Slashdot Mirror


Software Tariffs and US IT Outsourcing?

HeelToe asks: "A while back I worked with someone who thought the US should simply impose tariffs on imported products to adjust their price to equalize foreign labor rates to the US minimum wage. I was laid off and my position moved to Canada last year. Since then, I've thought a lot about his ideas, as well as one of our topics of conversation a while back: Why doesn't the US tax the import of software? It seems to me like they should. It's not a "tangible" product (same reason used to deny my co-workers and me NAFTA and Trade Act benefits), but when someone outsources to another country with cheap labor for any other industry, there are usually import tariffs. Why is software different, and how would this change the climate of US IT jobs leaving for other parts of the world if we did tax software imports? I've done some looking on the web, but can find nothing in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. I did find this thread from a few months back on informationweek.com's Career Development Forum, but not much else. What does Slashdot think?"

574 comments

  1. Depends on the situation by Drunken+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But it seems it would be largely futile to impose such tariffs, as usually international software developement is done by satellite offices of US-based companies, thus making them immune.

    Otherwise, it could be similar to the issue of the "Made in America" labels that can be put on any product partially constucted within the United States. So if a widget is manufactured in Mexico, but put together in the US it can still bare the label, exempting it from some tariffs. So for coding and other computer style products, this can be worked around by doing the majority of the work outside the country with the cheaper labor, then wrapping it all up within the borders.

    --
    Have you been stalked by Seth today?
    1. Re:Depends on the situation by pdan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Write code abroad, and compile in US

    2. Re:Depends on the situation by bwh265 · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are some significant differences between Trade Rules (NAFTA, HT Etc.) and Labelling.

      Application of NAFTA rules to items with foreign content involves breaking the item apart into it's constituents and assigning values to each part based on cost, labor, and country of origin for that part. Then if enough is NAFTA made, no duty (simplified version). So while, Mexico and Canada wouldn't get hit, India, Singapore etc. could potentially be tariffed. Packaging is usually not a significant cost factor in the calculation from my experience.

      The application of international trade tariffs to software is otherwise difficult. The old bits Vs. atoms problem.


      bwh

      - A proud Canadian ashamed of his federal gov't.

    3. Re:Depends on the situation by saider · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, you cant just assemble it here and say "Made in America". Some years ago I worked for a domestic electronics maufacturer. Their label read "Assembled in America from foriegn and domestic parts". When I asked the marketing folks why it wasn't "Made in America", they said it was because we did not have enough domestic components to qualify. All our IC's and discrete components were imported. Only about 10% of the parts were actually made here in the USA.

      But all of this is just hearsay.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    4. Re:Depends on the situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Slashdot broken again?

      I demand a refund!

    5. Re:Depends on the situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " So if a widget is manufactured in Mexico, but put together in the US it can still bare the label, exempting it from some tariffs. " My friend. What part of " put together " is applicable to an intellectual property that is expected to work once it gets to the customer? If you have to Value Add the product to the extent that it crossed the border ' broken ' then you add something that makes it work, THAT IS taxable/subject to tariff and not at some rate set by any manufacturer(s) involved! It was an unfinished product someone had to work on even if you automate the process. A physical object, a " widget " I see your point,...but IP in a box, you must take out of that box to ' finish ' has significant exposure to cost, time/deadline and taxes; it can be tariffed to death now.

    6. Re:Depends on the situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, where are they loosing these jobs, anyway? How exactly to you "loose" a job, eh?

    7. Re:Depends on the situation by Shivantrill · · Score: 1

      This is correct and not just heresay. The laws on labeling changed about 5-10 years ago. The manufacturer I worked for at the time had to replace the labels we put on our PC boards from "Made in USA" to "Made in USA of foreign and domestic parts". This tripled the length of the label and it had to be wider. It was a challenge on some of the boards to find a place to put the label where it would fit.

      --
      Karma, We don't need no stinkin' karma!
    8. Re:Depends on the situation by Alan+Cox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Humourous or otherwise, it demonstrates one of the reasons the US cannot handle this - source code is speech so protected.

