I don't do too much work with software development overseas, but I have heard of huge inefficiencies just dealing with different time zones, work styles, etc. So, in that case, you can cost developer wages, but may increase developement time.

As for WorldCom, Enron, the current Mutual Fund Bad Guy, and the other companies we haven't even heard about. I don't know what to say. All I can do is shake my head. They say that some of the execs are looking at jail time just to prove a point -- Will that ever happen? No, because they have more money for lawyers then the other side. If I were you, I would be incredibly ****ed.

I pride myself in being able to hear other people's point of view and to be able to realize value and merit in someone else opinion, however, I do tend to write the first thing that comes to my mind and when it is something I feel strongly about, I tend to write and post and think later

[....]

"oh my god"

LOL....

username...that was awesome... :laugh:

Folks. Lets all take a deep breath here. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!

[ToastGodSupreme]

Care to explain? What the hell do u mean by saying that they have an attitude?  :angry: It wasnt India that came calling to Dell. It was Dell coming to India because they want to cut costs. We dont ask people to setup shops in India. We only ask for their work competitively with American companies. If you guys cant afford to take a paycut and work for less, then stop complaining.

Sometimes it's not about taking a paycut. I'm sure that some of the call centers in India are hiring personel at dirt cheap wages.

Also, I'd bet my ass that management didn't talk to the employees about this. Because I'm sure the employees would've rather taken a paycut than lose their job entirely. But then, what if the people in India are getting paid less than minimum wage (for the US that is) than the people here in the states? Well, certainly management wouldn't talk to employees then. I mean, nobody can hire someone and have them on their books being paid less than minimum wage here, they'd get in trouble. Do you see where I'm going with this? Sometimes we aren't given the option, management just does it and that's the end of discussion.

If you guys can invent superconductors and silicon chips that can utilize half the power and not raise its temperature, why the hell cant you guys figure out if you can live a little cheaper? :angry:

If you are short on cash at the end of the day, find another job in addition to this so that you can earn enough money.

Where the hell do I have time to get another job? Maybe I could give up sleeping for a couple of months? I pull overtime almost every week as it is and I'm barely making by. If I made minimum wage or less, I'd ****ing die. No, seriously, I really would die either of starvation or exposure, because I wouldn't have enough to eat unless I gave up my residence, or vise versa.

Personally, people here in the States love to live beyond their means. But that's how it is. I never complain. I live in a studio apartment. I don't have a whole lot of furniture (see bed in corner, see 4 year old tv stand that my monitors sit on, see no couch, see no table, see no chairs, see very little). But it's not a matter of just us WANTING to live cheaper. My studio apartment costs me $450 a month in rent. And that's with a $50 off a month deal since I signed up when they were desparate for renters. That's just my ****ing rent. For a TINY studio apt in the midwest.

Then, there's electricty, water, gas, food, etc. Ain't cheap.

I'm not trying to fight man :no: , but don't trivialize expenses here in the US. Granted, some of the richest men in the world are here, but they're not sharing. I'm a broke-ass college student barely scraping by. I'm going to be in debt up to my ass when I graduate because of the loans I have to take out just to get a decent education. It's not easy. And finding my current job (ironically, phone tech support), was not easy. Jobs are hard to come by lately IMO.

[Emon]

They just have a bad ascent and its hard to understand them sometimes.

ha ha ha ..I am pretty sure their accent ( not ascent ) is much better than your "Idaho" accent :yes:

[username]

LOL....

username...that was awesome... :laugh:

Folks. Lets all take a deep breath here. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!

:laugh: glad you got it :D

[DELTA75329]

This begs a bigger question: Should american companies (i.e. ones with headquarters in the US) be allowed to send jobs overseas when there is a qualified workforce without penalty?

I know your answer is "Yes, companies should be allowed to do what it takes to maintain a competitive edge". However, what economic benefits is the that comany seeing by "being US". Keep in mind, I am not talking about a comparison to India, specifically. Physical Safety & Security for employees and its property. A mature infrastructre (both raods & highways, but also a telco & internet). Without offending anyone, to my knowledge the highest concentration of top-of-the-line universities are in the US. US citizens are far more likely to stay in the US if they have grown up here.

