IT salaries in India and USA contrasted

[Nic]

Looks like we'll all be out of a job in the near future. Unless the government wakes up and takes action, the effect of all the outsourcing that is going on will ruin the west's prosperity. Time to pack your bags and move to India. That's right, even the beancounters will have to move.

IT salaries in India and USA contrasted

 

[consie89]

would the world be a better place without the american superpower? would it be a better place with a superpower to rival it?

 

[Nic]

The problem affects all of us, including the UK and europe. It affects any country that has a high standard of living, and thus high salaries. If you are intending to follow a career in IT, then looks like you may have to rethink that strategy. IT has been the first area to suffer, but other careers will also suffer from outsourcing in the near future. Terrorists don't need to plant bombs, because if they wait long enough we'll destroy ourselves.

 

[StormBringer]

Well, manufacturing has almost completely gone from the US, as has agriculture (moved to countries with cheap labor), from the looks of that article, IT is leaving... that job flipping burgers is about to start looking real good.

 

[consie89]

im not that stupid, i can see that for myself, but i was just saying if the world would be a better place ifthe americans wernt a superpower, whats wih this war on terrorism, its a laugh, its impossibe to destroy terrorism, and by trying u make more, i think there a paranoid nation, who will eventually collapse becasue of the about of stupid and paranoid rules and lies they have, its one of the most unfree places on earth.

 

[Nic]

A WEB SITE has given a clear idea of just how much you can reduce costs if you hire your IT staff in India rather than in the US of A.

While comparisons are no doubt odious, according to PBS, quoting International Labour Organization and Paaras Group figures, a programmer can earn $66,100 in the US, but only $10,000 in India.

If you're a mechanical engineer in the US, you can expect to get around $55,600 but only $5,900 in the subcontinent.

And even beancounters are cheaper in India, earning $5,000 a year rather than $41,000.

An IT manager only picks up $8,500 in India, while in the USA she or he can expect to earn around $55,000.

The same site estimates, ussing Forrester Research figures, that by 2015 1,659,310 office jobs will go to India. By 2015, 348,028 businesses will move from the USA to India. And the number of computer jobs moved by 2015 is estimated to be 427,632.

What about journalists? No figure for those, but the independent press in India is vibrant and hard hitting and every hack we've met out there has excellent English.

Meanwhile, an article published in Silicon India last Friday claimed that the British insurance India will have to employ thousands of Indian people, including managers, because its costs are way too high. Prudential has a call centre in Mumbai, Norwich Union will set up a 1,000 job Call Centre in December. µ

theinquirer.net

 

[consie89]

they go into countries and so called "liberate" them when all they do is turn it into a wild west, look at afganistan, its like mogadishu now, iraq is going the same way, and somalia is the same, the best advice would be just to mind there bisness. they should take a page out of the brits book, look at sierra leone, its getting bak on its feet, education, hospitals, there even starting to train there own defence force.

 

[Nic]

I think we're getting away from the original article, but good point.

 

[consie89]

are we doomed to a phoney, paranoid and ignorant genoration full of advertizing scams, microsoft and nike? i think the world has almost reached the stage were a renaisance is needed, in the form of a nuclear war, so another generation can start over. i understand it has next to nothing to do with the subject but its true.

 

[Nic]

A nuclear war would lead to total anialation of all life on Earth. Starting over would not be an option.

 

[consie89]

sum always survive, sadamm had a buker built by germans which could with stand a nuclear blast, there would be surivivers, becasue u dont make somthing if if u dont have something to counter it.

 

[Nic]

Radiation?

Thousands of years of deadly radiation.

 

[consie89]

humans thinks up ways, it our nature, anyway these types of things happen after a civilizeation gets to a certain level of corruptness, look at the ice age, ppl think that befre that there was empires and stuff.

 

[Roderick]

I thought this was getting a little away from the original point, but I couldn't passed this up.

Are you saying that it would've been better if the CCCP were the only superpower ? If you're implying that we Yanks are unto a set of laws unto ourselves, then you'll have to explain the continuing existence of Cuba. We don't need the Army to take over that little island. Miami/Dade metro police could probably do the job themselves. Yet thousands of Cubans continues to plot, scheme, and eventually risk their lives in all sort of manner to get here, and Fidel continues to rule.

