Replacing You is Job One

I have often reiterated that cheap labor is only an ancillary benefit of replacing native workers with imported Visamericans. The prime compulsion is to generate revenue growth via consumers. And no amnesty will ever satisfy this drive, as new consumers are perpetually required to hurdle prior corporate metrics. This is an aspect that few of even the most congenitally-jaded among us fully grasp: Growth doesn’t mean a swarm of migrants and amnesty now. It doesn’t mean once again in the future. It means always.

As the geography’s vice president stated with characteristically inebriated candor: “The US must have a constant, unrelenting stream of immigrants. This is it–the in vino veritas. This is what growth requires. And Biden is sufficiently distanced from his faculties to actually state the matter outright. And that constant unrelenting yellow stream splashing into your children’s faces…Biden would like you to know that the changes will be immense, and they will be all to the good.

And while growth should be understood as the animating force, corporate carrion crawlers certainly won’t deny themselves a few extra dollars shed from the income statement’s cost-of-goods-sold. And if your countrymen can’t be betrayed for an extra shiny nickel, then why exactly are they working for you in the first place? There is principles and then there is money: may never the two meet.

So this piece is to discuss that almost achingly sensual moment when a patriotic businessman terminates his American staff in favor of one requiring less plumbing expense.

And would you like to know what makes this so delicious to the corporate executive? It’s all in the execution. To choose one’s employees, to prepare one’s plans minutely, to slake an implacable vengeance, and then to go to bed – there is nothing sweeter in the world. And in this case, the plans call for fired Americans to train their replacements.

Ahhh, their bitter tears are ambrosia upon the accountant’s tongue.

This is the story of an IT worker who was replaced by a worker on an H-1B visa, one of a number of visa holders, mostly from India, who took jobs at this U.S. company. Computerworld is not going to use the worker’s name or identify the companies involved to protect the former employee from retaliation. For purposes of this story, the worker has been given initials — A.B. (They’re not the person’s real initials.)

At A.B.’s company, about 220 IT jobs have been lost to offshore outsourcing over the last year. A.B. is telling the story because, initially, there was little knowledge among fellow employees about H-1B visa holders and how they are used. They didn’t know that offshore outsourcing firms are the largest users of H-1B visas, or exactly how this visa facilitates IT job losses in the U.S.

“I think once we learned about it, we became angrier toward the U.S. government than we were with the people that were over here from India,” A.B. said, “because the government is allowing this.”

The IT workers at this firm first learned of the offshore outsourcing threat through rumors. Later, the IT staff was called into an auditorium and heard directly from the CIO about the plan to replace them. It would take months for the transition to be completed, in part because of some new system installations.

Training the replacement workers involved holding morning-long WebEx meetings several times a week with offshore outsourcing staff based in India. The sessions were recorded as details about the environment, including diagrams and scripts, were shared.

As they moved closer to the termination date for the U.S. workers, the overseas employees would follow or shadow, via WebEx sessions, everything an IT worker did during the day. The outsourcing firm’s onshore staff helped to coordinate these efforts, but also worked to untangle the meaning of some of the questions.

The overseas workers did not appear to have much practical experience, and the same questions were asked repeatedly, A.B. said.

Before they lost their jobs, A.B.’s co-workers decided to made a subtle and symbolic protest over what was happening: As the H-1B visa workers gradually took over the offices once occupied by U.S. workers, one employee brought in a bunch of small American flags on sticks.

The flags were retrofitted so they could fit into the walls of the cubicles.

The flags were displayed, cubicle after cubicle, much like way flags are hung on homes in a residential neighborhoods on the 4th of July. They were visible to anyone walking down the hall. “That was the only thing that we could do,” A.B. said. “We felt that we were making a statement. But to be honest, I don’t think the Indian workers fully understood what was going on.”

To illustrate this point, A.B. recounted a conversation with an offshore outsourcing visa holder. A.B. worked directly with one of the offshore firm’s visa employees, whose job it was to help train the overseas workers.

“I know he was over here to do a job,” A.B. explained. “I treated him as a colleague, even though I was resentful.”

The offshore outsourcing employee was pleasant, and a couple of weeks before A.B.’s job ended, he asked: “That Monday, you are going to another job?”

“I said, ‘No, I’m not going to another job,” A.B. recalled. “‘You are taking my job. I don’t have another job to go to.'” A.B. explained that as an older worker it would be difficult to get another full-time position.