Not just yes. Absolutely yes. To operate otherwise impedes the freedom of companies and is not in line with capitalism at all. How can you ask if a company should be ?allowed? to have a right to conduct itself in the best interests of it?s future? To deny a company the right to operate overseas is nothing less than totalitarian. In so doing, the U.S. Government would be telling companies that they operate to serve only U.S. interests and the interests of U.S. citizens. Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let?s say you end up in a car collision. Hopefully, you?ll never experience this, but on the off chance you do, how would you like it if the government ?Hey! We know you need serious medical attention, but only a doctor who votes democrat can treat you. It?s against the law to be treated by a doctor who doesn?t vote democrat.?e democrat.?Now step outside of this a little bit: In effect, you are a company and the doctor is your employee. What right does the government, or anyone else, have to say whom you can hire? WHY? Because you owe it to democratic-voting doctors!? Owe them WHAT, exactright them a right to service you and be paid accordinglearn??t they earn your trust and your business by making sureb>choiy best choice you have? It bothers me to think that you would not be ?allowed? to hire a better doctor because that doctor doesn?t vote democrat. More to the b>selfiers me that selfishb>deld step in and deny you your rights and liberties because they feel that the ?rights? they invented are more important. Such a notion is nothing short of detrimental, as it does not serve the person who is really in need, none other than you. No, instead it serves those who invent rights and liberties at your expense. This is the concept you?ve been defending so steadfastly.

With regards to the location of where a company chooses to set up shop, and the infrastructure for said location, those are valid logistical questions. But you also have to understand that companies already recognize that. They accommodate and adapt. As I have said, change and evolution are requirements for improvement. No successful major corporation could be where it is today and simultaneously fail acknowledge this basic element of business.

I don't want or feel like I deserve a free-ride, but what about the days where doing a great job was good enough. Assuming, I am highly qualified, if I work my butt of and if I do very well at my job (assuming my employer agrees), I shouldn't have to worry about losing my job on top of that. Is that life? Yup

You shouldn?t have to worry about it, but you do. That?s the reality of the world you live in. You can work with it, or against it. Your choice. But if you choose to fight it, my money?s on the world, not you. Like it or not, you have to look out for yourself. You can?t expect anyone else to have your best interests in mind. Expecting such privileges is dangerous not only to you, but to other people. It damages the fabric of America?s core ideals because when too many people take these expectations to excessive heights, then the privileges get taken advantage of. People begin to take them for granted, and before you know it, they are screaming about these privileges not as such, but as their God-given rights.

I am not saying that you can't get a 5% decrease in costs for free or maybe a 10%, but the economics just don't make sense to say that you can cut costs by 80% (which what I heard some companies are claiming by going overseas) without losing it somewhere else. In Dell's case, they lost in customer satisfaction. I don't do too much work with software development overseas, but I have heard of huge inefficiencies just dealing with different time zones, work styles, etc. So, in that case, you can cost developer wages, but may increase developement time.

At the risk of coming off as condescending, let me say that this is the best argument you?ve put out yet. It?s an excellent point, and you?re correct: Dell found that that the advantages of going overseas did not meet the demands of their business; the challenges they faced in order to meet their goals were too much to deal with feasibly. But you?re also arguing that companies should not be allowed to experiment and come to this type of conclusion on their own. You?re saying that they shouldn?t even be given the chance to meet these challenges head on and overcome them. That?s what I take issue with, and that?s why I can?t completely agree with you that cost-cutting and expanding overseas is a venture than should not even be attempted. Why not? Because some Americans might not like the idea? Because these companies owe it to Americans to make sure to make sure that every American they can employ can have a job? That?s not good enough. You spoke of Dell?s failures overseas. Isn?t it true that some of these failures deemed critical by Dell could easily occur over here in the United States? Isn?t it true that many of them did in fact occur, and that contributed to Dell?s decision to seek outsourcing overseas in the first place? It was thought that not only would the cost be less, but also the work ethic of overseas employees would not be poisoned with the ?what?s in it for me? attitude to the extent of which occupies virtually every aspect of too many American employees. Quality of service springs to mind, and Americans are no strangers to providing very little of it. But getting back to the economics angle: What if Dell could make this work? What if this turned out to be a big success? I can practically guarantee you that other companies are paying close attention to Dell?s overseas endeavor and are taking notes. Many of them plan to succeed where Dell has failed. They have a right to try, and entitlements be damned.

As for WorldCom, Enron, the current Mutual Fund Bad Guy, and the other companies we haven't even heard about. I don't know what to say. All I can do is shake my head. They say that some of the execs are looking at jail time just to prove a point -- Will that ever happen? No, because they have more money for lawyers then the other side. If I were you, I would be incredibly ****ed.