      The entire western economic system is going to implode, just as Japan has done (partly saved by its wildly different culture and huge farming protection rules). The same process - the innovators dilemma - works for countries too. We are inefficient, we are expensive, we lose the layers of industry just as the model says. Soon all that will be viable is lawyers and finance houses, then the whole pile collapses.

      Ironically the USA and EU had the power to stop this - they could have imposed taxes on incoming goods. They could have ringfenced that money to go back to workers in those countries, creating ecomic growth,. driving up demand for luxury goods and creating markets, instead they signed GATT and NAFTA and other treaties that drive work to the poorest without rewarding them. When there is no work left in the EU/USA who will buy the cars, the tv sets, the dvd players ?

    9. Re:Depends on the situation by eastern · · Score: 1

      Why is everyone so certain that the US is a net importer of software, (or of IP-centric products in general).

      Almost all non-open source software (and a lot of open-source software as well) used around the world is American. A situation where software is widely tariffed may not be such a good idea.

      Also, customs officials in almost every country regularly impute a 'fair and reasonable' (!) value to goods that the importer claims are free and impose duties.

      If you fly in with a gifted CD-player from abroad, you are likely to be taxed at the normal market value for that type of CD-player.

      So import tariffs for software could well lead to an import duty to be charged on, say, MySQL, taking SQL Server or Oracle prices as 'fair value'.

  2. Bad Idea by Ken@WearableTech · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is a bad idea. This tax will not prevent others from loosing jobs. Do you want the IRS going checking source code looking for poor english comments as a clue it was written elsewhere but compliled here?

    This tax will do three things:
    1. Software Will Cost More
    2. The Governemt Will Never Give Up This Tax (In 25 years great software may come from many nations, think about the future)
    3. Even Free Software May Be Subject to Tax or Fees
    People need to understand that when Corporations are taxed they never loose money; they just charge us more. The only thing that may work is a tax incentive to companies that use American Software.

    I'm just starting out in this career field but I can see the writing on the wall, alot of programming is going to go the way of manufactring, overseas.
    1. Re:Bad Idea by Blaine+Hilton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this just meens that Americans should "move up" to arguably more advanced jobs then just a standard code monkey.

    2. Re:Bad Idea by JohnWiney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In my experience, corporations never loose money, except to senior executives. They often lose it, of course.

    3. Re:Bad Idea by chickenwing · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "People need to understand that when Corporations are taxed they never loose money; they just charge us more. The only thing that may work is a tax incentive to companies that use American Software."

      From economics, we know that both the supplier and consumer bear the costs of a tarriff. The elasticity of the demand curve determine the distribution of these costs.

      That being said, im not sure i completely buy into all this economic mumbo-jumbo, especially as I am out of work and am happy to lay the blame on everyone but myself

    4. Re:Bad Idea by koh-der · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Absolutely a bad idea, i agree. Just because your job moved up to canada does not mean the grass is greener over here (yes I am in Canada). And trust me, it is as bad up here. My friend just got laid off because the company is moving the whole operation to China...

      Tariffs could have negative effects not directly but indirectly. Take sugar for instance. Odd example, but hear me out. Sugar has an import tariff to protect the US sugar manufacturers. It protected the manufacturers but it had a huge indirect effect. Since the sugar prices were cheaper (especially in Canada), all the candy manufacturers moved up to Canada.

      Now think software. If software tariffs indeed is feasible and succeed, sure it might protect software manufacturers, but what about those who depend on them? If a software for factories (robots, assembly line etc) is imposed tariffs, where would the factories stand? What about consulting? Tax software? Could see CPA's opening up offices in canada just to avoid the massive software prices...

      Rather than protectionism, I think more effort should be put towards innovation. Anyway, that is my 2 cents.

    5. Re:Bad Idea by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1
      a standard code monkey

      So if an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters will eventually bang out the complete works of Shakespeare, what would an infinite number of code monkeys on an infinite number of boxes crank out?