We have regime changes every 4 to 8 yrs. How many in Cuba, the once CCCP, or Iraq ? Are you implying that the Cubans are too stupid to see how terrible the US is compared to that "workers paradise" they're living in ? Don't bring up economic embargoes either. Cuba has been subsidized by the Soviets and traded with other SA nations for so long that whatever effect economic embargoes the US imposed is minor at best. Only the failed ideologies of communism is to blame for the suffering of the Cubans. And to divert attentions away from his failures, Fidel overinflate those embargoes in the media.

Life under the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and the theocracy of Iran is little difference in substance from the communism practiced by the (defunct) CCCP, China, and N. Korea. Did you know that there are now rumors of cannibalism in N Korea similar to the Great Famine in China created by Mao ? The original point of this thread has nothing to do with geopoilitics, what's happening is only the by product of capitalism. Once the Indians got a taste of the better lives capitalism gave them, they'll simply demand higher wages and the cycle begins again to other areas of the world. Capitalism, in the loooong run, is the choice of the people. What do you think the Silk Road in ancient China is all about ?

In no way am I saying that capitalism is the only way. Unchecked mercantilism produced exploitations of children, women, and non-whites (racism). Every ideologies has its strengths and weaknesses, the hard part is trying to acheive the balances between all of them. We need the freedom to capitalized on our resources, but we also need the humanistic ideals espoused by socialism to prevent exploitations. S Korea and Japan post wars are good (not perfect) examples.

You've no credible evidences that the world would be a better place if the US weren't a superpower. But the Berlin Wall, Tianamen Square, Cuba, the current famine in N Korea, and the slow decline of communism in my birth country VN, says otherwise. The occasionaly failed foreign policies of the US in no way invalidate the overall ideals the US stands for. And for better, other peoples believes in them as well.

Originally posted by consie89
they go into countries and so called "liberate" them when all they do is turn it into a wild west, look at afganistan, its like mogadishu now, iraq is going the same way, and somalia is the same, the best advice would be just to mind there bisness. they should take a page out of the brits book, look at sierra leone, its getting bak on its feet, education, hospitals, there even starting to train there own defence force.

 

[Phantasm66]

A very good, and interesting read.

 

[Nic]

Originally posted by Roderick
The original point of this thread has nothing to do with geopoilitics, what's happening is only the by product of capitalism. Once the Indians got a taste of the better lives capitalism gave them, they'll simply demand higher wages and the cycle begins again to other areas of the world. Capitalism, in the loooong run, is the choice of the people. What do you think the Silk Road in ancient China is all about ?

In no way am I saying that capitalism is the only way. Unchecked mercantilism produced exploitations of children, women, and non-whites (racism). Every ideologies has its strengths and weaknesses, the hard part is trying to acheive the balances between all of them. We need the freedom to capitalized on our resources, but we also need the humanistic ideals espoused by socialism to prevent exploitations. S Korea and Japan post wars are good (not perfect) examples.

Some good points made here. I do have a problem with simply leaving things to sort themselves out, even though that would happen eventually, but there would be a lot of chaos, poverty, crime, and other problems while this was happening. What really needs to happen is that we need to take control of ourselves and manage the situation so that it reaches suitable equilibrium rather than continue into uncontrolled oscillation.

Capitalism has been successful, because it gives people an incentive to work hard and become successful by doing so. It results in greater productivity and the desire to improve and reap even greater rewards. The problem is that now we have reached a state where it has become very difficult, if not impossible, to improve further. Maintaining equilibrium is not an option under capitalism, so what we are left with is work moving offshore where it can be done cheaper.

This is a very dangerous thing to do, because unlike in the past, where all that happened was that we moved from agriculture to manufacturing, then to technology, there is now nowhere left for us to move.

It was only a few years back when we were all told that there was such a strong demand for IT workers that we would not be able to fullfil the shortfall for many years. Thus there was a massive drive to get people into IT by governments worldwide. Now, even though that demand still exists, work is moving offshore, leaving those that have invested in IT careers out in the cold, with nowhere to go. Other careers will follow as ALL can be done cheaper offshore.

