Came across a blog entry titled: "If you are convinced that the US can't compete with India" where the author shows an example of someone (an Indian IT worker) who's changed 3 jobs in 6 months, and then says "If someone is on their 3rd job in 6 months, then it is impossible to believe that they have contributed anything of value for any of the organizations that they worked for."
This guy makes the same assumption that many others do; but all that '3 jobs in 6 months' means is that this person was at one company for 6 months. It doesn't say anything about how long the employee was with the 1st company! Nor does it say anything about why this person left the second company after 6 months. It could have been a family emergency or a medical emergency or a problem with the company not treating employees well or a company shutdown or a layoff.
The author of the "Survive Outsourcing" blog also says: "Having worked in this industry for 22 years, I realize that the learning curve has a major impact on productivity in this field." 'Bzzzzzt. Wrong!' as the Americans say. There are many people with job experiences of much less than 22 years who have the ability to hit the ground running and contribute to the project almost as soon as they join. It might take a week or two to get oriented and comfortable with the new company, but that's about it. Of course, the company would want new employees to stay for longer than 6 months but it's unfair to say that someone doesn't contribute to a company unless he stays in it for donkey's years, give or take a few.
Then he says "Regardless of what rate someone like the above author works at, an experienced person in the western world who isn't a serial job hopper is going to be a better value for any employer." I could say the same after replacing western with Indian. What he is trying to do is to paint all non-western persons as non-serial-job-hoppers, stable employees, who are not out to jump ship at every opportunity they get. And trying to portray Indians as job hopping opportunists.
But what really pisses me off is his comment in another post on his blog: "and the simple fact that even though Americans cost 4 times as much as Indians, we typically produce more work per person." I take offense at that statement, Mr. Steve Larrison. There are lazy people and good people in all industries, in all cultures. Making such sweeping generalizations will only start a flame war - "Indians are typically more hard working, sincere and talented than Americans. And we are much less violent too."
3 comments:
I would like add another point here... Mr American... Please define VALUE you are talking about.
I feel it's better to switch 3 jobs in 6 months than to get rusted / rotten...
>This guy makes the same assumption that many others do; but all that '3 jobs in 6 months' means is that this person was at one company for 6 months.
If you read the article I linked to, it is clear that the writer is talking about the benefits of serial job hopping.
> "Regardless of what rate someone like the above author works at, an experienced person in the western world who isn't a serial job hopper is going to be a better value for any employer."
>>I could say the same after replacing western with Indian. What he is trying to do is to paint all non-western persons as non-serial-job-hoppers, stable employees, who are not out to jump ship at every opportunity they get.
I am doing nothing of the sort. I am just recognizing reality. Though Japanese people are not westerners, their culture promotes loyalty to a company, and company loyalty to employees.
Try as you might, you can't deny the facts. And the facts are that Indian IT companies experience 30%+ annual turnover. Call centers experience 100%+ annual turnover.
Some jobs are hurt more by high turnover than others.
Applications developers bring more than just knowledge of a programming language to the table. If you have ever worked at a company for several years, you would know that the knowledge of a system gained overtime is invaluable. Productivity goes up once you understand a system and no longer have to do research to determine where a problem lies, or how to make an enhancement.
>And trying to portray Indians as job hopping opportunists.
The turnover numbers speak for themself.
>"and the simple fact that even though Americans cost 4 times as much as Indians, we typically produce more work per person."
>>I take offense at that statement, Mr. Steve Larrison. There are lazy people and good people in all industries, in all cultures. Making such sweeping generalizations will only start a flame war - "Indians are typically more hard working, sincere and talented than Americans. And we are much less violent too."
There is no reason to be offended. Again, the numbers speak for themselves. Though the typical Indian software developer in India works for about 1/4 the rate of what someone in the United States charges, well run projects come in about 20% to 30% less than what you would pay to have the same project developed onshore.
There are a variety of reasons for this. But the fact is that Americans produce more work per worker than people from any other nation. That's just part of the reason our GDP is the largest of any country in the world, and larger than the next 5 countries combined.
this seems to be long one and controversial, so i need time to go through them..i'm now busy updating my resume and preparin for job interviews..
Post a Comment