The offshore outsourcing worker later sent A.B. a Facebook friend request. “I don’t think he comprehended the situation over here — that we were losing our jobs, we didn’t have jobs to go to,” A.B. said.

The Facebook friend request was not accepted.

In the last month, the offshore outsourcing workers, again via WebEx, essentially took over A.B.’s job. It became A.B.’s role to follow along to make sure that the offshore workers executed various tasks correctly.

While this was going on, more and more H-1B workers appeared at the company, filling more of the offices.

Before the offshore outsourcing had begun, there was an internal study to compare the costs of insourcing versus outsourcing. A.B. did not see the study, but wonders what would happen if the U.S. government were to impose restrictions on the H-1B visa and raise the cost of using it, and whether that could change the economics of offshoring and encourage more insourcing.

A.B. talked about hopes for getting U.S. lawmakers to visit the company and count the number of Indian workers and the number of American workers. Efforts to arrange meetings with lawmakers were unsuccessful.

“They are going to find more Indian workers than American workers,” A.B. said. “For every India worker that’s there, that used to be an American.”

The American flags have since been removed from the cubicle walls.

The American flag–make that the lapel pin of your Ghost Shirt. It is likely that several of these displaced workers, in their many long hours of unemployed reflection, will come to realize how little that symbol now represents their interests. That the power and authority that flows therefrom is aligned overwhelmingly against them. Perhaps the refusal of their own elected representatives to offer a hearing was a second indication. If they allow themselves to see what senses reveal, many more indications will follow. And I think righteous discontent will not always take the form of toy flags.

Though these men have my sympathy. Not only because what has been done to them is so grating, but because only one whose head resides amidst the clouds wouldn’t consider the implications in his own life. As one who presumes to be in possession of an inimitable conjugal skill-set, I am surely in no fear of spousal outsourcing for marital consortium. Though in context of career, I am more mundane and less sanguine. It is at least conceivable that one of India’s billion could perform my rote task of stacking blocks at a sliver of current compensation.

And I would think there are quite few of us who are irreplaceable in our work. And of those who deem themselves as such, what of your children? Will they be as indispensable as their paternal line? Should they have to be? What did our forefathers intend to bequeath to their posterity? What inheritance is rightfully theirs? To compete on their own soil with a few hundred million Sub-cons?

One cohort of which I am certain to answer yes to the above: corporate executives. It is inconceivable that India can not produce a raft of Hindus capable of operating corporations for less than eight figures each. This is where American boards of directors should hungrily glance first when squeezing one more succulent drop of green blood from the income statement. A H-1B CEO working for half a million instead of 10 would spare the equivalent of hundreds in employment.

Start there.
Replace them.
Think about The Economy.


12 thoughts on “Replacing You is Job One

  1. So this piece is to discuss that almost achingly sensual moment when a patriotic businessman terminates his American staff in favor of one requiring less plumbing expense.

    I’m sure you remember how MSM was saturated with opinion pieces decrying Third World business ethics in the wake of Ranbaxy’s crimes.

    From Wikipedia:

    In September 2013, further problems were reported, including apparent human hair in a tablet, oil spots on other tablets, toilet facilities without running water, and a failure to instruct employees to wash their hands after using the toilet

  2. Many complaints like my own above are little more than bitching about the mucous trail of a slug. It is a feature endemic to the entity.

    Corporations are quite analogous to an organic AI, programmed to single purpose. They exist to generate profits. And if nation and habitat are dissolved in the effort…see the prior statement. The obvious societal flaw is in breathing untrammeled life into a concern that has none for you.

    Corporations should be cultivated within carefully circumscribed boundaries. They are capable of producing great advancements and economies of scale–and also of leveraging their influence to societal ruin. Unfortunately they have largely now harnessed society rather than the intended opposite. And so we have the sort of systemic rapaciousness now on such lurid display.

    There is nothing wrong with making a profit…until profit is all you have.

  3. I wonder would corporations alone be enough to ruin any country, without the collusion of the left or people in whose ethnic interests it is to replace the indigenous population. If left to their own devices, they probably would, but it would be easier for patriotic forces to thwart them when they’re not part of the present coalition of destruction.