What will happen is that we will all become a nation of low-skilled, and low-paid, shelf-stackers, warehouse workers, and delivery drivers. Productivity and thus wealth will move overseas. We will have no goods to trade, and no money to spend. Companies will go bust, or move offshore. There will not be enough taxes to pay for local services, healthcare, nor pensions. Young people will not go to university for education, as there will not be any skilled jobs for them when they graduate. Crime levels will explode, as there will be few other ways to earn a living.

Capitalism has reached the end of the road and changes need to be made. Things will get much worse before the government wakes up and takes action to bring things back under control. Once productivity moves offshore our decline will be rapid, though its effect will not be seen for a few years.

There is no such thing as 'freedom', and we all need to wake up and realise that we need to control/manage ourselves/society if we are to avoid the consequences of failing to do so. Governments need to take action and legislate to ensure that jobs that directly supply/support locally provided services do not move offshore.

 

[consie89]

to Roderick. the only reason yanks hated communisim so much and didnt want it to get to there shores is becaue they didnt want the hassile of having to put up with blacks ranting about equal rights.It had nothing to do with the quality of life, u just didnt want the massive black population going out of control.

I aggree that communsim looks pretty good on paper, but n practice its pretty poor. But have u ever thought about how much trouble the CIA and otehr spies had caused in them? i like captilism, i have nothing against it. its funny wenever u make an attack on americans hey seem to think its about capitilism, well i wasnt attacking the way of life, butt u do seem to take captilism to the extremes. I also dont like the way u seem to force ur belives on the rest of the world through military power, look at saudi arabia, an great example of dictatorship yet we seem to think that is barbaric ad we belive they should have this bloody "democrosy" you all never shut up about. They dont have massive crime rates or gangs, some say its one of the best ways to live.

You yanks just say whats right when see fit, wen u liked sadam u gave him the best of everything, u wernt botherd about the dictatorship just the fact that the could fight for u, u have no priority ot make the rest of the worlds lives better, u just chagne ur philosophys wenever u see fit, look at the afgans, u were supplying them with anything they needed to fight of the Russians, u even made a movie about how great they were, then wen u introuced this war on terrorism u decided to attack them.

The fall of the twin towers sould f been i sign for u o decrease ur influence on the world, yet u increased it, feuling yet more anger and terrorism. The fact is yanks dont care about any1 except themselves and they will do what ever they want to ensure there existance, and u carnt say that u help countrys after u invade them. At least the Iraqis had hospitals, education and low crime rates u might say it was wrong theway they lived but its there way, they have lived like that for hundreds of years, who are u to say it is wrong? We have an ignorant and dangerous power ruling the world at the moment. Also at least some other countries country doesnt pick u out of a car crash and say what insurance do u have. all the americans are after is money and power they have no interest in the wuality of life so dont try and come across that ur helping the world becasue even amepias can se through that.

 

[Roderick]

Nic,

You're being way to pessimistic and I'm not sure if you're taking into account the variants of capitalism practiced around the world. That in itself is the result of man's ingenuity in all things.

The highly individualistic nature of the American clashes with that of the Japanese, yet both societies are economic powerhouses, regionally and globally. Tokyo has probably the highest cost of living and doing business in the world, yet aside from the cyclical nature of economic rise and decline, I don't see Japan's high tech industries having any sort of critical "brain drains". It is an island nation such as your UK with even less in terms of natural resources. Zaibatsu is the Japanese concept of interpendency for mutual success by businesses not obviously and necessarily related. They've managed to infused their own unique cultural ethos to capitalism, for better or worse. For the Americans, it's practically cutthroat competition. Part of this development of our style of capitalism came from this country's history. The continent was mostly unexplored and ripe for the picking. It's every man for himself. The industrial revolution and now the information revolution applied demands equally to both societies.

No socio/political/economic ideology is ever about equilibrium. Under a monarchy, it's about one's birthrights. Under a totalitarian society, all power belongs to an even more elitist group than anything has yet created by capitalism. Under capitalism, wealth and its associated sense of "power" is much more fluid and transferable. The most feared class of people is the middleclass. We haven't enough wealth individually to rule, but enough collectively to allow us make an impact.

The demand for IT workers you spoke of is the natural result of the demands made by capitalism. If the middleclass of the UK had decided to opt out of the opportunity, then the UK would now be in what stages of its economic decline and doldrum ? The fault lies not with capitalism and its demands but with our responses and adaptations. By that I mean that profits are unbias, whether it's made by forming zaibatsus or by cutthroat competition.

