President Obama declares India a world power and tactfully addresses outsourcing

President Obama declares India a world power and tactfully addresses outsourcing

Summary: President Obama's visit to India addresses concerns and mesmerises the countrymen. Declaring India a world power, backing them for a permanent seat in the UNSC, he also talked about creating jobs in the US.

SHARE:

President Obama’s visit to India was watched closely by the industry stakeholders and politicians alike. Outsourcing – the political issue that affects the industry was expected to be a talking point along with Pakistan and terrorism. President Obama’s speeches are said to have hit the right notes. President Obama was accompanied by some industry heavy weights who met their Indian counterparts at the backdrop of the India – US CEO summit to discuss trade ties. Among those who met were, Vikram Pandit (Citigroup CEO ), Indra Nooyi (Pepsico CEO), Mukesh Ambani and Ratan Tata.

At the Business Summit, President Obama made every attempt to address the situation of jobs and India’s role in generating more opportunities. Some of the important statements from the President:

  • Indians have helped build America and Americans have helped build India.
  • India the fastest growing economy, the pace of growth has been stunning.
  • India is a nation of rapid growth, rising incomes with investment in infrastructure and education.
  • India and US to engage in competition for jobs and markets which offers the prospect of expansion in commercial ties.
  • The US ardently supports India’s rise and wants to invest in it.
  • Exports to India more than other countries and these support jobs across the United States.

President Obama also pointed out the perceptions India and US have of each other and efforts should be made to change these. From Harley Davidsons to commercial aircrafts and jet engines, President Obama emphasized the various areas where US enterprises have stake in exporting goods to India which in return mean jobs in the US. According to President Obama, during his visit, 20 deals worth $10 Billion were signed between the US and India resulting in more than 50,000 jobs in the US.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in a joint press statement was categorical and said, "India is not in the business of stealing jobs from the U.S.... outsourcing (work to India) has helped improve the productive capacity and productivity of America."

This trip had two purposes:

  1. address the terrorism issue.
  2. address job concerns in the US and comfort Indians about the outsourcing rhetoric back in the US.

Topics: CXO, Data Centers, Enterprise Software, Outsourcing, IT Employment

Manan Kakkar

About Manan Kakkar

Telecommunication engineer with a keen interest in end-user technology and a News junkie, I share my thoughts while preparing for my Master's in Information Management.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

43 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Completely unnecessary wast of taxpayer money

    The trip was nothing but a waste of money.

    - The alleged exports achieved during the trip are OLD contracts. Most were approved during the Bush administration. For example, India has Boeing 777s on back order FOR YEARS. So the alleged new export contracts are nothing but a mirage.

    - How many people traveled with the Pres??? Was it really necessary to take ~3,000 people with him?? If so, for what???
    wackoae
    • RE: President Obama declares India a world power and tactfully addresses outsourcing

      @wackoae "- How many people traveled with the Pres??? Was it really necessary to take ~3,000 people with him?? If so, for what???"

      Quit watching Faux News. This was proven to be a load of dung, right along with the alleged cost.

      http://factcheck.org/2010/11/ask-factcheck-trip-to-mumbai/
      Snooki_smoosh_smoosh
      • Wow!! You are a complete idiot

        @Snooki_smoosh_smoosh Where did I talked about the alleged $200 million cost per day??

        I talked about the (approx) 3000 people a number that was published by pretty much every mayor media outlet including CNN, MSNBC, BBC and WSJ.
        wackoae
    • Say It!

      @wackoae To grovel before India's elite. That's what for!
      Gandalf The Grey
  • Wait, what?

    "... and Americans have helped build America"

    Really? Who could've figured that out!
    [deXter]
    • RE: President Obama declares India a world power and tactfully addresses outsourcing

      @[deXter] lol! My bad. Fixed it.
      Manan Kakkar
  • Odd that he didn't have the hutzpah to say that...

    India didn't take American jobs while still in America. That and it's odd he wants India on the security council. So much for getting Pakistan to do a better job with the Taliban/Al Queda.
    zkiwi
    • RE: President Obama declares India a world power and tactfully addresses outsourcing

      @zkiwi - it's easy to see why Al Quaeda sides with Pakistan. India and Pakistan have been mortal enemies for rather a very long period of time...

