The general vibe I get from Crosstalk letters is that Americans are against offshoring, but the only reason I can see behind it is the attitude of "we don't want to lose our jobs." But I believe strongly in equality and fairness, and the notion of blocking opportunities going international in the mere interest of local job protection discriminates just as much as declaring that people with blonde hair should not be offered engineering jobs. So if I had brown hair and was just arguing things for my own best interest, I should be perfectly content with a law like that, right? Wrong.
Fortunately I try to see things as much as I can without bias. And just as talented blonde-haired people should not be denied a job because of their hair color, other talented people should not be denied a job because of their origin. Who gets hired should be based only on who's best for the job for the price. And just as with contract work, if someone's willing to do the same job for a lower price, then either your demands are too high or you're looking in the wrong place.
Then I see a clear case of hypocrisy: One particular EE Times reader, Frank Roso, wrote about imbalances in the global economy. ("Pistorio's world view smacks of noblesse oblige," May 9, page 34). In a statement regarding Pasquale Pistorio, Roso wrote, "I find it odd that he does not even mention the role played by repressive regimes in keeping poor nations poor." Excuse me? Who's the repressive regime? It seems to me that many Americans are crying "foul" when American corporations are offering jobs to engineers in these so-called repressed countries. Very talented engineers, I may add. But should an Indian or Chinese company ever offer a lucrative overseas job to an American, nobody even blinks an eye.
Eager to get something off your chest? Submit a Crosstalk letter to the editor by e-mailing firstname.lastname@example.org.