-----Original-Nachricht-----
> Von: <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au>
> G'day,
Which just means that India's tech level (and salary level) is moving up
to better-paying tasks.I have come across a number of pretty competent
tech people from India in recent years.
When you say the India is "hemmed in" by geography, this is akin to saying
that the US is "hemmed in" by geography. Chances for landward expansion is,
indeed, limited, but India is perfectly placed to control the Indian (Duh!)
Ocean, and it has been quietly developing its Navy. So it is likely to play an
important role from the East Coast of Africa to Indonesia and West Australia.
This area includes the Persian Gulf(!) and the trade routes between East Asia
and Europe(!).
Against a developed India, the US would be hard-pressed to maintain its
military influence in the Indian Ocean basin. And with China, I think a
conflict is more like to be a naval conflict around South East Asia rather
than a direct land confrontation.
Greetings Karl Heinz
Grteetings Karl Heinz
G'day,
> When you say the India is "hemmed in" by geography, this is akin to
and the trade routes between East Asia and
> Europe(!).
Interestingly the book I had to read this morning posed a couple of
interesting Australian conflict scenarios that would fit with this too.
At present 25+% of Australia exports go out of a port on northwest
Australia in a region with less than 100000 people (and most of them fly in do
their 3 week shift and fly out for a week with the family, rinse and repeat ad
infinitum). There are no military bases covering any of the 50billion worth of
assets we use to supply resources to China who is now Australia's biggest
export partner. So the first scenario was set in 2030 and started with piracy
(Malacca and other southeast Asian waters) seeing Chinese send escorts with
their trade ships. Then a protracted dock workers strike in Australia over pay
conditions lasts many months (they have on the past) and the Chinese escorts
"step ashore" in a midnight raid to ensure that Chinese ships are loaded as
Chinese schedules are far behind and the further delays = too much pain. You
could perhaps swap India for China in this scenario (or get them involved in
the conflict) as AUstralia went form having Japan to China as a major partner
in under 30 years so there is time for India to swapped in instead.
The second scenario was around the inundation of the Indonesian
archipelago (again about 2030-2050) due to a massive tsunami (though you
could insert climate change driven sea level rise, slat water intrusion and
shifted storm frequency and intensity). The trickle of illegal boat people
becomes a flood and suddenly there are 1000s of people a day landing along
Australia's northwest coast. Having worked up there most would die with out
humanitarian aid as that's VERY inhospitable county, but some could cling on
in enclaves and if they headed northeast instead (which more of the illegal
fisherman are these days) then there is even more chance of them "making it".
Maybe this is the origin of some of OU vs IC hostilities.
Cheers
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
KHR said:
Which just means that India's tech level (and salary level) is moving up to
better-paying tasks.I have come across a number of pretty competent tech
people from India in recent years.
[Tom] In my field, the most-recent workplace truly is global and my last
project saw further offshoring (to some advantage, to some larger long term
detriment in my opinion but I blame the buy out by the Israeli company for
that stupidity).
My experience with the latest bunch of Indian managers, software developers
and quality assurance personel was this:
- Exceedingly variable quality. Met some very good, sharp lads and
lasses. Met some less sharp folks or at least less trained but also with a
less expansive thought process.
- They say yes to everything, including things they obviously cannot
deliver on. "Can you magically invent warp drive and have it done
yesterday?" "Yes, yes - no problem." to the point where nobody trusted
any commitment they made as realistic. This is largely a problem of their
management's desire to please.
- In seeking cost advantage in complex software systems, management here
wanted minimal time spent to achieve metrics. This has nothing to do with good
software development or testing. It's nice that someone thinks and Indian QA
tester can execute 50 test cases in an afternoon while a Canadian one can
execute 5. I'm pretty certain the quality of testing is inversely proportional
to speed.
- They have a cultural bias in favour of the higher ups that means
whoever has rank at a meeting or on a call does the talking. This means that
the smartest and most informed person in the room may well not be the one
making the decisions or heading the discussion.
- They have a cultural bias, less in tech but still present, for males
to speak for females. This is also a problem when the smartest and most
informed person present is the female.
