It's not about competition, folks...

[David Abramowitz]

It's not about competition, folks...

Joe Pluta wrote: If 100,000 people (that's only 2000 people per state) choose not to buy a few hundred dollars worth of goods from Best Buy in a given year, then you've completely gutted their cost savings. I just don't see those numbers happening. OTOH If there is a publicized groundswell I would be delighted to join in. OTOOH, I have a mental picture of a rainy day with a lonely ignored picketer. OTOOOH I need both hands to count the major electronic store chains that have gone out of business all on their own in the last few years. IMO An ineffective campaign without enough people will actually boomerang by giving the target name recognition, and increased sales. Dave

[J.Pluta]

It's not about competition, folks...

David: "I would support a boycott, if I thought that there would be any impact. But I think that a boycott for this purpose would be negligible, and perhaps counter-productive." Why? Let's say they're outsourcing 1000 jobs. Let's in turn be VERY generous and say they're saving 40,000 a head (we of course know that this is nothing like the truth, but just for argument's sake). That's 40,000,000 dollars. If 100,000 people (that's only 2000 people per state) choose not to buy a few hundred dollars worth of goods from Best Buy in a given year, then you've completely gutted their cost savings. Yeah, I know there's revenue vs. profit (we can talk about inventory costs), but even those numbers get beat if we're talking about camcorders, laptops and TVs. And the truth of the matter is that after costs and overruns and delays, they'll be lucky to save a few million dollars. That's just 1000 big screen TVs, or a couple of thousand laptops. Not to mention the fact that these dollars are going to competitors. Joe

[David Abramowitz]

It's not about competition, folks...

I would support a boycott, if I thought that there would be any impact. But I think that a boycott for this purpose would be negligible, and perhaps counter-productive. IMO There are legitimate weapons against outsourcing:

[*]Convincing congress to remove the tax breaks that corporations get for foreign outsourcing practices.[*]Making it known to the public the firms that are outsourcing workers. Public comanies have a vampire-like aversion to the light.[*]Making shareholders aware that in at least 25% of all outsourcing efforts, a company will actually lose money in the deal.[*]Publicizing that foreign outsourcing is a losing deal before the deal is made. Currently CEOs are just listening to outsourcing salespeople, and in many cases are not aware of the downside.[*]Publicizing the decimation of University Computer Science departments, and how this affects overall American security, and capability in the long run.[/list]Dave

[J.Pluta]

It's not about competition, folks...

You got it, Chris. Outsourcing is NOT inevitable. It can be stopped, simply by proving it is uneconomical. And since we know that the "savings" companies are seeing is actually quite negligible (if it exists at all) then it's really easy to make it uneconomical by using our buying power. But if we don't, if we listen to the outsourcing apologists like those who inhabit this forum, then of course we will see outsourcing take over. It will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. But if instead Americans stand up and get counted, we can do a lot. In my state, we just reversed the vote on an issue that the state legislature was about to pass overwhelmingly. The bill would provide driver's licenses to illegal aliens, and was set to fly through the legislature. But the citizens of Illinois got pretty upset about the idea and started writing and faxing their congressional representatives, and a week later the bill was soundly defeated. One proponent of the bill even went so far as to exhort his colleagues to "not pander to their constituents". Get that? "Pander" to the constituents? See, that's the problem. Many elected politicians have forgotten just who they serve. Political action groups are in their faces every day, and they forget that they actually get elected by us. But when enough people write letters and faxes and make phone calls, they remember. It's a little different with corporations. They don't usually respond as readily to public pressure. Instead, they respond to the simplest of motives: greed. And it's real easy to hit them where it hurts - simply stop buying their products. For every item I typically purchase at Best Buy, there are at least three other places I can do business. And while I prefer the convenience of Best Buy, it's more important that I do my part, no matter how small, to promote those companies that still put Americans first. Joe

[J.Pluta]

It's not about competition, folks...

Hardly immoral. It is capitalism at its finest. Voting with the wallet, the American way. And I'm NOT looking to kill the company, simply making sure they stop outsourcing. As soon as they do, I will once again give them my business. By the way, I already have put this plan in motion. I wanted to buy a new game, which I would normally have bought from Best Buy. This purchase will not be made. That's fifty bucks they lost already. Typically a large part of my Christmas shopping is done there as well. Not this year. Joe

[J.Pluta]

It's not about competition, folks...

"Unfortunately, I find them too parochial instead of broad." Chuck, I have come to the conclusion that one sure sign that a position is sensible is that you disagree with it. Joe

It's not about competition, folks...

But if you don't boycott Best Buy then their competition, who doesn't outsource IT overseas, goes out of business because they can no longer compete, unless they outsource IT overseas too! I'll gladly boycott Best Buy or anyone else for just that reason. One thing is for sure. Any politician running for office this year that doesn't support keeping jobs in the USA will be unemployed. Chris

[ACT]

It's not about competition, folks...

OUTSOURCING is bad to the affected few, but to boycott company's that outsourced some of its business functions is not only immoral, but also bad economics. Kill the company and you displaced its whole organization.

Joe said, about Best Buy: "How can I continue to support a company that lays off my coworkers for no reason other than greed?" Joe, I'm struggling hard to try to support your ideas. Unfortunately, I find them too parochial instead of broad. It seems that "we" in this forum are up in arms about outsourcing of jobs ONLY because it's I.T. workers being displaced. Did we call it stop buying Nike shoes (insert any shoe company here) because they stopped making shoes in America? Did we stop buying GE or RCA televisions because the TV assembly workers were outsourced to Taiwan? Did we stop buying Ford or Chevrolet cars because the radios are no longer made by American workers? Did we stop shopping at Vons or Safeway or A&P because they sell vegetables from South America displacing American farmers? Are we to believe that outsourcing just began with the I.T. job? The way I see it, many professions and jobs have been outsourced over the last 200 years. It's just now getting up to the I.T. profession. In any event, I DO believe that, as in the past, some jobs/professions get outsourced and newer jobs and professions come along to replace them. Certainly, 50 years ago, no one would have dreamed that we would have had an entire industry that consists entirely of computer programmers. That entire profession sprang up mostly in the last 30 years ago. If we were to be having this discussion about outsourcing I.T. jobs in 1960 then no one would care. In conclusion, I think the fire alarm is ringing in this forum because the fire is in our house. We've ignored the fires in many of the other houses in the neighborhood because they didn't affect us. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.