I too have been in the Outsopurcing and Off-shoring market for 30 years for some of the largest enterprises and global banks, and yes, the world markets are now global and everyone has to think so, but it is not as simple as "Oh, it is cheaper to do, therefore it is the right way...".
What has to be considered is the larger picture of ecconomic impact. Off-shoring, which is what we are really refering too as it can be captive too (i.e. employees employed abroad) has an impact on the profitability and margin of a company, for sure. This ensures that it can give greater shareholder value (dividends) and hence Exec bonuses, and then when competition starts to do the same, theycan lower their prices too. Great if you are a shareholder and Exec. It has fueled the ecconomic growth of the nations that the off-shoring is done to, such as India, China, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Korea, Vietnam, etc, etc. as employees now have money, and they share with family who all spend locally which in tern fuels that local ecconomy and hence new businesses spring up to service the new businesses and business being done and the wealth gets greater and it impacts on the national ecconomy as a whole. GREAT. NOW THE BUT.
The ecconomy is a cycle. What created the wealth and ecconomic growth in the countries and communities that off-shoring took place to, is exactly the same, but in reverse locally. Now we have ecconomic gettos. Whilst it looks like the UK ecconomy is doing well, it is ONLY for the top 0.01% who are doing astoundingly - the plutocrats. In the histoiry of the UK ecconomy there has never been such a devide between the haves and have nots. The argument is there are not the skills in the UK. Wrong, there are not the skills at the price corportaes are prepared to pay, and would have to pay to have an equivellent. The cost of living in the UK is 20 times that of India! No one could survive, never mind why should you have all that technical excellence in your chosen subject to get paid an appitence and need subsidies from the state (Benefits, which are being cut and major enterprises avaid pay taxes to contribute too). I would also argue and have more than first hand experience that UK expertise is as good if not better than their off-shore counterparts, excluding Poland. So, local ecconomies are not healthy and the cycle goes on going round such that now these big corporates also have falling revenues and margins, why, because the people they displaced and the ecconomies they are part of are their customers and now have no monies to buy their goods! One of the high street banks is actually considering geting rid of most of its managers, not for efficiencies, but because there are not enough staff left in the UK to manage anymore. SO they will have only a few branch staff and managers and Execs, that's it, the rest are all in India.
The UK invests 600% more in India for instance than the other way round, yet India is 2000 times larger and will be the World's largest ecconomy whilst the UK will struggle to be in G20 within 20 years. That is why the Indian Forign Minister came to the UK the moment he was elected in to positioon and the Prime Minister came here last week and was arguing to have all UK controls on Indian workers coming here, lifted, so that they could undercut UK employment rates, not pay taxes and take our salaries back to India to fuel their ecconomic growth, It is wrong. The ecconomies have to be balanced. Sooner or later the UK ecconomy will fail, and then India will loose it's biggest customer.
All the best,
https://diceus.com/outsourcing-india-bad-idea/
