Chopra’s Point Relevant
Ajay Chopra’s introspective essay on the need to reinvent one’s company was very relevant. In times like last year, when people demanded more revenues than pure technology, Chopra’s article was timely. Kudos.

Sanjay Ahluwalia
Eatontown, NJ



Globalization? No, thanks!
Harvi Sachar defines Globalization as "the hunt to sell products and services at the highest price, while procuring products and services at the lowest price". This makes Greed its defining characteristic. There is no mention of the social values which are destroyed in the process. The automotive industry, to which he makes ample reference, makes a good case study. Twenty five years ago, in line with the above "hunt", this industry laid off 19,000 workers in the U.S., and replaced them with an equal number in Mexican maquiladoras. This created a shambles of the economy of Flint, Michigan, which still has not recovered. The effect on social values (crime, drugs, divorce and suicides) has been documented. Of course, 19,000 Mexican workers benefitted, but this benefit was short-lived. Now, courtesy of Globalization, these jobs have moved to China, where costs are even lower. This has wiped out the Mexican economy in the maquiladora states which border the US. The main reason that the cost of manufacturing a car is higher for General Motors than for Toyota and other foreign manufacturers is the payment in pension plan benefits for their retirees, which amounts to about $1200/car. Newly arrived companies do not have such social responsibilities. In fact, avoidance of such responsibilities often motivates the push for Globalization.

Harvi also points to the influx of foreign auto manufacturers into Mississippi, Texas, Alabama and South Carolina. The standard of living in these states is the lowest in the nation. For example, poverty in Alabama is pegged at an annual income of $4400, a decade lower than the figure for states such as California. None of these plants are unionized, and all attempts to unionize them have failed because their state governments are vehemently anti-union. These plants are maquiladoras, U.S.-style. I should add that an enormous amount of money was paid to Mercedes to come to Alabama, in addition to free land and many years of tax-free status. This has further pauperized the state, which is already poor by U.S. standards. I suspect that similar deals were cooked up by other states as a form of enticement.

The effects of Globalization are seen in many other industries. Let me end with an example that is close to my own interests, by referring to C.K.Kumar's letter in this issue. He points out that India is getting the BPO business because she is a low cost provider, and that this is bad for her in the long run. I agree.

I guess, Harvi, that I am not a fan of Globalization.

Sohrab K. Gandhi
Professor Emeritus
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY



Dangerous “Arming?”
Spinning off technology is all well and good, especially if it helps generate much needed reveue to fund further research and development but it should not be at the cost of transfering technology where we have an edge over other countries. Taking the example of the licensing of the Autolay software which helps identify carbon composites that helps make the aircraft lighter, are we not passing on an edge that we hold to a the European aircraft maker? More importantly many of these companies also manufacture combat aircraft. Most countries keep a tight lid on technological developments especially where they may have military applications. In such a situation, where every small advantage can accrue millions of dollars in R&D saved, one wonders if it is entirely necessary to put national security at risk, just so that the government can cut down on defence R&D expenditure.