"AGONIES OF CONNECTION
- How a new government in the US may affect India"
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080428/jsp/opinion/story_9187038.jsp
The article talks about the coming changes in the US political scene and how that may affect India. One point it mentions is that our IT flow of income may die down if the US politicians really take a very hard conservative stance. This admittedly is not very likely, often promises made in campaigns are carefully reworded to allow for loop holes, however, in case it does, and in any case it does not, we as nation that boasts as highly trained personnel as its main export need to consider how we can survive if tomorrow the external demand for our export weakens.
The article calls out for alternate economical means that we need to invest in so that we can go forward in the future. Apart from general infrastructural reforms I think the biggest reform that we need is to integrate a culture of excellence that through quantitative incentives encourages technological growth through research and development. That is, we need to invest in a univeristy/ private research system that finds, hires, and retains quality talent and encourages them through global incentives (like money, publicity i.e. participation in global conferences, highest quality research infrastructure, and respect) to progress our technological capability through research. And what do you know, the base infrastructure for this is already present in India, think of NAL, NCL, ISRO, IUACCA and other such labs. A couple of things that could be done is that these labs could be linked centrally somehow (atleast NAL and ISRO and IUACCA should be) and need to be linked to global platforms such as global universities and a stronger presence in reputed globally visible journals in the field. This will allow easy transition of technology between the labs, and a platform for maximizing gains from shoot off technology. Another thing that could be done is to encourage a culture of patents.
Putting a strong emphasis on growing our home capabilities in nurturing and keeping the best talent is what I think is important. What say?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
It will be time soon for the "mother of all defence deals"
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Raag Jog
Nothing like a lazy Saturday morning and the enchantment of Rag Jog. A long time it has been since I have heard this particular rendition of Rag Jog and Sohni by Ustad Rashid Khan. The melody is amazing, Rashid Khan puts his life into the Raga, it comes alive from the first taan. The cresecendo simly builds untill is almost unbearable, the morning turns slowly into the day, and for that one moment I feel that nothing else matters. Let the challenges come, for like the complex multiplex of swaras life too is about putting your life into it...
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
why the US needs more H1B visas
The US needs talented workers, and that is the truth. US has always been a talent driven economy, that is the reason why the US has been a leader in technology, business, and engineering related work. It is the absolute talent of the US workforce that has lead to the current lead that US has in the IT industry.
Anyone who claims that this would not have been possible without foreign talent is fooling himself. A visit to any office of one of these Multi National Companies would be enough to show really how diverse (including foreign nationals) the workforce is. Diversity has been carefully nurtured by the leading companies in the US and worldwide, because diversity breeds innovation and trust, both of which are fundamental to business growth.
The need of foreign talent is quiet independent of US borne talent, it has nothing to do with importing cheap labor, and has everything to do with importing talent and encouraging growth.
If US companies wanted cheap labor they have better alternatives than wasting time and money on getting expensive foreign labor, they can just outsource the jobs abroad!
Foreign workers who are invited to work in the US actually cost more to the companies, for example a consultant of foreign origin is paid 1.2 times more than a local worker. Add to this the costs associated with getting the visas processed and the cost associated with waiting for the employee to actually get to his work due to the visa regulations.
Then why do American companies keep wanting more and more foreign born labor? It is because local talent is lacking, and because they need to have workers from economies where they wish to operate. In todays global world, these multinational companies cannot hope to sell there product globally if they do not have a global workforce.
Furthermore, a foreign worker in the US is actually good for the US economy, especially in its stagnant time. At the end of the day, the foreign worker has to live in the US, so he has to spend money in the US, which puts the money he earns right back into the economy. Moreover, as a recent entrant to the country, the foreign worker is more likely to spend money on getting settled, i.e. buying consumer electronics, houses, and automobiles, injecting money into these trailing economies. Furthermore, the foreign worker pays exactly the same taxes (if not more) as every other US resident, which puts money back into the tax system, the foreign worker is required to pay into the social security system although he is not eligible for social security himself. So having a foreign worker abound is in no way hurtful to the economy.
The jobs that foreign workers take are such that no satisfactory US national has been found to perform that job, in fact that is one of the requirements of the H1-B visa, so it is quiet illogical to say that foreign workers take away US jobs. In this retrograde times for the US economy, there is a severe need of talented labor that is targeted towards a specific task. And if that labor is not available locally, US companies have to get it from abroad, if they are stopped from doing this, the only thing that is going to happen is that the jobs are going to go overseas, which will remove jobs perhaps permanently from the US soils.
The truth of the matter is that US is can no longer sustain the technological lead of the 80s, and the 90s. The rest of the world has caught up, and if the US wants to maintain its advantage of an early start and a fantastic university education system, it has to rely on attracting and retaining foreign talent. That is the only way forward in an increasingly global economy.