Getting angry at capitalism or at India will not solve the current problems. Did you know that a little over 60% of the world has yet to make their 1st telephone call ? Consumers aren't robots. No matter how cheap the labor, if India turns out shoddy products, be it soft or hardwares, words will spread and demands for their products will decline. Early Japanese automobiles didn't exactly endeared themselves to Americans, part out of racism and part of quality issues. Now Toyota is poised to overtake Ford as the best selling brand in the US. Just because one nation failed in its responses to the demands of capitalism but another succeeds that doesn't mean capitalism itself is at fault.

Protectionist demands as advocated in your last comment have seldom worked and often backfired. Ex: Japan once exercised what is called Voluntary Export Restrictions (VERs) on its automobile exports to the US in response to threats of tariffs from US government. The price increase of Japanese autos corresponded with what would've been if tariffs had been applied. The resulting profits enabled Japanese auto makers to be just as efficient as if nothing happened and just as competitive. The result for US auto makers ? The consumers' perception is that US automakers are inefficient with bad designs which leads up to more demands for Japanese autos. Like I said earlier, profits are unbiased.

 

[consie89]

What annoys people most though is the fact that Americans basically lie to the rest of the world that they are doing the right thing, when they arnt bothered weather they are or not, as long as it makes them money. If you dont like it shutup or we will attack you, thats your basic philosophy, the inner circle of the Bush administration decided that they will never let any country become half as powerful at itself and if a country shows signs of becoming prosperous they will find some sort of obscure excuse to attack it. You can see americas paranoia of becoming rivaled because there military spending next year will equal the rest of the world. You are basically building your self an empire like the British did, only it wont be as cultured or educated as ours was.

 

[Phantasm66]

Originally posted by Roderick
Nic,

You're being way to pessimistic and I'm not sure if you're taking into account the variants of capitalism practiced around the world. That in itself is the result of man's ingenuity in all things.

Sorry Nic, but I think that Roderick here has a point.

Don't get me wrong, you have some excellent and well articulated points, and some compelling arguments here and there, but I would try to avoid too gloomy an outlook, as believe me, things aren't all doom and gloom in the IT industry right now.

Although, it may appear not so. Its true that we are in the midst of a pretty big recession in IT, and in lots of other parts of the economy as well in the West, but there are already the signs of the first healthy sprouts of increased IT spending in the economy. I've noticed more employers replying to my job applications (which, even although I have a pretty secure job, I still make) and I think that a year or two, IT will be a good place to be again.

We are pretty far away from boom land right now, but things will improve given time. Even the hardest of geeks (like me!) is a little apprehensive at the moment - but this will pass given time, I am sure of it.

If you really can't believe that, then maybe you should get out of IT and get into something else. I know that that will NEVER happen with me.

 

[Phantasm66]

I think that part of the problem is that it was "IN" to be into IT in the later part of the 90s. It was where the money was, probably because of all of that millenium bug scaremongering. And now the industry is flooded with too many people working IT jobs who aren't computer people at all.

Its going to take some time (and this economic downturn) to get rid of those people and purify the industry so that its back in the hands of the geeks again. Which is where it should rightfully be.

 

[consie89]

are the majority of the members of this site american?

 

[Roderick]

Originally posted by consie89
to Roderick. the only reason yanks hated communisim so much and didnt want it to get to there shores is becaue they didnt want the hassile of having to put up with blacks ranting about equal rights.It had nothing to do with the quality of life, u just didnt want the massive black population going out of control.

So you're saying that any part of the rest of the world that are also against communism are doing so out of concern for black militancy in the US and not for their own freedom ?

I aggree that communsim looks pretty good on paper, but n practice its pretty poor. But have u ever thought about how much trouble the CIA and otehr spies had caused in them? i like captilism, i have nothing against it. its funny wenever u make an attack on americans hey seem to think its about capitilism, well i wasnt attacking the way of life, butt u do seem to take captilism to the extremes. I also dont like the way u seem to force ur belives on the rest of the world through military power, look at saudi arabia, an great example of dictatorship yet we seem to think that is barbaric ad we belive they should have this bloody "democrosy" you all never shut up about. They dont have massive crime rates or gangs, some say its one of the best ways to live.