      It's convenient for Al Quaeda to do so as well...
      HypnoToad72
      • RE: President Obama declares India a world power and tactfully addresses outsourcing

        @HypnoToad72
        Actually, Al-Queerda prefer Pakistan because it is Muslim- a "one religion" state, although other religions are "tolerated".
        India to them is just another multicultural hell-hole, like America. It's full of infidels (and a persecuted Muslim minority that never made it to Pakistan)
        Do some homework.
        PercySludge
  • RE: President Obama declares India a world power and tactfully addresses outsourcing

    Any job that goes to India is a job that an american should have had. America needs to do a better job of training it's young people to do tomorrow's kind of work in order to stay comeptitive.
    dakaygees
    • RE: President Obama declares India a world power and tactfully addresses outsourcing

      @dakaygees - if you look at the statistics, it's about lowering of wages, first and foremost. We could all have PhDs and end up as overqualified burger flippers.

      Real globalization and real philanthropy wouldn't have cost a single American their job.
      HypnoToad72
  • Obama is a coward and a fraud

    India is looting this country of jobs, they're practicing scorched-earth protectionism and mercantilism, and everyone knows it.

    President Obama is simply more beholden to the big corporations that give him money than he is to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who will lose their jobs to Indian outsourcing.

    He thinks that by a congressional act which failed (in flames) to restrict some tax breaks to some companies who export jobs to India, he is insulating himself. He's going to find out the hard way this isn't true.

    Remember his statements in the primaries next time.
    HollywoodDog
    • Its not Obama Fault Its your capitalist system

      @HollywoodDog
      Its you capitalists systeme that allowed job to leave the country , Its the never enough attitude from the corporation that is the problem period .

      Dont blame Obama blame yourself
      Quebec-french
      • Its not Obama Fault Its your capitalist system

        @Quebec-french
        It's not the system, it's the people. The system works when people remember the values that the founders of that system had in mind when they created it.
        predcon
      • So ignorant... and wrong!

        <i>Its you capitalists systeme that allowed job to leave the country</i>

        That's a completely ignorant statement.

        It is not the capitalist system which has failed and cause jobs and businesses to flee the U.S. It is the creeping socialism which created the hostile environments that cause businesses and jobs to leave the country.

        When the cost of doing business has become so high in the U.S., then it's no wonder that businesses would be looking for less expensive alternate sites to do business in.

        When taxes are so high, and when regulations become so stifling, and when real-estate becomes so expensive, and when unions become so controlling over businesses, and when salaries are so much higher than in other countries, and when benefits become mandatory and so high, and when government institutes minimum-wage laws which take control away from companies regarding their payrolls, and when government spending is out of control, and when government creates uncertainty in teh market-place, then it's no wonder that companies would be looking to outsource jobs and production facilities to other countries.

        <i>Its the never enough attitude from the corporation that is the problem period .</i>

        Corporations and private industry as a whole, are what causes economies to grow and create jobs. Government intrusion and expensive government regulations, always have the reverse effect. Big government is always a job and economy killing proposition.

        I know that it's way beyond a liberal mind's capacity to analyze, but the facts are already out there about what causes economies and governments to fail. There has never been a successful country where it's economy has been based on socialism. That is why the U.S. economy is now faltering and dying a slow death. It has taken a long time for the effects of socialism to begin to be felt, and, from the looks of it, those effects will continue for a long time. Nobody in government, neither the left nor the right, wants to kill or reduce government spending for social programs, thus, we'll continue declining until there is no way to undo the damage and we'll have to start all over again. The social programs which so many became dependent upon won't be able to be funded. No Medicare, no Medicaid, no Social Security, no welfare, no free education. It's just a matter of time before it becomes quite clear that, socialism is a not a self-sustaining economic system. Big government, we already know, is not self-sustaining because it depends on funding from the economy at large. But, when that economy shrinks, big government will have to find funding from non-existent sources, such as the money printing mechanism that the federal government possesses. But, the bills will eventually have to be paid, and when the real money is no longer available, that's when the real crash in the economy will occur.

        <i>Dont blame Obama blame yourself </i>

        I blame Obama and anybody like him and any of his enablers and anybody that excuses their methods and thinking. What Obama and democrats and liberals and progressives and socialists believe in, eventually destroys economies and governments and countries. It's just a matter of time; it never fails.
        adornoe
      • Your wrong...