Anyone who claims that this would not have been possible without foreign talent is fooling himself. A visit to any office of one of these Multi National Companies would be enough to show really how diverse (including foreign nationals) the workforce is. Diversity has been carefully nurtured by the leading companies in the US and worldwide, because diversity breeds innovation and trust, both of which are fundamental to business growth.
The need of foreign talent is quiet independent of US borne talent, it has nothing to do with importing cheap labor, and has everything to do with importing talent and encouraging growth.
If US companies wanted cheap labor they have better alternatives than wasting time and money on getting expensive foreign labor, they can just outsource the jobs abroad!
Foreign workers who are invited to work in the US actually cost more to the companies, for example a consultant of foreign origin is paid 1.2 times more than a local worker. Add to this the costs associated with getting the visas processed and the cost associated with waiting for the employee to actually get to his work due to the visa regulations.
Then why do American companies keep wanting more and more foreign born labor? It is because local talent is lacking, and because they need to have workers from economies where they wish to operate. In todays global world, these multinational companies cannot hope to sell there product globally if they do not have a global workforce.
Furthermore, a foreign worker in the US is actually good for the US economy, especially in its stagnant time. At the end of the day, the foreign worker has to live in the US, so he has to spend money in the US, which puts the money he earns right back into the economy. Moreover, as a recent entrant to the country, the foreign worker is more likely to spend money on getting settled, i.e. buying consumer electronics, houses, and automobiles, injecting money into these trailing economies. Furthermore, the foreign worker pays exactly the same taxes (if not more) as every other US resident, which puts money back into the tax system, the foreign worker is required to pay into the social security system although he is not eligible for social security himself. So having a foreign worker abound is in no way hurtful to the economy.
The jobs that foreign workers take are such that no satisfactory US national has been found to perform that job, in fact that is one of the requirements of the H1-B visa, so it is quiet illogical to say that foreign workers take away US jobs. In this retrograde times for the US economy, there is a severe need of talented labor that is targeted towards a specific task. And if that labor is not available locally, US companies have to get it from abroad, if they are stopped from doing this, the only thing that is going to happen is that the jobs are going to go overseas, which will remove jobs perhaps permanently from the US soils.
The truth of the matter is that US is can no longer sustain the technological lead of the 80s, and the 90s. The rest of the world has caught up, and if the US wants to maintain its advantage of an early start and a fantastic university education system, it has to rely on attracting and retaining foreign talent. That is the only way forward in an increasingly global economy.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Save the Turtles, and still have the Port I say
The following letter (which I wrote) is regarding http://www.greenpeace.org/india/turtles/why-save-turtles
Apparently Tata is building a port at Dhamra which would affect the local sea life there adversly, especially the Turtles. Green peace is urging Tata to move, I am taking a different stand. I am urging Tata to set a trend in India where industrialization and nature can indeed co-exist.
Dear Mr.Tata,
I am writing to express my opinion about the Dhamra port project planned by the Tata group and the Larsen and Tubro group of companies. I am writinig becuase I think that the Dhamra project may prove to be an excellent platform for India's leading companies to showcase their dedication to a developed and sustainable India.
Solid infrastructure is imperative to India's growth. I am sure that when Tata and Larsen and Tubro chose the Dhamra coast as the location for the new port, you had nothing but sustainable growth on your mind. Building new infrastructure is certainly the right way to proceed in the direction of growth, but doing so with unison in the effect of the growth on nature is the right way to sustainable growth. The environmental impact of infrastructural growth needs be carefully analyzed and all threats even the most remote, must be rigorously addressed. Only then can sustainability in growth be guaranteed.
What then is the way forward. Clearly the first choice according to me would always be to relocate to a site which poses no direct threat to the environment. I understand however, that this may not always be possible. What then should the company do.
I think the answer is rather simple, if a port must be built then it must be built, however it need not be built in such a way that it threatens the environment. Consider the Car plant of Subaru in Lafayette, Indiana, United states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru). This is the only plant in the world that is a certified wild life habitat. A living proof of the fact that technology, and also industry can co-exist with nature.
As a global leader Tata is well positioned to leverage its world class talent pool to develop design methods for port development that do not threaten the environment, and specifically the turtles that share the coast with us. It is certainly worth the while to invest money and effort in coming up with ways of having the port at the same location but not threatening the ocean life. I think such an effort would be as commendable as Tata's dedication to the environmentally friendly Air powered car. I think the Dhamra port project would be an excellent opportunity for the Tata group to lay the foundation of tomorrows India. An Industrialized nation that at the same time is in touch with its environment.
I ernestly urge you to take on this challenge with all your might. Let us spear head the new industrial revolution, let us show the world that nature and industrialization can indeed co-exist.