So you're saying that communism is evil because of CIA activities and not of itself ? News for you, bud. The CIA didn't exist when Chinese parents were boiling their kids for food under Mao, who is a die-hard communist who admired that other communist mass murderer called Stalin who also predated the CIA.

My comment about capitalism is only a part of my answer to your assertion that the world would be a better place if the US weren't a superpower, which you've not even anecdotal evidences to back it up. Capitalism is an intergral part of our society, one which more and more of the world is adapting into their own societies whether they care for other parts of our society or not. In that respect, the US as a global superpower has been a positive one, as evident by your admission that you've no problems with capitalism itself.

As to your comment about our supposedly threatening military posture. In the book "Can Asians Think?" by Kishore Mahbubani, on page 161 is the statement by the author that "The United States is also a unique great power, probably the most benevolent great power ever seen in the history of man." Mahbubani is Singapore's ambassador to the UN.

If Saudi Arabia as a society is so good, why aren't the rest of the world emulating it ? End of discussion for this issue.

You yanks just say whats right when see fit, wen u liked sadam u gave him the best of everything, u wernt botherd about the dictatorship just the fact that the could fight for u, u have no priority ot make the rest of the worlds lives better, u just chagne ur philosophys wenever u see fit, look at the afgans, u were supplying them with anything they needed to fight of the Russians, u even made a movie about how great they were, then wen u introuced this war on terrorism u decided to attack them.

Saddam got most of his weaponry from the Soviets, as evident by the retrieval of MIGs buried in the dessert. We don't produce warplanes prefixed MIGs. The Gulf Cooporation Council created by Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE financed Saddam's 10yr war against Iran. Of course we aided Saddam for our interests. We, the US, were no more guilty or no less innocent about Saddam than his fellow Muslim "brothers". Why did we overthrow the Taliban ? Your sense of logic is nil as evident by your next paragraph. We overthrow the Taliban because they attacked us. We didn't create this war on terrorism just because we don't like their way of life. Why did we armed them to fight the Soviets ? Did it ever occur to you that may be at that time, our 2 interests were mutual ? We both don't like the Soviets, the Afghanis don't have much in terms of weapons and we do. Our relationships with Iraq and Afghanistan weren't one sided as you've so naively asserted. As for the changing of "philosophys", neither Iraq nor Afghanistan had any qualms about accepting our aids whenever it suited them, so who's being 2 faced now ?

The fall of the twin towers sould f been i sign for u o decrease ur influence on the world, yet u increased it, feuling yet more anger and terrorism. The fact is yanks dont care about any1 except themselves and they will do what ever they want to ensure there existance, and u carnt say that u help countrys after u invade them. At least the Iraqis had hospitals, education and low crime rates u might say it was wrong theway they lived but its there way, they have lived like that for hundreds of years, who are u to say it is wrong? We have an ignorant and dangerous power ruling the world at the moment. Also at least some other countries country doesnt pick u out of a car crash and say what insurance do u have. all the americans are after is money and power they have no interest in the wuality of life so dont try and come across that ur helping the world becasue even amepias can se through that.

Better check up on your sloppy history. Iraq was created by the Brits after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The Brits screwed up and added 3 tribes/sects who hated each other into one country called Iraq. The country isn't even a century old, so what "hundreds of years" are you talking about ? Further sloppy history about not helping other countries I'm not going to comment on.

What annoys people most though is the fact that Americans basically lie to the rest of the world that they are doing the right thing, when they arnt bothered weather they are or not, as long as it makes them money. If you dont like it shutup or we will attack you, thats your basic philosophy, the inner circle of the Bush administration decided that they will never let any country become half as powerful at itself and if a country shows signs of becoming prosperous they will find some sort of obscure excuse to attack it. You can see americas paranoia of becoming rivaled because there military spending next year will equal the rest of the world. You are basically building your self an empire like the British did, only it wont be as cultured or educated as ours was.

This isn't reasoned arguments but more inane hyperboles.

 

[Nic]

Roderick,

I think you missed the point and are not looking deep enough into the situation as it currently is.

... No socio/political/economic ideology is ever about equilibrium ...

