IBM

[Americano]

IBM, a company I consider very well managed, has evolved into the true form of a global entity by deriving its major portion of revenue from global operations, not the US. As this transformation has progressed, IBM has seen fit to reduce its US work force in direct proportion to personnel demands in countries where a strong presence is required to integrate itself with local business communities and government.

What's relatively unknown to the general public is that IBM has offered to be terminated US workers transfers to the countries with expanding personnel requirements, with few takers. So, are Americans isolationist and xenophobic to a point of preferring unemployment in already economically devastated upper New York State to the experience and security of plying their trade/profession in a foreign country?

[Michael]

Is there any data that shows this? I'm just curious.

And I agree, IBM has shown itself to be remarkably nimble at adapting and surviving in a competitive marketplace and retaining the position of a 'market leader' for so many years.

I'm a bit skeptical about the idea that Americans are less likely to take the foreign transfers. It may be true, or it might not be true. It would be nice to see some data that shows whether or not Americans are more or less likely to take such opportunities.

[Americano]

Is there any data that shows this? I'm just curious.

And I agree, IBM has shown itself to be remarkably nimble at adapting and surviving in a competitive marketplace and retaining the position of a 'market leader' for so many years.

I'm a bit skeptical about the idea that Americans are less likely to take the foreign transfers. It may be true, or it might not be true. It would be nice to see some data that shows whether or not Americans are more or less likely to take such opportunities.

The major obstacle for accepting offers was that salaries would be adjusted to meet local wages, not all bad considering half the US salary in India has more than twice the PPP.

http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/03/26/for-laid-off-ibm-workers-a-job-in-india/

IMO it's more a 'fear of the unknown and it's foreign' than anything else. If I was a young man in that particular profession in this global day & age I'd jump at the opportunity to add international experience and residence to my CV. Developing countries are where that action is. IMO most people prefer the stability of little or no change in their lives and the thought of an undesired foreign relocation would terrify them.

[partofme]

I'm sure there are other considerations. I don't like the area of the country I live in actually but I own a house here, my wife has a job she really likes, and we both have family and friends in the area. While I have no doubt this may be why some people have not moved I don't think you can say it's the only reason or even the most common one.

[Americano]

I'm sure there are other considerations. I don't like the area of the country I live in actually but I own a house here, my wife has a job she really likes, and we both have family and friends in the area. While I have no doubt this may be why some people have not moved I don't think you can say it's the only reason or even the most common one.

I'm curious about what's seemingly a lack of individual US motivation to join an already booming global technology market in other countries. While I understand the reluctance of someone established with a residence, peer group and satisfactory employment and those who possess personal wealth, what about people losing their jobs in areas of already high unemployment and refusing an employment opportunity outside the US? There's never been a shortage of 'foreigners' rushing to the US when opportunities here surpassed their native countries. I still think it's American xenophobia.

[Michael]

I'm sure there are other considerations. I don't like the area of the country I live in actually but I own a house here, my wife has a job she really likes, and we both have family and friends in the area. While I have no doubt this may be why some people have not moved I don't think you can say it's the only reason or even the most common one.

Yes, with Americans having the highest homeowner housing rate on the planet, Americans have been increasing becoming much less mobile than in previous generations. Traditionally in the US, population moved where the jobs were - but not any more it seems. Outbound migration numbers from weak economy states is pretty much stagnant. I'd expect Michigan and West Virginia (for example) to be bleeding population for the last ten years but they aren't really doing that.

Heck, Phoenix/Arizona and Nevada are both still rising and that's a deadend street entirely. US needs to focus on housing where jobs are (and water is), not just where land is super cheap (like deserts).

[Americano]

Yes, with Americans having the highest homeowner housing rate on the planet, Americans have been increasing becoming much less mobile than in previous generations. Traditionally in the US, population moved where the jobs were - but not any more it seems. Outbound migration numbers from weak economy states is pretty much stagnant. I'd expect Michigan and West Virginia (for example) to be bleeding population for the last ten years but they aren't really doing that.

IMO all that can be attributed to is increased public assistance.

Heck, Phoenix/Arizona and Nevada are both still rising and that's a deadend street entirely. US needs to focus on housing where jobs are (and water is), not just where land is super cheap (like deserts).

[drgoodtrips]

IBM, a company I consider very well managed, has evolved into the true form of a global entity by deriving its major portion of revenue from global operations, not the US. As this transformation has progressed, IBM has seen fit to reduce its US work force in direct proportion to personnel demands in countries where a strong presence is required to integrate itself with local business communities and government.

What's relatively unknown to the general public is that IBM has offered to be terminated US workers transfers to the countries with expanding personnel requirements, with few takers. So, are Americans isolationist and xenophobic to a point of preferring unemployment in already economically devastated upper New York State to the experience and security of plying their trade/profession in a foreign country?

I'd go where the jobs are, myself. If my employer said, "transfer to X country or you're gone", I'd weigh in how likely I considered finding a comparable job if I didn't take the offer. If I thought it'd be no problem, I would probably opt not to sell my place and undergo the hassle. If I thought it would be difficult to find work, I'd go.

Of course, I'd also undergo the hassle if they offered to send me overseas, but with a better job (career-wise, mainly, but also money-wise).