Girish Chowdhary
Atlanta USA.
Apparently Tata is building a port at Dhamra which would affect the local sea life there adversly, especially the Turtles. Green peace is urging Tata to move, I am taking a different stand. I am urging Tata to set a trend in India where industrialization and nature can indeed co-exist.
Dear Mr.Tata,
I am writing to express my opinion about the Dhamra port project planned by the Tata group and the Larsen and Tubro group of companies. I am writinig becuase I think that the Dhamra project may prove to be an excellent platform for India's leading companies to showcase their dedication to a developed and sustainable India.
Solid infrastructure is imperative to India's growth. I am sure that when Tata and Larsen and Tubro chose the Dhamra coast as the location for the new port, you had nothing but sustainable growth on your mind. Building new infrastructure is certainly the right way to proceed in the direction of growth, but doing so with unison in the effect of the growth on nature is the right way to sustainable growth. The environmental impact of infrastructural growth needs be carefully analyzed and all threats even the most remote, must be rigorously addressed. Only then can sustainability in growth be guaranteed.
What then is the way forward. Clearly the first choice according to me would always be to relocate to a site which poses no direct threat to the environment. I understand however, that this may not always be possible. What then should the company do.
I think the answer is rather simple, if a port must be built then it must be built, however it need not be built in such a way that it threatens the environment. Consider the Car plant of Subaru in Lafayette, Indiana, United states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru). This is the only plant in the world that is a certified wild life habitat. A living proof of the fact that technology, and also industry can co-exist with nature.
As a global leader Tata is well positioned to leverage its world class talent pool to develop design methods for port development that do not threaten the environment, and specifically the turtles that share the coast with us. It is certainly worth the while to invest money and effort in coming up with ways of having the port at the same location but not threatening the ocean life. I think such an effort would be as commendable as Tata's dedication to the environmentally friendly Air powered car. I think the Dhamra port project would be an excellent opportunity for the Tata group to lay the foundation of tomorrows India. An Industrialized nation that at the same time is in touch with its environment.
I ernestly urge you to take on this challenge with all your might. Let us spear head the new industrial revolution, let us show the world that nature and industrialization can indeed co-exist.
Girish Chowdhary
Atlanta USA.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Quals, life, and 42
You know, if the answer to everything is 42, why really bother?
Well, just as Douglous put it, You still don't know the question. That's why.
I spent most of my waking (and a lot of the sleeping) time in the last three months studying for the quals. For those of you who don't know what Quals are, I envy your quals less haven of earthly pleasure. Those of you who do, I am pretty sure have at some point have gone through it. Well, in the Layman's words, quals are those exams which people who are going to grad school all fret about and apparently feel compelled to still take while no clear benifit is seen. In a sense the Layman would be right, there is no clear benefit to be seen from passing the quals (or as some would say, in going to grad school itself), it doesn't really get you graduated, people spend years after the quals working on their research in order to graduate. All it does, is that the mighty overlords of academia allow you to be happily bound in their service for a bunch of more years in order to pursue a PhD. If you fail the quals (twice) you are set free from the bounds, deemed fit for the real world, and thrown into it.
Alas, I am unfit for the real world, a lot of time have I to be spent in low paid graduate assitanceships to study for the quals it seems. For I have passed them and been deemed to be bound...
Where is the benefit you ask, why write this post, why force yourself to be confined in a room with two professors for 55 minutes thrice in a day you say. All that I will splutter in my complete state of utter exhaustion is that you have asked the right question.
The answer of course, is still 42.
Well, just as Douglous put it, You still don't know the question. That's why.
I spent most of my waking (and a lot of the sleeping) time in the last three months studying for the quals. For those of you who don't know what Quals are, I envy your quals less haven of earthly pleasure. Those of you who do, I am pretty sure have at some point have gone through it. Well, in the Layman's words, quals are those exams which people who are going to grad school all fret about and apparently feel compelled to still take while no clear benifit is seen. In a sense the Layman would be right, there is no clear benefit to be seen from passing the quals (or as some would say, in going to grad school itself), it doesn't really get you graduated, people spend years after the quals working on their research in order to graduate. All it does, is that the mighty overlords of academia allow you to be happily bound in their service for a bunch of more years in order to pursue a PhD. If you fail the quals (twice) you are set free from the bounds, deemed fit for the real world, and thrown into it.
Alas, I am unfit for the real world, a lot of time have I to be spent in low paid graduate assitanceships to study for the quals it seems. For I have passed them and been deemed to be bound...
Where is the benefit you ask, why write this post, why force yourself to be confined in a room with two professors for 55 minutes thrice in a day you say. All that I will splutter in my complete state of utter exhaustion is that you have asked the right question.
The answer of course, is still 42.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)