I am. Trust and believe, I am very steamed over it. I want to see them fry.. they broke the law and deserved to be punished. And you?re correct: these execs are looking at jail time to prove a point. But not the point you might be thinking. They are looking at jail time because they are guilty of breaking the law. The point being not only for justice to be served, but also to send a message to the American people that no matter how powerful or successful you become, you cannot operate above the law. Now? if only politicians could learn that lesson, I think I would be able to sleep a little better at night. As for whether or not these executives will ever face justice, you don?t know for sure that they will get out of their respective situations unscathed. I think you stating emphatically that all these law-breakers will doubtlessly escape justice reveals a certain ignorance and bias on your part. Only time will serve to reveal their fate.

I pride myself in being able to hear other people's point of view and to be able to realize value and merit in someone else opinion, however, I do tend to write the first thing that comes to my mind and when it is something I feel strongly about, I tend to write and post and think later

Clearly that was the case this time. I would suggest you be more careful in the future? you won?t make many friends unless you can find a consistent way to keep yourself in check.

Aside from that, it?s nice to see you come around and offer constructive viewpoints. That?s part of the reason I visit Neowin and participate in the first place. Most of the time, intelligence is lacking, but this is a community of good people. Every now and then, they can and will surprise you. With regards to this and other topics, I don?t write anything with the intent to force anyone to accept my views, or otherwise make any effort to change someone?s mind. Though perhaps, I can provoke some thought and cause one to think about concepts he might ordinarily ignore. Whether or not that leads to a change in one?s opinion is up to him.

With that, I?ve said my piece on this thread, and there?s nothing more I can offer that I haven?t already. Take from my arguments what you will. But whatever you do, have a safe and happy holiday.

-x- peace :happy:

Edited November 26, 2003 by DELTA75329

[electic102]

My aunt today called me up for tech support, she has a Dell. She is Indian so she knew right away that she was talking to an Indian tech support person. Forget the deep accent, but it is really down to the fact that it is poor tech support. They did not know what they were talking about and gave her the run around by transferring her to 8 different depts.

I know Dell had a good reputation for tech support but that is clearly drying up. It dried up so fast that she was forced to call me.

[electic102]

I guess it is the principal involved. People working in the US are receiving a lot of benefits just by being here. Don't worry I won't start an US is better than XYZ, in fact, I wasn't even born in the US. Paying taxes doesn't cover the "american life", but paying into our economy in addition to taxes (and other things) all provide the money to make the US go round.

This begs a bigger question: Should american companies (i.e. ones with headquarters in the US) be allowed to send jobs overseas when there is a qualified workforce without penalty?

I know your answer is "Yes, companies should be allowed to do what it takes to maintain a competitive edge". However, what economic benefits is the that comany seeing by "being US". Keep in mind, I am not talking about a comparison to India, specifically. Physical Safety & Security for employees and its property. A mature infrastructre (both raods & highways, but also a telco & internet). Without offending anyone, to my knowledge the highest concentration of top-of-the-line universities are in the US. US citizens are far more likely to stay in the US if they have grown up here.

I don't want or feel like I deserve a free-ride, but what about the days where doing a great job was good enough. Assuming, I am highly qualified, if I work my butt of and if I do very well at my job (assuming my employer agrees), I shouldn't have to worry about losing my job on top of that. Is that life? Yup

I am not saying that you can't get a 5% decrease in costs for free or maybe a 10%, but the economics just don't make sense to say that you can cut costs by 80% (which what I heard some companies are claiming by going overseas) without losing it somewhere else. In Dell's case, they lost in customer satisfaction. I don't do too much work with software development overseas, but I have heard of huge inefficiencies just dealing with different time zones, work styles, etc. So, in that case, you can cost developer wages, but may increase developement time.

As for WorldCom, Enron, the current Mutual Fund Bad Guy, and the other companies we haven't even heard about. I don't know what to say. All I can do is shake my head. They say that some of the execs are looking at jail time just to prove a point -- Will that ever happen? No, because they have more money for lawyers then the other side. If I were you, I would be incredibly ****ed.

I pride myself in being able to hear other people's point of view and to be able to realize value and merit in someone else opinion, however, I do tend to write the first thing that comes to my mind and when it is something I feel strongly about, I tend to write and post and think later

The problem with outsourcing (I am not talking about call centers) is that you have to hire more senior coders here in the U.S. to audit the code. My company did some outsourcing to India, and I am sure they are very smart, but the product we got back was not up to par. The code needed work and we had to hire 3 more senior engineers to go over all the code to make sure it is clean of any back doors, flaws, etc.

So you might save some but the savings is slim considering the quality of code, etc.