Firstly, just because "... No socio/political/economic ideology is ever about equilibrium ..." doesn't mean that this is not how things should be, free from major changes. Everything moves towards equilibrium eventually. It is a natural force that cannot be avoided.

And why mention 'ideology'? I don't believe in catagorisation as that limits choices. The scenario is that we should examine and understand, then act accordingly with what we believe to be the best course of action, while continuing to monitor and act as required. Much like a servo contol system that governs the speed of a record player, and responding to any detected speed deviation, by changing the applied signal.

... The fault lies not with capitalism and its demands but with our responses and adaptations ...

Agreed, and it's our responses and adaptations that I am worried about. We need to do more to protect our society, which has already started it's decline. How can we adapt to the current situation? The only way we can go is down. We have reached the summit, and its now time to come back down and join the third world.

... Getting angry at capitalism or at India will not solve the current problems ...

I am not angry at India, but I am angry at capitalism. Capitalism is unfair and unsustainable. It needs some adaptations to correct it's inherent flaws.

... Just because one nation failed in its responses to the demands of capitalism but another succeeds that doesn't mean capitalism itself is at fault ...

Capitalism is at fault, but this has only become apparent as we reached the limits of what it can do. Things cannot move towards greater efficiency and productivity forever. There is a limit, and we are very close to that limit. Growth, growth, and more growth, just isn't sustainable and must stop eventually. We all know that businesses are constantly looking to increase profits, by boosting efficiency and finding better ways of doing things. A manager that simply maintains the status quo, will not improve his rewards, so once all the obvious things have been done, then they will look at the small things like eliminating 'perks' such as free coffee, etc., and reducing mileage allowance, then lowering salaries, etc. Capitalism is flawed, because it doesn't acknowledge when things are already optimised, and hence what we get is over-reaction until someone steps in to take back control. Oscillation, by any description. We need something to dampen this mechanism, so that it can reach stability (equilibrium) quicky.

... Protectionist demands as advocated in your last comment have seldom worked and often backfired ...

This situation is not the same as was in previous historical situations. I don't believe in 'protectionism', only in managing a situation which has grave consequenses for our society if left unchecked. We cannot sustain our economy if we fail to aportion wealth fairly. If we aren't producing efficiently, or doing meaningful and useful work, then our society will collapse. You can't get something from nothing, so I can't see anyway around this problem.

... Japan once exercised what is called Voluntary Export Restrictions (VERs) on its automobile exports to the US in response to threats of tariffs from US government ...

Japan is highly productive and efficient, which is why it survives. It also protects it's home market from imports. Exports don't matter a jot, as that's simply swapping goods for other goods, and has no effect on Japan's home produced wealth.

... The price increase of Japanese autos corresponded with what would've been if tariffs had been applied. The resulting profits enabled Japanese auto makers to be just as efficient as if nothing happened and just as competitive. The result for US auto makers ? The consumers' perception is that US automakers are inefficient with bad designs which leads up to more demands for Japanese autos ...

Japan is so productive that it has to export goods, and in the process becomes even wealthier.

So, what will happen to our society when there are no well-paid jobs/careers left to generate wealth in our own economy, so that we can buy goods and services produced at home, and thus continue the cycle of wealth? Looks like we've already reached the end. Companies can no longer make huge profits. Inefficient operations go bust. Investments give poor returns. We work harder for lower salaries. Home ownership decreases. Many people are out of work, and the elderley don't have decent pensions on which to survive. Some wise chap pushes 'the button', and we all get nuked. The End. Sorted.

Things do look pretty bad right now, so we'll just have to see what adaptations we can come up with to turn things around. Any ideas?

 

[Nic]

Originally posted by Phantasm66
I think that part of the problem is that it was "IN" to be into IT in the later part of the 90s. It was where the money was, probably because of all of that millenium bug scaremongering. And now the industry is flooded with too many people working IT jobs who aren't computer people at all.

Its going to take some time (and this economic downturn) to get rid of those people and purify the industry so that its back in the hands of the geeks again. Which is where it should rightfully be.

I am in IT because I am a computer geek, and I am passionate about IT. I really can't imagine myself doing anything else. Sorry about the 'doom & gloom' of my post, but sometimes a little exageration is needed just to get a point across, and make people aware of the possible consequenses of simply ignoring a potentially serious problem.