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    6. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:Bad Idea by 0x7F · · Score: 1
      This tax will do three things:
      1. Software Will Cost More
      2. The Governemt Will Never Give Up This Tax (In 25 years great software may come from many nations, think about the future)
      3. Even Free Software May Be Subject to Tax or Fees

      People need to understand that when Corporations are taxed they never loose money; they just charge us more.

      And less people buy their product (barring a monopoly), and that equates to money lost.
      The only thing that may work is a tax incentive to companies that use American Software.

      This incentive will do three things.
      1. Taxes Will Be Greater To Fund It
      2. Corporations Will Never Give Up This Incentive (as long as they can afford representitives)
      3. Free Software May Be Exempt From This Incentive, Making It Less Competitive
    8. Re:Bad Idea by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is what? Most decent programming jobs (i.e. not HTML or VB) require a relevant college degree, usually CS. What's beyond that in the business world? Management? It's hard to manage people on the other side of the world, and that's not what CS is about anyway (otherwise they'd get a MBA instead).

      The "move up" argument made perfect sense back when blue-collar, unskilled manufacturing jobs were exported. It provided more incentive for people to learn a trade, go back to school, get a college degree, etc. so they could get a better job. But if the college degree-requiring jobs are moving out of the country, the "move up" argument simply doesn't hold any more. There's only two ways to move up; into management (I explained why that won't work above), and into more advanced degrees. Well, a PhD in CS might be interested, but there's not a lot of jobs out there suited for that, except maybe in research. And there's nowhere near enough research jobs out there to support that many programmers.

      I'm starting to come to the conclusion that, for some, the answer may be to "move up" (or move out) to a country that has a healthier economy, and a better focus on things that are really important, like education, research, science, technology, etc. instead of how to make the most short-term profit at all costs.

    9. Re:Bad Idea by Delirium+Tremens · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Exactly. What I don't get about the American IT engineers is that the guy is either a computer science genius or a bad-ass coder. Nothing in between. No trouble-shooting skills. No creativity. No interest in excellence. Niet.

      What's the deal? You spent 4 years in an expensive College that gave you a Bachelor degree and all you care about is your bumper stickers? Darn.
      I thought the American IT guys were mostly people from MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, [INSERT_BIG_NAME_HERE], etc ... but I was so wrong.

      During the last 2 years, I interviewed close to 30 people for a couple of Software Architect position sin Atlanta. Most people who were remotely qualified were H1 guys from India. The few Americans that were actually good enough on paper went back home wondering what the hell happened during the interview. Shit, I ended up sending them the questions beforehand and they still got surprised by what hit them.

      But then, when I look at what is actually taught in some of those overhyped colleges, maybe the only value is in that bumper sticker... It is definitely time to "move up" to more advanced qualifications.

    10. Re:Bad Idea by tybalt44 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Freshmeat.

    11. Re:Bad Idea by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      "This tax will do three things:
      1.)Software Will Cost More
      "
      Bull. Since this fiasco started software prices have remained the same or even went up while labor has been exported. This is a false argument by lobbiest looking for cheap labor. The CEO's pocket the difference.

      "2.)The Governemt Will Never Give Up This Tax (In 25 years great software may come from many nations, think about the future)"

      This is a good thing since it will protect innovation and American jobs. If a taiwanese company came in and sold sneakers for $2.99, Nike will be bankrupt.

      "
      3.)Even Free Software May Be Subject to Tax or Fees"


      How can something that does not cost anything be taxed? The only thing protectively taxed is if a service such as labor went into developing the product. As long as its not paid then its not taxed. A %10,000 tax on something thats zero is still zero.

      "I'm just starting out in this career field but I can see the writing on the wall, alot of programming is going to go the way of manufactring, overseas.
      "


      Well thank lack of protective tarrifs for this. All items including labor have protective tarrifs because America will turn into a third world country without them. Ceo's want to abolish the middle class and have us be servants instead of paid professionals. I say bullshit!