I can see they have some very sharp people who will go far, but as a whole,
they'll need to deal with their cultural male/female behavioural issue
(at
least 2-4 generations away even in the tech sector IMO and it is a
leader in their society) and with their management culture (this could come
sooner) and with the rank respect to the point of negative outcomes (no sign
of that one getting fixed, even in tech).
I have heard cases of India losing some of the outsourcing dollars to cheaper
places as Indian standards of living rise (to Eastern Europe in some cases).
This is part of the trend that KHR refers to when he talks about global GDP
levelling.
I'm all in favour of the levelling of the GDP playing field, both in terms of
the human prosperity aspect and the competitiveness aspect. I don't mind
having a 10% cost advantage over US labour (compensated for by some taxation
issues here) but a 2x, 3x, 5x cost differential with labour
elsewhere is something that short-sighted business thinking (CEOs behave
like democratic leaders with short government terms) won't ignore.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
I heard someone contrast Indian tech workers with Eastern Eurpoean workers
that may also explain some of the shift to Eastern Europe.
You send the specification to the Indian, he reads it gets confused asks for
instruction and shuts down. There are several iterations of this until the
spec is very exacting and precise and almost Pseudo code (ie could have done
it yourself)
You send the spec to the Eastern European, they spend the day outside smoking
cigarettes then turn round and build you what you needed and the solution
incorporates the next generation of features that you will need.
The thought processes seem to be very regimented / limited in India and
much more flexible in Eastern Europe.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Hi
I thought it quite interesting that in the future history, the country/
blocs seem to rise on a consistent curve over the next hundred years or so. In
recent history the cycle between rise and fall seems to be a lot faster than
that. Both Germany and Japan came from defeated devastated countries to
economic powerhouses in <50 years. Russia went from a world super power
bestriding the globe to a much smaller country. UK presided over the breakup
of it's globe spanning empire.
Over the GZG timeline I think countries influence will wax and wane.
It will be interesting to see if the political boundaries in Africa get
redrawn along tribal /cultural lines rather than the arbitary lines that
colonial powers drew on the map. I don't see Africa having the ability to
develop into anything like the PAU until there is some stability within the
building blocks and that won't happen when hostile tribes are forced together
under a common administration.
The UK is interesting, it lost most of it's sources of raw materials and it's
economic base of manufacturing was wrecked by its trade union
movement so now it struggles to work out what it's economy will make /
do. Going into the EU looks like a bad move for the Brits, they propped up
French famers for years under the common agricultural policy and ended up
paying a lot higher prices for comodities than they needed.
Ditching the EU and getting back to it's sources of supply from the
Commonweallth might be the best move it could do.
G'day,
> I can see they have some very sharp people who will go far, but as a
When you say 2-4 generations are you assuming 20 years = a generation?
Cheers
> On 17/01/2012 19:49, John Tailby wrote:
Unfortunately, this assumes that the "traditional" sources of supply in the
Commonwealth will still be there and are interested in doing business with the
Poms. Having been abandoned by the UK when it became obsessed with Europe back
in the 1970s, and then in some cases undermined by European exporters dumping
surplus goods elsewhere at unrealistic prices, Commonwealth suppliers had to
look elsewhere for business, and those who survived will have different
preferred markets. Oh, sure, they'd happily sell to the Brits if they have the
capacity, but I'd want to see the numbers before I'd be prepared to say that
it would boost the UK economy that much: a combination of shipping costs and
charging what the customer wiil bear (basic capitalism coupled with a slight
wish to soak the Mother Country for all they can get as revenge
for being discarded previously) could well mean that the British find that the
Commonwealth isn't that much cheaper than Europe, subsidies or no. I don't
insist on this, but I think it possible.
Of course, that depends on the UK leaving Europe in the first place, and
I doubt the likelihood of that. For every "Euro-sceptic", as they're
known here, there's a Europhile; add to that the political trouble there'd be
from the environmentalists regarding the increase in
long-distance shipping and associated increased emissions, and I can't
see anyone having the testicular fortitude, much less the popular support, to
do it. This may change, but it'll take a while, and in that time, the former
sources of supply will move further and further away from the UK.
Phil