Yup there's definitely a tinge of racism there. Even the word "outsourcing" has a "send it to a cheap third world country" feel to it.

I remember talking to an American company who was doing all the design and web development for an Australian company. So I said "ahh so they outsourced and offshored it to you" and they got very defensive about how it wasn't outsourcing. Even though this is the textbook definition of outsourcing and offshoring.

There's an argument that isn't racism here.

In AU->US outsourcing, the motivation for outsourcing is not to drive down labor costs, because labor costs are clearly higher in the US. The only reason to outsource from AU to US is if people in the US can do it better.

This is the opposite when we talk about outsourcing from an advanced country to a developing country. The rationale is always cost, and specifically cost of labor.

It's always about driving the cost of labor downwards. And so workers in the outsourcing country resist---absolutely---because the ultimate aim is to undermine their wages and living standards.

Are you talking about the cultural definition of outsourcing? Then you're just bolstering my point. In fact, in just making the assumption that people only outsource to the US because the US does it better, and the reverse (only because it's cheaper) to developing countries, there is an implicit bias in assuming that. Here's the dictionary definition. (There's no mention of developing country.)

out·source ˈoutˌsôrs/ verb gerund or present participle: outsourcing obtain (goods or a service) from an outside or foreign supplier, especially in place of an internal source. "outsourcing components from other countries" contract (work) out or abroad. "you may choose to outsource this function to another company or do it yourself" synonyms: contract out, farm out, subcontract, delegate "maintenance jobs are outsourced"

Outsourcing is the same no matter which country you do it with. If you outsource to India trying to get a .NET developer for $20k, you get garbage, same as you would get if you wanted to pay $20k for a .NET programmer in the US. If you pay good rates, you get good people, developing country or not.

I'm not talking about culture, I'm talking about wage rate. Outsourcing from AU to US is not a threat to AU wages because US wages are higher. The US can not compete with the AU on the price of labor, it can only compete on quality.

Conversely when work is outsourced from a country with high wages to one with lower wages, this is a threat to the wage rate in the higher wage country.

>>In AU->US outsourcing, the motivation for outsourcing is not to drive down labor costs, because labor costs are clearly higher in the US. The only reason to outsource from AU to US is if people in the US can do it better.

As an Indian who was in the trenches during the call center craze during the 2000's.

Let me tell you our American managers used to often tell us the real reason for outsourcing to India was rarely if ever cost. It was scale, it was really hard to find college degree holders, and many times engineers in thousands of numbers to work on doing things like taking calls all night in the US.

Apparently a lot of people in the US won't do jobs like these because they think its beneath their station.

Not true. They won't do the job at the salary offered as it is a soul crushing job. If it were properly salaried according to that...

Also why would a phone and script operator need a degree? You heard a nice excuse and feel good lie.

>>why would a phone and script operator need a degree?

Your resume won't even go past the screening phase if you don't have a degree for a call center job in India.

I had a Bachelor's in Electronics and Communication Engineering.

> reason to outsource from AU to US is if people in the US can do it better.

That's rarely the case More often it's about follow-the-sun

There are likely no significant financial gains to be made outsourcing to Australia. It is super expensive here for everything.

Not an even comparison.

"America's awesome healthcare and insurance system" Huh?

Sorry sarcasm wasn't apparent. I despise the costs associated with healthcare in US. Often, outsourcing happens because healthcare costs of an aging department shoots up and company cannot fire the employees because of higher insurance costs.

Hence, outsource --> downsize --> feign realization that "oh outsourcing sucks" --> hire younger team with less costs for insurance.

Its pretty awesome if you have a good employer provided plans and can afford to buy the best plans. Sucks if you can't.

We have some of the best healthcare in the world. Many of the rich elite from around the world fly into the US for treatment.

We do however have a problem with accessing that healthcare. How do you allocate limited resources? We chose capitalism to decide.

True. Healthcare quality is "probably" great, if one can afford it. And that indirectly means if the employer can afford to subsidize your health insurance premiums so that you can afford that amazing healthcare.

"How do you access limited resources?" Why are the resources limited? How about making medical education free (paid by US taxpayer), so that only those who want to serve in the field of medicine will become doctors, and go on to earn a good living if they are good doctors?

Why not generate 100x medicine graduates than current number?

Problem is with crony capitalism. Doctors dont want over supply of doctors. Insurers are happy with constrained supply of healthcare. Richer people are happy with what they can afford.

Not rich and aging population gets screwed!

Can't be more true. There won't be any outrage if the jobs were outsourced to Hungary or Estonia where cost is comparable to India. Because subconsciously, Western power and western people needs poor brown/black nations to make themselves feel better.