        @adornoe... It is our system that is the problem. The average mill working in the US is paid what... anywhere from 15 to 20 dollars an hour, and in China, lucky if they get 2 dollars per day. So tell me genius, how are American workers supposed to compete with those who get one and a quarter percent of what American workers do? <br><br>It isn't taxes, it is these job killing FTA's that is doing it. Eliminate FTA's charge tariffs on imports and exports so that it makes more sense to manufacture things here, rather than somewhere in China. Millions of Americans are still waiting for the high paid jobs they were promised when NAFTA came along. And all that happened then is jobs went to Mexico, and now with FTA's with Venezuela, China, India, well all the jobs are going to cheap labor.<br><br>FTA's cause trade deficits, and those deficits are what drive unemployment. <br><br>And since you are for smaller government, how about we stop subsidizing fuel. The true cost of gasoline is really around 9 to 10 dollars a gallon, once you take in account of what it costs the US to protect foreign fuel lines. <a href="http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html</a></a><br><br>So keep smoking the stupid pipe that Republicans feed ya.<br><br>It was deregulation that caused the first Great Depression, and it was deregulation that caused this one. But Republicans love to live in denial.<br><br>Edit: Oh I know, you will counter with, we need to eliminate the minimum wage... so what employers can than pay people less than what anyone can live on in this country? Last I checked it is pretty difficult to live on 7.55 per hour. If you think it is possible, then be my guest, do it. You will barely be able to pay your rent, never mind eating or ever being able to go to the doctor. I have lived on minimum wage, as a result, I didn't see a dentist for nearly 8 years. Couldn't afford to see one. Lost a couple of teeth and several hundreds of dollars later I have a crown and several fillings.<br><br>I just love how rethugs think people actually need to be paid less.

        Edit 2: and how did I ever get beyond minimum wage, I went through a community college on "Socialist Grants" got my 2 year degree, and now have a job that has decent benefits, including the dental insurance to fix my teeth, and pays me 42,000 per year. And without that "Socialist Program" many like me, would never have achieved any level of success. It would be even more uneducated, unemployable, people who could only hope to work at Wal-mart for minimum wage.

        After all who is it that buys products? the consumer. and if the consumer has no money, because the only job they can get is a Wal-mart job, how can they buy the products, when all of their money is just going to survival? Eventually your free market system deregulated falls apart, and reverts back to slavery.
        Snooki_smoosh_smoosh
      • RE: President Obama declares India a world power and tactfully addresses outsourcing

        @Quebec-french - the truth is in the middle, but

        http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/integration/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=226500202

        http://techcrunch.com/2007/11/26/qa-with-senator-barack-obama-on-key-technology-issues/

        Obama is not innocent.
        HypnoToad72
      • You're right. It's our

        <i>It is our system that is the problem.</i><br><br>No, the problem is the liberal thinking, such as yours.<br><br>Our free-market system produced the greatest and biggest economy the world had ever seen. It's only lately that it's being destroyed by the creeping socialism which has us virtually bankrupt and with huge job losses and so many losing their mortgages and homes, and with many businesses closing down. It is because of the damage exacted on the economy that so many socialists in congress were voted out. When are you going to wake up? <br><br><i>The average mill working in the US is paid what... anywhere from 15 to 20 dollars an hour, and in China, lucky if they get 2 dollars per day.</i><br>That's actually, irrelevant. <br><br>You're not paying attention to the whole equation, which entails a lot more than just the salary of an American versus his counterpart in China (or in any other country).<br><br><i>So tell me genius, how are American workers supposed to compete with those who get one and a quarter percent of what American workers do? </i><br><br>Yet, it's not just the lower salary structure which pushes our jobs and our businesses to go overseas. Think beyond the simple obvious. It's a lot more complicated than perhaps your simple way of thinking will allow you.<br><br><i>It isn't taxes,</i><br><br>Look, dude, taxes are a big problem, especially high taxes. Nobody with even half a brain would be dismissive of high taxation. High taxes are a major problem for businesses and for individuals. High taxation is probably the biggest reason why businesses have to shop overseas for cheaper labor and tax incentives and favorable business conditions.<br><br><i>it is these job killing FTA's that is doing it.</i><br>Trade agreements always produce more jobs for all countries concerned, even if they're not immediately or easily perceptible. It's not a one-way street. <br><br>While there will certainly be countries that take advantage of our lax oversight with our trade agreements, like China, the overall effect with trade agreements is to stimulate business on all sides of the agreements.<br><br>We are no longer in a simple world where it might be justified to shut our doors with protectionism. The fact is that, even with the problems, many opportunities have opened up for American businesses which weren't there before. Trade agreements is part of what allowed our economy to grow as big as it did. And, yeah, I'm aware of our trade deficits, but the benefits far outweigh the negatives.<br><br>When the U.S. enters into a trade agreement, trade is supposed to occur between the parties concerned. There is supposed to be mutual benefits in all directions. So, when the U.S. gets a trade partner, we can be expected to trade our goods for whatever goods the other country has that we need, even if that happens to be bananas or shoes or TVs or minerals or petroleum, or whatever. On the other side, doors are opened for our goods and services to be exported. Oftentimes, there is a savings in getting a product from overseas than if we produced it ourselves, and that savings can be passed on to our consumers. <br><br>Now, with corporate high taxes within our shores, the consumer ends up paying it and not the corporation. Companies do not pay taxes, and you perhaps weren't aware of that fact. Whatever taxes are imposed on businesses are classified as a cost of doing business, and are inevitably passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices on the products/services from that company. Likewise with the higher salaries that are demanded by our American workers. In the case of your example of mill workers, the cost of higher salaries are reflected on the price of the products produced by the mill.<br><br><i>Eliminate FTA's charge tariffs on imports and exports so that it makes more sense to manufacture things here, rather than somewhere in China.</i><br><br>Well, now you're making my point. <br><br>Tariffs are imposed by government, and government is the culprit that has made production more expensive for either imports or exports. Tariffs are basically, taxes, and taxes are part of the cost of doing business, and, as an expense, those tariffs/taxes, get passed on to the consumer. However, changing tariffs or taxes is not going to change the part of the equation concerning wages in the different countries. One of the things we can do is to raise tariffs for incoming trade, and eliminate it for outgoing trade. We get the advantage on paper, but not in the reality, because, nobody abroad is going to tolerate our advantage.

