- Joined
- 10 July 2004
- Posts
- 2,913
- Reactions
- 3
IBM continues to slash its IT workforce in Aus in favor of offshoring...
http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/business-it/ibm-quietly-slashing-australian-jobs-20130619-2oic6.html
The exodus of IT jobs from the clever country continues. When 1,000 auto workers lose their jobs at Ford in 3 years they are promised millions in government assistance and generous redundancy packages but when 1,500 IT positions are axed there's hardly a whimper. The local IT industry is a major exploiter of the 457 visa system as well yet there is no problem with the 457 visa program?
Where is the outrage and shock when the largest corporate IT employers (banks, Telstra, BHP etc.) in Aus use surrogates like IBM to offshore thousands of IT sector jobs?
Is it any wonder enrollment in IT programs at Uni are in steep decline? Does either party care if there is an IT industry in Aus and if so what is the policy platform to support it?
Where is the outrage and shock when the largest corporate IT employers (banks, Telstra, BHP etc.) in Aus use surrogates like IBM to offshore thousands of IT sector jobs?
Is it any wonder enrollment in IT programs at Uni are in steep decline? Does either party care if there is an IT industry in Aus and if so what is the policy platform to support it?
This depends on how you define the IT workforce. If you exclude the army of 457 IT workers and focus only on Aus citizens, the upward trend in ICT offshoring is having an alarming impact on domestic employment prospects and skill retention.While I appreciate the apparent hypocrisy, I think the depth of the IT sector, and the nature of the work means it's far less likely to see these skills vanish from our workforce, unlike large manufacturers. The only argument that I'm aware of to support failing industries is to maintain domestic skills, not jobs.
The skills are vanishing at a rate that is more perceptable now than in the past as some facets of ICT work (e.g. certain types of software development) are sourced almost exclusively overseas.
Yes, but keep in mind that such jobs comprise a large part of the more highly paid and skilled segment of the IT workforce. Such jobs are still required of course but offshored at a fraction of the cost locally. Quality of local service is overridden by the fact that in some roles you can employ 3 workers in India for the cost of 1 in Australia.I definitely think that code monkeys and IT support jobs are on the way out though, as they just can't compete on wages, and I don't think they have much to offer from a service perspective that can be considered an advantage. Agree?
This is exactly what already happens in other industries where things have been "outsourced" not overseas, but to Australians.10 man weeks jobs will be quoted 100 and they will sign off..
In a way, justice will be done
As for the quality of the end product...
A lot of this ultimately comes down to having managers who are generalists without practical experience in whatever it is they are supposedly managing.
I reckon it is the other way around. Technical folk piss in the pocket of management for only so long until management cracks the ****s and outsources.
So you think it'd be better to have a less educated population, which would enable us to pay lower wages, and eventually be able to compete on wages with 3rd-world nations? Unlikely I think.As first point I'd say a cull at year ten to remove the bottom 50% of students from education, and a further 50% cull at the end of year 11 so only the top 25% of students get to compete for university places.
Next, the saved money, you give to employers so they can basically hire people without experience for zero dollars (their actual worth).
That's perhaps a bit extreme, but we do need to stop accepting everyone into university just to fill the funding needs of universities.As first point I'd say a cull at year ten to remove the bottom 50% of students from education, and a further 50% cull at the end of year 11 so only the top 25% of students get to compete for university places.
That's perhaps a bit extreme, but we do need to stop accepting everyone into university just to fill the funding needs of universities.
Teaching is a good example. People with ATARs of only 50 are being admitted to teaching degrees.
No wonder our literacy and numeracy rates are so far behind most of the rest of the developed world.
I was listening to a discussion about it today and the participants (all well qualified to comment) agreed tertiary entrance standards have fallen in recent years. Well meaning, but ultimately devaluing overall the worth of a tertiary education.I'm not sure if that's necessarily a reflection of trying to make it an easy entrance, versus drop out rates and supply/demand for Australian teachers both domestically and world wide. Anecdotally I'm led to believe that entrance levels haven't changed significantly since the 1970's.
That would be to suggest that if you admit as teachers people whose own literacy and numeracy is woefully lacking, it will have no effect on their capacity to communicate good literacy and numeracy to students.And our decreasing standards in literacy and numeracy have little to do with the quality and hard work of our teachers and more to do with the dropping standards in parenting.
Anecdotal or statistics based? I only ask because my mother and aunty both went through teachers college in the '70s and were learning alongside individuals who received government scholarships even though they only just scraped through high school. And certainly not all the teachers I had during the 90's & 00's would have met current criteria which is passing basic maths, English and science at a grade 9 level.I was listening to a discussion about it today and the participants (all well qualified to comment) agreed tertiary entrance standards have fallen in recent years. Well meaning, but ultimately devaluing overall the worth of a tertiary education.
That would be to suggest that if you admit as teachers people whose own literacy and numeracy is woefully lacking, it will have no effect on their capacity to communicate good literacy and numeracy to students.
Makes no sense.
Thanks for your response. Certainly anecdotally based but over many years.Anecdotal or statistics based? I only ask because my mother and aunty both went through teachers college in the '70s and were learning alongside individuals who received government scholarships even though they only just scraped through high school.
Well, Zedd, I don't see it quite that way, but thanks for explaining your view. I'd much rather a teacher who had the capacity to answer the outlier questions to one who is teaching almost to the limit of his/her own understanding.Not quite what I was getting at. You need to have a comprehension level above that of the students you're teaching but that's all. After that I believe people skills, and teaching skills, then become the greater determinants to imparting knowledge of the techniques and methods required to read and write, and to solve maths problems. So for example grade one, providing you can count to 100, do addition and subtraction, and know your alphabet, then you have the literacy and numeracy skills required. It's the teaching skills that make the difference at this age.
... At the same time one of my mates was pulling in almost $100k working 7 days a week with a trade which he began in year 10. If not for the skills squeeze from the mining boom I'd be surprised if I was ever able to catch up to his net worth after those four years lost earnings and debts.
Yeah completely agree, and was lucky enough to have a number of highly qualified teachers in my secondary schooling which made a noticeable difference to the quality in the classroom. But, this isn't always possible, and I don't think always necessary. I still think the main reason we're seeing declining outcome levels is due to parenting, and home life in general, rather than the quality of our teachers. Next most significant reason is changing expectations/workloads of teachers. I think any change in the quality of our teachers over the last few decades is of least significance. Still important, and they have tried to address that with the entrance exam (in QLD at least) implemented 3 or 4 years ago, but still not the greatest determining factor.I'd much rather a teacher who had the capacity to answer the outlier questions to one who is teaching almost to the limit of his/her own understanding.
This is why I am surprised that we don't have more of a skills shortage. Why would anyone want to put themselves through uni or non-trades?
Now that I can answer! Why tackle the monotony and difficulties of life through hard work when you can post-pone it for four years and sink copious amounts of booze at uni, while telling yourself and everyone else that you're working towards a more secure, promising future...
Just glad I procrastinated with a degree that led to a career, rather than a general degree that puts you back on the bottom when you get out.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?