    12. Re:Bad Idea by Delirium+Tremens · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your certifications and advanced degrees will only get you past a short-sighted HR recruiter.
      It's your wits, experience, technology exposure, past and present learning appetite, critical mind, well-presented opinions and IT culture that will get you the job.
      Well, you don't need all that, but you do definitely need a sane mix of some of them.

    13. Re:Bad Idea by Ken@WearableTech · · Score: 1

      "those dirty bastards are pretty much incompetent" You may be racist but you will die young. Indian's have a huge influence on new medical technology. Be sure not to take any meds when you're sick as they might have been invented by those dirty bastards, fuckhead.

    14. Re:Bad Idea by bluprint · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Holy crap is this post misguided... By the way, I *wish* a Taiwanese company would sell Nike-equivalent (same quality, etc.) sneakers for 2.99.

      --
      A modern day witchhunt.
    15. Re:Bad Idea by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      Wrong wrong wrong, Japan makes products and we buy them, so dont give me the "third world cannot survive" bullshit.

      The third world can start their own software companies, we have our software companies, and the companies with better software sell all over the world. We dont need our big companies to get bigger, we need smaller companies to form in Japan to compete with our companies.

      Sony vs Microsoft is a good example.

      "
      And less people buy their product (barring a monopoly), and that equates to money lost"

      How much money big corperations have does not matter, small corperations will form an make software, so who cares what happens to Microosft? Work somewhere else.

      The gov will never give up the tarif? Fine, at least I'll have a job in 25 years.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    16. Re:Bad Idea by kenthu · · Score: 1

      >My friend just got laid off because the company is moving the whole operation to China...

      Interesting. My colleague, who has temporarily relocated from China, tells me that programmers there are having a hard time finding jobs, too.

    17. Re:Bad Idea by rodgerd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Another example similar to your sugar one: US steel tarrifs, ruled illegal by the WTO anyway, have cost more jobs (US compaies who rely on steel laying people off) that it's saved.

    18. Re:Bad Idea by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say all the candy is made in Canada. Hershey PA, is still around.

    19. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows

    20. Re:Bad Idea by I+Am+The+Owl · · Score: 1

      You think Japan is somehow part of the Third World? Were you dropped on your head as a child?

      --

      --sdem
    21. Re:Bad Idea by saider · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a good thing since it will protect innovation and American jobs. If a taiwanese company came in and sold sneakers for $2.99, Nike will be bankrupt.

      Last I heard, Nike is a company that farms out it's manufacturing to overseas factories. So what point are you trying to make, exactly?

      And there are plenty of shoe manufacturers that create sneakers for $2.99. But they don't have the Nike marketing machine behind it (which is what you really pay for) to promote their products.

      How can something that does not cost anything be taxed? The only thing protectively taxed is if a service such as labor went into developing the product. As long as its not paid then its not taxed. A %10,000 tax on something thats zero is still zero.

      All taxes are not percentage based. Gasoline has a tax that is based on the units sold. You pay $0.65 per gallon instead of %25. Free software could very well be taxed into non-free (beer) status. The price would be all tax.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    22. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please oh Please mod the parent funny, infinite monkeys on infinite boxes results in......freshmeat, some of you know just how bad coding can get from that site alone :-)

    23. Re:Bad Idea by ruriruri · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Maybe the good ones elected not to work with someone whose smart-ass arrogance flashes like a neon sign.

    24. Re:Bad Idea by MegaHamsterX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well put, a degree is a piece of paper that shows you were obedient enough to attend class, memorize the texts for short periods of time, and possibly code something trivial to pass, march in step, don't ask questions.

      I feel the attention given to the college degree has decreased its value. Far too many people believe the way to the [insert fancy import car] and huge house is a degree. [Paste death and taxes rant here]

      College was not high school, you should have learned something for the amount of money you spent, then using that knowledge, apply reason to your world. The rest of us figured it out after having to earn a living after high school, in my case it was building and installing computers and networks (actually that's why I dropped out, money calls).

      I'm glad the jobs are moving off-shore; it will make it easier for me to hire people at a low price with "prestigious" college degrees and certifications a dime a dozen.