    • The present combination of Sixties hippies and wanna-be hippies, and the blue-suit corporate profit-before-all technodrones produces an unprecedented toxic synergy. Either would be easier to cope with, without the other, but while it exists, this nightmare alliance ensures that both mainstream Right and mainstream Left will be co-opted, leaving only small disgruntled bands of race-realists, anarcho-Christians, Paleo-cons, Commies, and “Black Power” seperatists in opposition, none of whom can even stand to be in the same room with each other, let alone co-operate on a plan of action. It’s almost fascinating, in the way that watching the ebola virus destroy a host organism is fascinating. You can almost admire the pure cold evil perfection of the thing…almost.

  4. I think you are shooting the messenger. We’ve had corporations since the Dutch East India Company, and the British East India Co. They actually ran India and large parts of the world with the help of the military, and generated enormous wealth and status for middle class English, Dutch, etc. What has happened since has nothing to do with corporations per se.

    • IA, we’ve had plutocrats much longer than that. And many have been great patriots.

      Though in modernity, they have leavened into a cohort resolutely hostile to the white middle class from which many emerged. My contempt is neither gratuitous nor lavished lightly. We should give entities the liberty to earn it. And in these instances, they have.

      You are correct that there is nothing wrong with corporations per se. Just as there is nothing wrong with wealth per se. Though there is something very much wrong with both today.

      In regard to corporations in particular, I think they must be very well circumscribed within carefully considered boundaries in order to be harnessed for ecumenical good. Because they exist specifically for no other purpose than to maximize profit. Obviously this end can come into substantial conflict with the population hosting such an entity. And when that entity grows to wield greater influence on a polity’s institutions than do the people living in its orbit, the results are self-evidently disastrous for those people.

      • Thank you for your reply. I can appreciate the resentment. But, I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. Like any other business a corporation must provide a service or product that people actually want and must pay for. The key phrase is “pay for.” No free lunch. Government is now so powerful it can shakedown or reward by whim. And, expect more of it as non-euros consolidate their centralized political power.

        We are creating such a hostile environment for business that eventually it will all leave for more friendly shores. Quite literally. Bright rich whites are actually considering “seasteading” where they build their own country. I personally don’t think it will work but who knows they might be able to work out some kind of arrangement with the increasingly goon-like but impoverished politicals.

  5. What you need is a patriotic administration that makes laws ensuring corporations don’t work against the interests of the indigenous inhabitants of the country. Think of all the laws passed to prevent the extinction of various flora and fauna, and imagine them being extended to our own subspecies – what could be more natural or more obvious?

  6. The problem can only be dealt with at the legislative level. The lawmakers decide, in theory, how the corporations must behave, and they could easily – in theory, again – pass laws to stop corporations harming the interests of the indigenous population. The trouble is that government is in the pockets of big business, and it is the latter calling the shots to the former, rather than vice versa.

  7. IA: If your position is that big government can be far more pernicious than big business, I won’t disagree. But big business is now seeking to leverage the power of big government against you. They are metastasizing into a set of merged interests.

    When you mention the consolidating political power of non-euros, would you say that corporations are resistant, neutral, or actively facilitating that hostile consolidation? In aggregate, the evidence is overwhelmingly the latter. They are not bad because they are big or because they are corporations, or because they are wealthy or businessmen.

    They are bad because they are working utterly against you. I won’t presume to say you are similar, but I know many conservatives who support business ideologically without digesting that business manifestly doesn’t support them.

    We desperately need to migrate from abstract allegiances to those more concretely aligned with our interests.

    • Well, I don’t think they feel they have a choice. Or, like Gates, Buffet and many others its more like status marking Eloi. Except they and their progeny can survive, or they think they can. Mostly, they go with the flow. And the flow is that before about, say, 1964 the western world was controlled by bigots, haters and sexually repressed Nazis; the wrong side, as opposed to the right side of history. This is the Narrative. Corporations did not write it. And things appear to be getting worse for white males so they are adapting.

      In essence, I believe we are in the midst of a mass movement that started a long time ago. About the time Capt. Cook brought back a south Pacific chief who the Earl of Sandwich (Cook’s patron) adopted. Pure status marking. It took a long time for oikophobia to percolate down to the masses. In the process the details have changed. But the overall contours remain the same.

      As Aldous Huxley once wrote, I think in Eyeless in Gaza, people would rather be taken in adultery than provincialism.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s