>I came across this earlier. I have edited it for branding purposes.
>
>

>The Company is announcing today that it will expand its presence in India by opening an office in Mumbai in order to bring work currently outsourced back into the company
>and hire employees of The Company to fill these positions.  We plan to open the new office by mid-2006 with approximately 200 employees who will do work that we currently
>outsource to vendors in Mexico and India.  The work currently outsourced includes claims data entry jobs, IT coding/application development jobs and IT quality assurance
>jobs. Our existing business in India is a joint venture in which we own a majority interest in Another Company, which sells widgets and related widget services.
>

>
>How is this still not considered "outsourcing?" The jobs are still going to residents of India, as much as I can tell.

I know it's semantics but........

If they closed the Data Centers in Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Chicago and then opened a brand new Data Center in Billings -- staffed with new hires and those who chose to relocate (at Billings salaries), would you consider that outsourcing????

Since the new people will be employees of The Company, it is not technically outsourcing and they won't take the PR hit of being accused of "outsourcing" American jobs to companies in India.

American business certainly seems to no longer be interested in bringing everybody down to the wage scale in Billings. Now it's down to the wage scale in Mumbai.

I always wonder, though.........

There must be several thousand Indians who can do the CIO and CEO jobs 1/3 as well for 1/10 the money our CEO's and CIO's make. Why aren't those jobs outsourced????

If this were the 30's and I didn't know that Communism would never be able to attain its ideals and always wound up leading to a Totalitarian society, I'd be joining the Party about now.