      So it may not be working out for you, but it is for me.

      One last thing, NAFTA should include all the Americas, while I may not care what occurs on the other side of the planet, I would at least like to see everyone in my hemisphere have a better life.

    25. Re:Bad Idea by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

      They were. They arent anymore, and thats exactly my point, the reason they arent is because they were allowed to develop their own companies without our big global companies taking over their country.

      Sony was founded, along with all the others.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    26. Re:Bad Idea by gmack · · Score: 1

      Actually thanks to the web that theory has been disproven.

    27. Re:Bad Idea by HBI · · Score: 4, Insightful

      College degrees are near-useless for identifying actual skill. All it signifies is that you had or borrowed the money to pay for the classes, and didn't drink or mud so much that you got tossed out. At some schools, it's even near-impossible to get thrown out.

      The curriculum is outdated and in most cases concentrates on practical know-how when theory would be much more appropriate given the 5 year time lag between actual practice and curriculum. When I was in college (87-91) they were teaching Pascal on AT&T 3B2s when C was the dominant language. The AT&T boxen were even then relatively ancient.

      I doubt it's much different in Europe, and my impression of qualitative skill from foreign offices of companies i've worked for doesn't say that things are much different in Europe or the Far East.

      You obviously haven't been interviewing for long to not have already gotten this down, or haven't watched employee life cycles.

      In closing, The overall best IT guy I ever saw was a guy with a GED and no college. I don't even bother interviewing people with advanced degrees much - they are usually useless in practice.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    28. Re:Bad Idea by HeelToe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Interesting.

      I think my best asset is the huge problem solving base I developed (really, learned how to develop) while at university. I went to Virginia Tech, which at the time, had a reasonably known program, but the basic philosophy was to teach us by forcing us to use unix for all our coursework. I had seen it in high school CS classes and knew it was better than butter on bread, but this didn't keep me from experiencing all manners of problems with it. It helped me by showing me I must learn to recognize patterns of software failure, and how to analyze a system as a whole, rather than just the 15 lines of code above and below the bug.

      Anyway, I've not had the opportunity to do a whole lot of interviewing of others, but when I've interviewed, I noticed most people just don't ask the technical questions. Maybe this had led the industry's interviewees to never expect a hard interview.

      In the interview for my current position the huge technical section was to explain why Java had both interfaces and still left the ability to create an abstract base class. I think they asked me to describe MVC, as well, but come on, that's completely pervaded the industry buzz word lists.

      In my opinion, one of the big barriers to having creativity and a drive for excellence is this dogged attachment to "my code." I've seen it in so many people.

      I've long felt that the code I write represents how well I understand the problem it tries to solve. If I can solve it more elegantly or efficiently, I'm happy to throw away old code. Many of my peers have not been willing to do so. Once they write it they try to hang on to it forever.

      I think we need a true certification in our field, along the lines that engineers have. These pop-technology certifications are way overhyped and don't usually mean much in terms of a person's capabilities. To find a good candidate, you must find out how people think about problems and what they try to do in order to solve them. Obviously there's a practical technological/CS basis that must underly it, but without a good approach to solving problems, it's often wasted.

    29. Re:Bad Idea by HeelToe · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thanks for the well-thought out analogy.

      I've not made up my mind about whether software should be taxed. I honestly don't think the government could truly levy the tax anyway, because enforcement would be hard. I mostly find it a somewhat hypocritical stance to tax one form of import but completely ignore another.

      Oh, and my job did move up to Canada, but I don't really feel like the grass is greener there. I keep in touch with folks still from the Canadian office and they have it as bad or worse than a lot of people here in the US. I guess I just included that commentary because it put a context around why I had those discussions with an ex cow orker.

      I've been attempting to emphasize to potential employers that I have good technical skills, great writing skills, good presentation skills, and a willingness to help management see the business value and reason behind building high quality software. This in the long run I hope will be my differentiator and keep me employed when most of the "here, hammer out the spec for me in C#" type work goes overseas.

