They are already moving to offshore the reading of radiology film. They take
the x-ray, mri or scan, covert to digital if needed (some are already
digital), send to offshore, they read and send back their findings. They say
the cost of reading in China and India will be soooooooooooo much cheaper.
Too bad their will not reflect the cost savings to the poor consumer. Looks
like the physician community will be next for the outsourcing. Also, with
the testing and advancment in remote surgery, It would seem soon, where u
just hook up ur modem and msg a surgon.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gates, Scott" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: NYTimes.com Article: Op-Ed Contributor: Second
Thoughts on Free Trade


> Boy, Mark, you REALLY drank the Kool-aid, didn't you?
>
> I'm ambivalent about free trade for goods.  But SERVICES?  Technological,
> educational superiority, or high transportation costs used to suffice to
> maintain American labor's cost effectiveness. But now, skilled labor can
> being freely imported from overseas via high speed data connections for
less
> than the cost of a flimsy ocean-going raft. How are American workers
> supposed to compete with this extremely cheap offshore labor that sneaks
in
> and sneaks back out with 10% of the money they're worth? (I'm sure SOMEONE
> will say "Take a 90% pay cut?")  In my opinion, this is FAR worse than
> illegal aliens who run across the border to clean toilets, pick produce,
and
> work as housekeepers.  Imagine the outcry if they were coming in to work
as
> unlicensed doctors or CPA's.
>
> Hundreds of thousands of cheap laborers can be 'virtually' imported at
will
> to this country without regulation, the benefit spending their money here,
> or contributing to the U.S. national economy in any way. The IRS doesn't
> even get to privilege of taxing their wages nor do they pay into Social
> Security. We have no way to validate their credentials, training, or
> certifications.  They are a voice on the phone that barely speaks the same
> language as the customer.  In this arrangement, the only direction that
> capital flows with "OFFSHORING" is OUT of the U.S. with some siphoned off
by
> the CEO that made the decision to offshore the labor. They are leeches.
One
> or two don't drink much, but . . . .
>
> Now that we have the technology to evaluate medical tests overseas, the
only
> highly skilled professionals we HAVEN'T figured out how to 'virtually
> import' using the internet are lawyers, another form of blood sucking low
> life.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Wonsil [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:49 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: NYTimes.com Article: Op-Ed Contributor: Second
> Thoughts on Free Trade
>
>
> Tom Hula wrote:
> > The real problem is that these people running American businesses
> > truly think that they can hire these cheaper foreign workers and do
> > just as well or even better than with trained experienced American
> > technical workers.
>
> <nit_pick>I think you meant English speaking workers since this list
> contains some really excellent folks from other countries whose English is
> better than many Americans.</nit_pick>
>
> The point of the WSJ editorial is that in order for U.S. workers to keep
> their rates up, they have to raise their value.  Right now some companies
> are paying less and getting less.  This is why you can get a DLink product
> cheaper than many others.  If Cisco/Linksys promised tech support that was
> all U.S. labor, would you buy their product instead?  If so, vote with
your
> pocketbook.  If Linksys offered a premium service that guaranteed you a
U.S.
> worker, would you pay for it?  Some have already pressured companies to
> raise the tech support level or lose business.  That's how it's going to
> work.  Better English speaking workers in India will be able to get more
> than those whose skills lack.  BTW, how are the American workers answering
> questions at HP about the HP 3000?  :-o
>
> IMHO, in the big picture it's better for the U.S. if jobs can move around.
> If we sit back and try to maintain the "have vs. have not" status we have
in
> the world, we put ourselves at greater risk.  It fosters resentment in the
> world.  It reduces the market in which we could be selling.  It makes us
> lazy.  Sure, some might like to cruise to retirement in just one job but I
> suspect that, while it's uncomfortable and even scary, most on this list
> find moving to new things rewarding and exciting once they land somewhere.
> We don't grow without pressure.  Most of us need external pressures to
move
> us off our butt and get us to think and grow.  Hell, that's why I got
> married.  ;-)
>
> Mark W.
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *