This morning’s Los Angeles Times had an article examining the way in which Hillary Clinton often straddles the fence on the outsourcing issue by cleverly playing to both Indian Americans and to big labor (two of her big money supporters):
To many labor unions and high-tech workers, the Indian giant Tata Consultancy Services is a serious threat — a company that has helped move U.S. jobs to India while sending thousands of foreign workers on temporary visas to the United States.
So when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) came to this struggling city to announce some good news, her choice of partners was something of a surprise.
Joining Tata Consultancy’s chief executive at a downtown hotel, Clinton announced that the company would open a software development office in Buffalo and form a research partnership with a local university. Tata told a newspaper that it might hire as many as 200 people.
The 2003 announcement had clear benefits for the senator and the company: Tata received good press, and Clinton burnished her credentials as a champion for New York’s depressed upstate region. [Link]
<
p>In this arrangement, both sides appear to win. Buffalo gets new jobs and a big Indian business becomes more credible in its future dealings with the U.S. My impression is that most Indian Americans (especially second-gen) don’t care much about the outsourcing issue purely on its merits either way. There are a lot more important things to debate. What is much more important to Indian Americans is the skill with which the candidate handles the issue. The slightest hint of xenophobic or protectionist speech in an attempt to assuage big labor (or xenophobes) pisses off the South Asian voter. Obama’s campaign figured that out the hard way earlier this year. In truth, Obama and Clinton both want desi money but they have to pocket it by staying just far enough away that they don’t come off as curry lovers. For example, earlier this month wealthy IITers held their annual alumni conference in Santa Clara. IIT + Silicon Valley = $$$. Destitute John McCain would have been there in a heart beat if invited. Clinton however, appeared by videocon. This way she could appeal to Indian Americans and get their money without pissing off big labor by actually being in a room full of foreign educated Indians. That’s some skill. The true test for Clinton (and the other Dems) lies ahead. Big labor is getting smart about her game and is begining to raise a ruckus:
… in Buffalo, the fruits of the Tata deal have been hard to find. The company, which called the arrangement Clinton’s “brainchild,” says “about 10” employees work here. Tata says most of the new employees were hired from around Buffalo. It declines to say whether any of the new jobs are held by foreigners, who make up 90% of Tata’s 10,000-employee workforce in the United States.
As for the research deal with the state university that Clinton announced, school administrators say that three attempts to win government grants with Tata for health-oriented research were unsuccessful and that no projects are imminent.
The Tata deal underscores Clinton’s bind as she attempts to lead a Democratic Party that is turning away from the free-trade policies of her husband’s administration in the 1990s and is becoming more skeptical of trade deals and temporary-worker visas. [Link]
<
p>Even though the above passage seems to indicate a victory for Indian business at the expense of American big labor, Clinton is able to massage it into this:
Clinton often laments a system that, as she told a government workers union last month, rewards companies for “moving our jobs overseas.” “Outsourcing is a problem, and it’s one that I’ve dealt with as a senator from New York,” Clinton said during a Democratic candidates debate in June. She said she had tried “to stand against the tide of outsourcing…” [Link]
This issue will continue to be the Democrats Achilles heal in the eyes of South Asian voters. The real question here is to see which democrat calls Clinton out on her hypocrisy. The irony is that calling her out (presumably in favor of big labor) would be foolish and will simply alienate the Indian American vote. On the flip-side I don’t think any candidate will have the courage to come out squarely in favor of outsourcing and the inevitability of a global economy.
Buffalo is a hole – American companies don’t want to set up shop there, why would Tata. So, Tata makes a token effort to get the critics of their back and reward Clinton. In a couple of years, they close the office down because they (rightly) point out it is not making money.
Compare that to what Wipro is doing in Atlanta. Wipro is close to sealing a deal in opening a facility in the metro Atlanta area. Atlanta has the busiest airport in the nation, where Delta offers a non-stop Atlanta-Bombay flight – with easy access to the whole Southeast. Plus, Coca-Cola and CNN probably could use some of their skills. UNless Tata can help the Bills win the Super Bowl, the city got played.
On the flip-side I don’t think any candidate will have the courage to come out squarely in favor of outsourcing and the inevitability of a global economy.
…democratic 😉 and yes, the global economy is inevitable, but there are a million ways it could play out.
Alas the topic of outsourcing refuses to die. Much has been said and still more continues to be said, even Becker and Posner are still talking about it.
How much of Clinton’s cash is from Indian Americans? Anyone have figures?
I mean to say: is it really Big Labor and USINPAC which Clinton is trying to balance, or is it Big Labor and Business-which-profits-from-outsourcing?
10,000 employees. It’s hard to believe that tata has that much of a presence here.
Buffalo may be a ‘hole’, but there are any number of strong biomed research centers in the city – Roswell Park, Buffalo-Niagara and Hauptmann-Woodward being the main ones. The University of Buffalo is also the site of the
Link
Tata has a strategic vision of moving into higher and higher value added stuff, including bioinformatics, rational drug design, etc. So it might have made sense to actually follow through on their commitment, leveraging the NY State investment, getting in on the ground floor, etc. Of course I don’t know if this is what they had in mind, but if it wasn’t, they need to do their homework better. And if they really have 10,000 people in the US, they might be getting too big to also be smart.
4: vivek: How much of Clinton’s cash is from Indian Americans? Anyone have figures?
According to this article:
http://www.nysun.com/article/56332
HRC plans on raising about $5 million from Indian Americans, incl. $1M at a Manhattan “Indian-themed” dinner. That should buy some clout, I’d think!
This is quite an annoying characterization of “Big Labor.” First of all, Big Labor is hardly big. Labor unions in the United States represent less than 15% of all workers. In a country with over 45 million uninsured people, 80% of unionized workers have employer-provided health insurance. In low-wage categories of employment, unionized workers earn up to $8,000 more per year than non-unionized workers (many of whom live below the federal poverty guidelines). Nearly 80% of low-wage workers in the United States do not get any paid sick days compared to the majority of unionized low-wage workers who do. Perhaps most importantly unionized workers have due process and increased job security, which gives workers freedom to do their jobs without fear of being fired for any reason or no reason. In the meantime, H1-B and other temporary visa programs have been rife with exploitation. I had a cousin who came to the United States from India on a temporary contract who did not get a single day off in the entire 2 month period he was here. Perhaps my cousin is better off for the job, but that kind of thing should not be permitted on American soil and certainly should not be supported by Indians living on American soil. I do still find it hard to believe that outsourcing — a system where American companies search the globe for the cheapest labor — is good for India, either. So, hopefully health insurance, poverty and worker exploitations are areas of real concern to all Americans including Indian Americans, and democrats including Clinton and Obama should continue to bring light to the problems associated with outsourcing and temporary worker visas, even when the companies or people involved are Indians.
The Tatas more than any other Indian business house have taken an uncharacteristically long term view of prosperity. If they strike roots oin Buffalo it wouldn’t be the first time they have decided to trade in short term fizzle for long term appreciation. Tata Steel introduced the 8-hour day, annual leave, subsidised medical care, and workmens’ compensation way back in the 1930s. Over 30% of its group stocks are held by charitable instituitions.
The idea that South Asian American voters should be turned off by “protectionist” rhetoric or ought to have some identity-based predisposition towards “the inevitability of the global economy” (as though public policies are inevitable) is just nonsense.
And even more nonsensical is the insinuation that lack of “courage” is the only reason that one might not “come out squarely in favor of outsourcing and the inevitability of a global economy.”
Thanks, Lakshmi at #9!
This story is a sad commentary on the state of American labor. It’s infuriating and sad that shrinking, bureaucratized unions (which US workers so desperately need) are so strongly influenced by this Pat Buchanan protectionist bullshit, even to the point of not being able to recognize that US and overseas workers have more in common with one another than with ruling-class politicians like Hillary Clinton. The Democrats have a long and sordid history of selling union workers down the river, and union leaders have an equally sordid history of selling their rank-and-file workers out to opportunistic politicians. Imagine the victories workers could win if we had fighting unions that actually worked with immigrant workers and ‘outsourced’ workers overseas…
Yes! This is a critical point. Just like we should not be have an identity-based predisposition towards amnesty for illegals, affirmative action, various anti-war positions, and profiling of terrorists.
I agree with this comment… (although I do think Abhi delineated neatly between xenophobic rhetoric and actual protectionism — I have a feeling the average South Asian American voter is as split on outsourcing as the next person).
And I disagree, in part, with this statement. While I think identity-based predispositions are strange, I do think that there is a valid analysis based on one’s experience of identity in the U.S. The issues you bring up Manju have direct (and often disparate) consequences for South Asian Americans and for DBDs who make the U.S. their home. Outsourcing, however, has tended to hit people all over the spectrum. While this has happened in different ways for different subcommunities, it is not the same kind of (ethnic) identity-based policy-making. I’m not sure if that’s articulate, but hopefully the distinction is relatively clear.
I also think it is wrong to label American labor as “xenophobic” or even “protectionist” – that is an oversimplified and outdated characterization of union opposition to outsourcing. The largest labor union in the United States (SEIU) claims to represent more immigrants than any other union and has actively campaigned for, among other pro-immigrant things, the legalization of millions of undocumented immigrant workers (even the “whiter” unions such as the Teamsters have supported earned legalization schemes). Obviously with job security being an important priority of most unions, it is reasonable for unions to be concerned when American companies close factories in the US and put people out of work. Further, I think that most unions are very aware of the realities of globalization but believe that globalization will benefit neither Americans nor other countries’ workers unless the outsourcing is coupled with adequate and enforceable labor and human rights and environmental protections.
4 • vivek on July 30, 2007 11:43 PM • Direct link
How much of Clinton’s cash is from Indian Americans? Anyone have figures?
The 16th biennial conference of Telugu Association of North America (TANA) was addressed by former President Bill Clinton. Clinton’s presence at the conference was made possible by K. Krishna Prasad, a Detroit businessman, who presented a $1 million check to the Bill Clinton Foundation.
TANA held a separate fundraiser for presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton in the city on July 5. The final sum raised was not available but it was said to be more than the $1 million they had pledged.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/070709/43/6hu9g.html.
.
I agree with the general spirit of most of what you said in #15, Camille, but outsourcing might well turn out to hit South Asian Americans more than people on the rest of the spectrum. It is more likely that their wages in America, will converge toward wages corporations are paying in India, than other workers’, and do so sooner. South Asian tech workers in the US, of whom a large portion are on H-1Bs, are already being seen as an extension of the South Asia based tech labor force. The fact that some of them actually function like this on H-1Bs does not make things easier.
The dynamic of outsourcing tends to pit (i) South Asian workers in the US against (ii) South Asian-American ‘entrepreneurs’ against (iii) South Asian workers in South Asia, some of whom can be brought over on H-1Bs. And some people in (i) will be seen as if they were in (iii), and vice versa. Currently, being educated in the US buys some advantage for US-based South Asians, but as the South Asian operations of US companies grow, a US education won’t be very much of an advantage. Also, US universities already have campuses in India, and it will be harder, even in principle, to separate a US-educated South Asian from a South Asian educated in South Asia, at a local campus of a US university! These things are already happening, so people don’t be complacent.
Really? I get the feeling that the “wage convergence” happens among South Asian immigrants (esp. H1Bs), but not necessarily South Asian Americans. I could be 100% wrong — I have absolutely no statistical data for that, just a gut feeling.
Lakshmi, you’re right re: labor and whether or not it is xenophobic. When I think of the xenophobic rhetoric around outsourcing, however, I’m not thinking of labor, but rather policymakers. SEIU in particular seems to have a good grasp of the nuances of immigrant labor, but also the interconnectedness of organizing labor communities across borders in the context of neoliberal globalization instead of relying on the older Marxist/Communist models.
Lakshmi, very good points. I do agree with you, but it’s lamentable that SEIU is an exception to the rule as one of the few unions doing progressive rank-and-file work on any major scale. I think you have to distinguish between the rank-and-file of any union and its leadership, and it’s still true that in most unions, even if the rank-and-file are progressive and active, they still come up against a rigid, bureaucratic leadership which is often heavily influenced by those sorts of protectionist ideas. Teamsters for a Democratic Union, for example, faces strong opposition from the Teamster leadership. I’ve also seen this dynamic in unions that aren’t directly affected by outsourcing, like teachers’ unions. Always that dialectical give-and-take…
The distinction should be clear between policy issues that center, by definition, on issues of ethnic/ancestral identity (e.g. terrorist profiling, treatment of immigrant Americans, multiculturalism, etc.) and policy issues that have no bearing on one’s ethnic/ancestral identity, per se. Whether U.S. companies continue to engage in vigorous offshoring does not affect me as a South Asian American (except to the extent that, like other Americans, I might lose my job); the relevant axis of identity there is domestic worker versus foreign worker. I acknowledge, though, that the tenor of the national debate (which may carry racist or xenophobic overtones) can certainly affect me.
Camille and RS:
There is no clear distinction. In all these issues ethnicity intersects with policy issues, but we simply choose to see it as primarily an ethnic issue when it suits our political axe. Outsourcing may disproportionately benefit indians while profiling may disproportionately hurt us; but in either case there are underlying policy issues (ecomomic policy and national security).
In a recent thread, many commenters bought up various examples of affirmative action hurting asian-americans, and I noticed a clever argument by the anti-AA contingent coming forth that desis should be opposed to AA because of this. but that argument fails to take into account non-ethnic issues that individual desis may care about, such as helping the disadvantaged whomever they may be. Likewise, illegal immigration may disproportionately hurt black Americans by driving down the wages of the poor, but a black american who supports open borders should not be asked to give up his principles in the name of ethnic solidarity.
for too long POC have been told to embrace certain policies like nehruvian socialism, under the guise that our shared ethnic experience with colonialism should lead us to reject “Western-style” capitalism. Now that the shoes on the other foot and the free markets are benefiting the POC, we should drop the whole ethnic argument all together and focus on what is fair to all people.
Manju, I couldn’t agree more. (Especially as a white antiracist.)
After all, we all benefit in the long run from a better, fairer world. It’s the difference between immediate self-interest and long-term self-interest.
I don’t disagree that there are other, non-identity-based policy considerations that might inform one’s views on, say, the issue of “terrorist profiling.” My point is simply that there are at least some identity-based considerations. E.g., whatever one’s ultimate opinion of profiling, it indisputably distributes rights and responsibilities on the basis of ethnicity, per se; it affects South Asian Americans because they are South Asian American.
Offshoring has no impact on me as a South Asian American that is distinct from its impact on my Italian American friend. The burdens of offshoring are not distributed on the basis of ethnic identity, but rather on the basis of class and occupational status.
the burdens aren’t, but the benefits are. individuals in emerging markets benefit disproportionately from globalization, especially those with a scientifically literate population…and africa would benefit disproportionately if the west got rid of agricultural subsidies. Now, i did notice that you and camille limited the use of ethnic predispositions to hyphenated-americans, ie one’s experience of identity in the U.S, but this is too narrow since ethnic minorities often have a trans-national interests. witness african americans asking for US interference in Darfur, or kurdish-american’s wanted saddam deposed.
With two caveats:
i) As a SAA, you might be disproportionately employed in occupations that are outsourceable, making it more likely as an SAA that you might lose your job, vis-a-vis your IA friend.
ii) Xenophobic attitudes are less likely to otherize your IA friend in today’s outsourcing context than you. This ‘outsider-perception’ is going to have real effects – for example, all else being equal, it might increase the chance that you lose your job, compared to your IA friend – and this might apply regardless of your generational status – 1gen, 2gen etc.
“Offshoring has no impact on me as a South Asian American that is distinct from its impact on my Italian American friend.” – not completely true.
Most outsourcing desi firms will not hire a ABD in a senior position although they will glady hire a white american. This is standard policy across nearly all firms. So your Italian American friend will get hired by the outsourcer whereas you are likely to be looking for a job.
i can see this being a heavy topic once the nominations are out (depending on who gets the nomination on either side). HRC is flip-flopping a lot these days – e.g. the issue about meeting with leaders of ‘rogue’ countries during the youtube debate – which, i guess is normal for any candidate who needs to align/deny their views from pre-candidate days with their campaign. i just hope she doesn’t go the kerry way and keep being equivocal until the near-end.
RS: “I acknowledge, though, that the tenor of the national debate (which may carry racist or xenophobic overtones) can certainly affect me.”
Of course, this is true, and it certainly was in the case of George Allen. I also think that South Asian Americans (maybe not you, RS) are more connected with and have more of an interest in economic development in South Asia – especially when they have relatives working in call centers or applying for H1-B visas. But, I disagree with the following things about this post: 1) to some extent it conflates anti-offshoring with anti-Indian, 2) it insinuates that American “Big Labor” and South Asian American interests are diametrically opposed, 3) it assumes that “Big Labor” is seeking out “xenophobic” or “protectionist” positions from candidates (e.g. this statement – “The slightest hint of xenophobic or protectionist speech in an attempt to assuage big labor (or xenophobes) pisses off the South Asian voter”), and 4) it presupposes that off-shoring is good.
Indeed. This is the crux of the issue. There are no South Asian Americans living in emerging markets. And I think South Asian Americans (the only “voters” to whom Abhi could have been referring) who vote on the basis of what’s best for India ought to reconsider the nature of their participation in this democracy. At a minimum, they should hardly bristle when American politicians advocate for what’s in the best interests of the United States, and, frankly, they may forfeit the right to protest some of the prejudiced epithets slung at our community as to where its loyalties allegedly lie.
To be clear, as a purely descriptive matter, I am not denying that some people may, in fact, vote on the basis of what’s good for South Asia. To that extent (and only to that extent), perhaps Abhi’s points are reasonable. On the other hand, broad characterizations of the political sentiments of South Asian American voters such as the following seem to be both empirically unsubstantiated and logically flawed (for the reasons stated above):
Indeed, it’s just this kind of broad stereotype – that South Asian Americans support what is best for South Asians rather than what’s best for America – that makes things like the Obama campaign memo so pernicious.
And as a prescriptive matter, Abhi seems to be sanctioning this kind of voter behavior. But maybe I’ve overreading, divining something between the lines that isn’t there. Either way, my views on that are probably clear.
Lakshmi – I wholeheartedly agree with all of this.
I would only add that, ironically, to the extent that we conflate South Asian American interests with South Asian interests, we actually make it more likely that the “tenor of the national debate” will carry racist or xenophobic overtones (undertones?).
27
Are you alluding to the infamous GUI* policy,for customer facing positions such as sales?
I think its not so true ( preference for white americans ) for Operations positions. *Gora User Interface
Most outsourcing desi firms will not hire a ABD in a senior position although they will glady hire a white american.
Yes, and No.
On average, MNCs and outsourcing hubs in India have around 10-15 % expats in upper management. Sure, most of them are white.
This said, last year, tens of thousands of Brit Asians moved to India – be it doctor, management, accent specialist.
*** The figures I am quoting are from a NPR program 6 months ago. For Brit Asians moving to India, they interviewed an Indian council officer in London.
My comment was about senior management positions and ABDs although there are quite a few ABDs in junior positions. I was not considering GUI positions at all although now that you have raised it I think it is true. Vinod of SM may be able to shed greater light – how many ABDs work in an outsourcing / offshoring business.
“On average, MNCs and outsourcing hubs in India have around 10-15 % expats in upper management. Sure, most of them are white” – I would say that nearly all of them are white. As far as non-DBD moving back to India I have not met or heard of a single OBD in a senior position (my experience of the corporate world in India is limited to Bangalore for the last decade). I do remember an ABD journalist moving to India (hindustan times i think). Accent specialists albeit important are small fry. The council officer may be referring to DBDs who are moving back – this is quite common.
Happy to be proven wrong wrt to the above statements.
4 • vivek on July 30, 2007 11:43 PM • Direct link
How much of Clinton’s cash is from Indian Americans? Anyone have figures?
The 16th biennial conference of Telugu Association of North America (TANA) was addressed by former President Bill Clinton. Clinton’s presence at the conference was made possible by K. Krishna Prasad, a Detroit businessman, who presented a $1 million check to the Bill Clinton Foundation.
TANA held a separate fundraiser for presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton in the city on July 5. The final sum raised was not available but it was said to be more than the $1 million they had pledged.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/070709/43/6hu9g.html.
According to TANA’s (Telugu association of north America) spokesman ,Indian Americans can raise $ 10 million for this elections.