    30. Re:Bad Idea by Trinition · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The probelm is that the "bad-ass coders" and "computer science geniuses" work for the MBAs who would rather force you to cut corners to make a short-term deadline than worry about long-term costs and other repurcussions. In an ideal world, the "bad-asses and geniuses" would refuse to work, but there's nagging thing about food on the table and clothes on the backs.

    31. Re:Bad Idea by Trinition · · Score: 1

      Right. Going to college for CS doesn't make you better at programming. It does force you to learn other areas you might not normally care to consider. It forces you to learn time and resource management. Its a much better example of beauracracy than one could ever find in high schools.

      Now since the real world of programming isn't 100% CS, it turns out all of these other implicit things you pick up in college help you more than you would ever expect.

      Yeah, knocking college is great. Grades don't indicate how smart you are. They indicate how well you play the game. And guess what people the real world is just a game too.

    32. Re:Bad Idea by Catbeller · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's your wits, experience, technology exposure, past and present learning appetite, critical mind, well-presented opinions and IT culture that will get you the job.


      And the ability to work for US$5,000 - US$10,000 dollars a year. If you can't do that, skill mixes and experience won't count for much. It's the bottom line that counts.

    33. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, good to finally see someone with this opinion..lol..i spent about 3 months searching for a job. i found 1 company out of around 300 that was willing to look at my resume let alone my vast amounts of code on a ftp site organized by language ready for HR people to look at once they found out i had dropped out of school and had a ged. i was 17 at the time, i am now 18 and am joining the army(leaving for bootcamp next monday) - to do a communications job that is so classified they won't tell me until i get to AIT training(thats after bootcamp). oh, and out of the 5 or so that looked at my code before finding that i was a dropout(do to fax errors) were saying that i was the top-candidate(over the phone), then i tell them i am 17 with a ged and they say the position requires some sort of bs degree..i hate beurecrats(spelling was never a strong point, just math/science(mainly quantum mechanics and computers:) )).

    34. Re:Bad Idea by praefect · · Score: 0

      Japan was a third world country....

      Yeah, I heard they were riding horses until 1908...

      fuckin moron!

      fuck you.

    35. Re:Bad Idea by HanzoSan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Taiwanese companies cannot compete with Nike, Nike just buys them.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    36. Re:Bad Idea by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      Doom 3....
      or wait, is that the work of just one 700 lbs Gorilla? :)

    37. Re:Bad Idea by drugdealer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here are more details about the sugar/candy issue: http://www.libertysearch.com/articles/2002/000034. html

      If U.S. software companies have to pay high tariffs in order to outsource work to India (and other sources of cheap, yet highly skilled labor), some of them may move to Canada in order to avoid the tariff. (Moving directly to India would also be an option, but I think U.S. executives would be more inclined to move their companies to Canada for language/cultural reasons. In other words, if the choice is between moving to India or moving to Canada and then outsourcing to India, I think most U.S. executives would prefer the latter.)

    38. Re:Bad Idea by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but depending on the job environment, the type of person that tends to buck the system may be what is NEEDED. If you're looking for someone to simply spend all day writing patches or straight-forward applications, then yes, someone who plays by the book might be best. But if you're trying to fill a position that requires creativity and novel approaches, it's always been my experience that the coder that plays by his own rules will be able to accomplish far more, while the CS grad that likes to jump through the hoops will be so constricted by the "rules" of what they're doing, that they aren't able to think outside the box in the way that some jobs often need.

      I tend to think that knowing how to do your job is important, but there's a point where you become over-trained, and don't really know how to think for yourself. The best coders are the ones who find a balance between the two.

    39. Re:Bad Idea by drugdealer · · Score: 1

      I would say that it is more of a practical stance than a hypocritical stance.

      hypocrisy (dictionary.com)
      1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
      2. An act or instance of such falseness.

      Have lawmakers proclaimed that all imports should be taxed equally? My guess would be no. Variations in taxes and tariffs are the rule rather than the exception.