        Now, if we do "punish" incoming trade with higher tariffs, people on our shores are not going to buy those goods, and perhaps that's the intent. But, we'd be stuck purchasing the inevitably much higher prices for the goods we do produce within our country. That would make matters much worse for the poor and the middle class in our country.. Meanwhile, we'd be trying to sell our expensive goods to countries where the people would have an even harder time affording our goods, even with lowered or no tariffs. Then, if we didn't have to foreign markets to sell to, we'd have to downsize every sector of our economy, which would mean many millions of lost jobs and many businesses closing. Remember, it works the same in economics as in business: every action is balanced with an opposite reaction. Nothing anyone does in the economy is without consequences.
        adornoe
      • You're right. It's our "liberal" system that's the problem (cont'd)

        <i>Millions of Americans are still waiting for the high paid jobs they were promised when NAFTA came along.</i><br><br>Not all trade agreements are mutually beneficial, and not everybody plays fair. So, when something doesn't work as advertized, it might be time to change or eliminate the problem. But, because one is not beneficial does not mean that all are equally bad. <br><br>For the most part, we Americans have become used to paying the lower prices we get from our purchases in Wal-Mart and other stores, and if we had to purchase those same products from American labor and American companies, then we'd all be paying much higher prices for them. The minimum wage would've had to be raised to perhaps 2 or 3 times what it is now in order for people to afford our own products and services. Where would we stop with the meddling?<br><br> <i>And all that happened then is jobs went to Mexico, and now with FTA's with Venezuela, China, India, well all the jobs are going to cheap labor.</i><br><br>You're still hung up on "labor", but labor is but a small part of the equation that has our businesses and jobs going overseas. You need to start thinking a lot more and much more broadly.<br><br><i>FTA's cause trade deficits, and those deficits are what drive unemployment. </i><br><br>Still wrong!<br><br>If the cost of doing business in the U.S. wasn't as high as it's become in the last 50-60 years, then we wouldn't be having the problems we now have.<br><br>We used to have a manufacturing base which didn't need the foreign cheap labor, but once the other costs started going up too, like taxes and abiding by regulations and union intrusion and minimum-wage legislation and huge cost of benefits, then it became attractive for our companies to start investigating shipping operations and jobs overseas. Trade imbalances and taxes are not the only parts in the equation that make us very expensive to do business in. However, taxes are a very big part, and when corporations are taxed at about 35% while most foreign countries have much lower taxes on businesses, guess which one is going to win out?<br><br><i>And since you are for smaller government, how about we stop subsidizing fuel.</i><br><br>I'm all for that because, subsidizing is just more government intrusion and results in warping of the free-market.<br><br><i>The true cost of gasoline is really around 9 to 10 dollars a gallon, once you take in account of what it costs the US to protect foreign fuel lines. <a href="http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html</a></a></a></i><br><br>You're conveniently forgetting the reason that we're using so much foreign oil.<br><br>With so many government regulations which basically make it prohibitive for the U.S. to develop it's own resources, it became cheaper to go overseas for our energy sources. <br><br>We could actually be energy independent if we didn't have to put up with so much government intervention into how, when and where we can dig for our oil and coal and gas. We could also be a lot closer to enegry independence with nuclear energy plants, but, again, we were blocked from building those by, more liberal government regulations.<br><br><i>So keep smoking the stupid pipe that Republicans feed ya.</i><br><br>That "stupid pipe" has kept me a lot more informed than you apparently are. You are what I call a "surface thinker" who can't be bothered to dig deeply into the issues and will just believe what seems simple and apparent on first sight. Understanding the issues requires a lot more than just repeating the stupid liberal talking points.<br><br><i>It was deregulation that caused the first Great Depression, and it was deregulation that caused this one. But Republicans love to live in denial.</i><br><br>You again have things completely ass-backwards. <br><br>It was government intrusion and government over-regulations that caused the economy to tank and to stay depressed for a long time. You need to start doing some critical thinking and deeper analysis about what constitutes a good business environment; when it comes to big government, like the type advocated by FDR and Obama, it always ends up devastating the economy. That is what's happened to the current mess of an economy that we have now, and it's also what devastated the economy in the 1930s.
        adornoe
      • You're right. It's our "liberal" system that's the problem (cont'd)

