Talk:Offshoring/Archives/2019

Imbalanced "Impact on jobs in western countries"
The NBER study admits on page 2 that "we focus only on services." The major job loss data that abounds,in their words "has captured just about everyone’s attention" for a reason that they themselves state: "Most of the literature deals with manufacturing." The above-identified subsection's paragraph which begins "Research has found that offshoring has mixed effects" is misleading, because what it refers to are the areas least impacted. A rewording is needed. Pi314m (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

R&D offshoring/outsourcing: clarification/rewording
Thanks MrOllie for challenging the R&D offshoring statement. Double thanks because the fact that your revert was reverted pushed me to pay more attention to the source/citation behind it. The NBER study's data covered 26 years of 18 OECD members. China and India weren't included. The abstract's "to tap into the global technological frontier" is believable, because at times a company uses a "captive" (owned but offshore subsidiary) to do research, at times even using personnel "borrowed" from the parent company. This is not offshore outsourcing; these are company employees working in an offshore location. When the offshore company is an outsource, this too is believable, since there are talented researchers worldwide, and some may be quite ahead, for reasons as understandable as less regulatory pressure. The rewording in the article is to reflect the above. Pi314m (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Re Semi-REVERT
Two of the three quotes were from the abstract; the third quote was actually the title of an existing citation from the same section.

As for deleting SIX citations, WP:OLINK was the edit summary for reverting an edit I made. I guessed "overlinked" and the first few words ("An overlinked article") confirmed my guess. The reverted edit wasn't the sixth, wasn't the fifth, wasn't even the fourth.

The paragraph begins "Research has found that offshoring has mixed effects on wages and employment." If SIX citations in one spot is OK, then my next edit will simply leave the FIRST six citations in place.

Please look (again?) at the NBER item ("Much Ado About Nothing: American Jobs and the Rise of Service Outsourcing to China and India"). It says that other studies look at manufacturing: losses there are high. The place where "Much Ado" applies is in service, not manufacturing.

It says "we focus only on services" and then again "offshore outsourcing of services." Note that this is offshore outsourcing, not offshoring.

By prefixing the words "In the area of service" to "Research studies ..." and taking the first six (which, at a cursory glance, include "both" sides), I'm SEMI-reverting the revert. Pi314m (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's my issue with your most recent edit. You trimmed the paragraph to state: "In the area of SERVICE research...."  yet that is ignoring some studies.  The currently displayed cited studies (#32-34) discuss SERVICE outsourcing, but the other displayed studies (35-37) refer to globalization overall and loss of manufacturing jobs. I haven't yet looked at the other five studies which you relegated to a comment section (for now) but I think we should look at those as well and see what they say.  I'm not saying that the paragraph as it previously stood shouldn't be changed, but I think you're oversimplifying it here.


 * My biggest problem with your edit that I reverted is that (I believe) that anytime we remove a reference, we should clearly state why. It seems that you arbitrarily removed any references more than X number without evaulating the quality or relevance of each one, or how the findings of each could potentially add to this article.  That will take time, but if the references are available, others can improve the article, rather than if they are not present (deleted).


 * Also, your link to WP:OLINK is not relevant here; that is about too many links to other Wikipedia articles. What is relevant is this WP:OVERCITE, but from what I have so far seen, the studies are not all identical.--- Avatar317 (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, contentious summary statements may have lots of references: see: Abortion_in_the_United_States as an example.--- Avatar317 (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)