    40. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How can something that does not cost anything be taxed? The only thing protectively taxed is if a service such as labor went into developing the product. As long as its not paid then its not taxed. A %10,000 tax on something thats zero is still zero.

      Even things that are free have value. Often for tax purposes, if an actual monetary value is not provided or available, the item will be compared to some similar products, and a value derived from there.

    41. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

    42. Re:Bad Idea by HBI · · Score: 1

      The institutional ennui of colleges hardly prepares you for working for a fast moving company in someplace like New York.

      I find people having to _unlearn_ bad habits more than demonstrating any good ones. The best hires I have ever made were former military personnel. There you learn some time and resource manaagement and how to navigate a bureaucracy.

      Strange but true.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    43. Re:Bad Idea by ADRA · · Score: 1

      The only answer I can give would be 'slashdot' :-)

      --
      Bye!
    44. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooooh.. someone is frustrated!

    45. Re:Bad Idea by twilightzero · · Score: 1

      I feel your pain...

      I did finish HS, although bored out of my skull and then some. Went to a little college, found it unbelievably boring and way too much like a "big kids' high school". And I've several times run into the you don't have a degree get out of my office attitude, although that's starting to change quite a bit from what I see. A lot of IT managers (at least the ones with more brains than the chair they sit on) are realizing that most college-trained CS-wielding code monkeys these days have absolutely no interest in computers and therefore are basically unable to pick up anything new or be able to think even remotely outside the box without a class to teach them how. Several managers I've worked with actually were beginning to not even look at degrees (one guy as far as having his secretary black marker the education section of all incoming resumes!). They're finding out that formal education is NOT the only game in town, and that many times self educated coders are far superior to formally educated ones. After all, if you learned it all yourself, obviously you were interested AND motivated enough to digest it and understand it all without a teacher/boss telling you to.

      damn it's late...hope at least a little of this makes sense ;)

      --

      "Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
    46. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone mod this guy as funny.

      Japan; was a third world company and only isn't because the US companies 'allowed' them to develop their own companies...ROTFLMAO.

      I guess GM and ford 'allowed' Japan to kick their asses, steal their customers and money.

      It's so funny.

      HanzoSan, you are a grade 'A' moron, but thanks for the chuckle.

      Now stop whining and learn to be nice when you ask "Do you want fries with that?"

    47. Re:Bad Idea by platypus · · Score: 1

      Look for mathematicians and physics guys which did something in the theoretical field. If you find someone in this circles who is able to communicate (that's actually the hard part), you'll get people trained to be very flexible.

    48. Re:Bad Idea by platypus · · Score: 1

      That's another point where the economy of software is different from other branches.

      When two companies A and B make a word processor, and B folds, all A has to do is to press more cds, there's no point in hiring another programmer.
      Btw. that's exactly (IMO) where Bruce Perens is right.

    49. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason Bollywood is the only image the pops into my mind. Those silly buggers.
      Wasn't Ken Williams the founder of Sierra On-Line? Hey Ken, where's Leisure Suit Larry 8?

    50. Re:Bad Idea by Beliskner · · Score: 1
      Experience is the key. This is because as part of a CS degree you aren't taught practical skills(I know - I went to a good college). In a job you are required to use a software product like VC++, and you have to have in your head all the necessary workarounds, such as Micro$oft scoping errors and know how to not code yourself into requiring pointer manipulation eg. &(*(&(p*)))++ and weird nuances such as &int(void*(void**(malloc)(25)))

      Software that we use is not intuitive and the workarounds are terrible, even something as simple as crystal reports requires an in-depth knowledge of hundreds of workarounds that only some guru would know. You have to "know" that due to a bug/something that using the ODBC driver to update data fields does not allow the data to be stored with the reports in the runtime subsystem, so you need to use the SQL-server interface to extract data because its OK for an SQL-Server to be unavailable, but it's not OK for an ODBC data source to suddenly disappear when you try to run the report an another machine.