        <i>Edit: Oh I know, you will counter with, we need to eliminate the minimum wage...</i><br><br>Well, yes, that is true. But, why?<br><br>Well, because salary structure is an internal business decision. No external entity, be it government or a person or business not related to the company, should be involved in how a company is to be run. If that business decision causes a company to fail because nobody wanted to work for the low wages paid by that company, then, so be it. That's the free market in operation. Govenment dictates never end up for the best. <br><br>BTW, did you know that minimum-wage legislation always brings up the cost of prices for the products/services from a company affected by the minimum-wage? Minimum-wage legislation tends to also get companies to cut staff and to not raise salaries of current employees who might've expected a salary increase. Though it's not a tax, it has the same effect as high taxes on a business. The cost of doing business always goes up with higher wages, and the cost of the goods and/or services go up as a consequence. <br><br>Anybody that believes that minimum-wage legislation is good or beneficial, needs to have their heads examined and have the word "stupid" stamped on their foreheads with a branding iron. It only serves as "feel-good" legislation, and as a vote-buying gimmick for democrats.<br><br> <i>so what employers can than pay people less than what anyone can live on in this country?</i><br><br>Let the market dictate what is fair. Chances are that, if a company can't pay fair wages, that it will eventually pay a high price by losing good and skilled employees. Paying higher wages just because government dictates it is not a good reward system. <br><br>Furthermore, the minimum wage is meant to be a starting wage and not a permanent or static wage and it's meant as a starting point for new employees or unskilled workers. Anybody with skills or training and with experience is not expected to remain in a low-wage position for long. With that being the case, government does not have the right to dicatate what companies should have to pay.<br><br><i> Last I checked it is pretty difficult to live on 7.55 per hour.</i><br><br>No matter. Government still does not have a right to interfere with how a business should have to run. And, it's not meant to be a living wage; it's just a starting wage for the unskilled or new employees. Chances are that most companies with requirements for skilled labor already have starting wages above what the government dictates. <br><br><i>If you think it is possible, then be my guest, do it.</i><br><br>It's not for me and it's not meant as a permanent wage. All companies have starting wages for their different positions, and it's still not the business of government to dictate what the minimum should be.<br><br><i>You will barely be able to pay your rent, never mind eating or ever being able to go to the doctor.</i><br><br>Dude, get this through your thick skull....<br><br>It's not meant as a living wage from which anyone can pay a mortgage or even a high rent. For people who do get minimum wage jobs, there are other benefits which government already provides to help those people get by.<br><br>Think about it: if all businesses were "forced" to raise their minimum wages to, say, $15 or more, just so people could pay their rent and live a semi-comfortable life, businesses would have to turn around and raise the prices on their goods and services and, bingo!, we're back at square one because, the prices would've gone up proportionately on the goods and services which employees used to purchase a lot cheaper. So, instead of paying $1.50 for a loaf of bread, the worker/consumer would not be paying way over $2.00 and perhaps more. <br><br>Furthermore, if people don't want a minimum wage job, then they should try to get better training for better jobs, and if they do land any low pay jobs, they will hopefully have enough sense to try to better themselves to move out of that "lowly" job.
        adornoe