      It should not need a CS-degree to write a "Hello World" program in PHP, but it does because you're supposed to magically "know" that Apache spits out HTML, and PHP modifies this HTML so you have to output valid HTML from a PHP script running on Apache. So a simple PHP "Hello World" program would give a parse error in your browser - no <HTML> <HEAD> <BODY> tags found in HTML document

      Our expectations of software are so byzantine that we don't even try to make it easier. The fact that it's just a bunch of workarounds means that it's so hard to learn all these things. For instance if I wanted to decrease the number of spinlocks in my linux kernel I have to magically "know" that I should download this patch and recompile the kernel with it. There's no button on the dekstop saying, "Click here to increase the responsiveness of you kernel". Actually most people don't know what a kernel is, my secretary was playing with her new stapler for three days so uhhhh I think our expectations are a bit high.

      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    51. Re:Bad Idea by divisionbyzero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, a lot of you have made good points about degrees not being necesary or even harmful. For the most part, I agree, but you shouldn't ignore someone just because they do have a degree. That's just the same stupid prejudice except in reverse. I do think degrees are useful for providing theoretical frameworks and historical contexts that can help programmer's make better design decisions than they would otherwise, but when it comes to getting something done, there is nothing like practical experience.

    52. Re:Bad Idea by Trinition · · Score: 1

      Military? Resource management. I too have worked with peopl from the military. It's just as wasteful as the rest of the government.

    53. Re:Bad Idea by battjt · · Score: 1

      The curriculum is outdated and in most cases concentrates on practical know-how when theory would be much more appropriate given the 5 year time lag between actual practice and curriculum.

      Right. That's why it doesn't matter if they teach in pascal, logo, haskel, lisp, or smalltalk. In school, my classes were taught in Ada, Pascal, lisp, SML, Mathematica, C. I haven't used any of those languages in the last 10 years. I've used ObjC, C++, Java, perl, javascript, delphi and some custom languages. I learned the theory. That's whats important.

      Joe

      --
      Joe Batt Solid Design
    54. Re:Bad Idea by fferreres · · Score: 1

      If you can't be smarter then bad luck, in the long run you will not be able to earn any more than other people do.

      The problem is the world as it is now is very unequal. Look at this example: you talk about the US against other countries workers, but you obviously don't argue between different states in the US. You assume you all guys inside the US must take what's offered and compete. Now, imagine if the world was one huge country...then there should be no problem. Nobody would outsource.

      So what you need to happen is for India to develop and grow and to ensure the benefits reach their citizens (if they are kept in slave like conditions everyone is screwed).

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    55. Re:Bad Idea by DeadSeaTrolls · · Score: 1
      Power to you man..

      People who proudly collect qualifications and certifications like medals are usually just fucking idiots. It's the kids in HS and college that already know their shit backward-and-forward that get frustrated and leave. I can recall my HS CS class some 20 years ago where the teacher would let me go and hack around on my own projects if I could summarize the solution to the class he was about to give. I think some jaws droped in the "bubblesort" class, the teacher tried his best but some of the people into the class just don't get it.

      Looking back at code I've written over the years, I'm still proud of the quality workmanship.

      People who learn to do stuff themselves, be it with computers or cars (or whatever) can almost always run rings around those who have been formally educated, and further if they come across something they don't understand they'll figure it out much quicker.

      As for employment, people have always come looking for me. Some might suggest that is luck or lazyness, but I think it's telling on how clued in people hire other clued in people.

      People lie on resumes, or at the very least overstate themselves or are economic with the truth. It's not about where you've been, it's about what you saw and understood. Work for people who understand what they are doing and how you fit into the plan. Work for companies where you can be rewarded by people empowered to give pay raises and bonuses when your work has made the company money.

      I have NO empathy for the original question poster. Having taxes or levys will solve nothing, I'm sorry your out of a job, but should I have to pay for your poor career and employment choices? A good mechanic will never be without work, if the garage he works for fails, he'll move straight to another or he'll do his own thing in his own time. I can't foresee a time when we'll stop using cars, or when they will stop breaking. The same is true of anyone who is a craftsman. Even if cars suddenly ceased to exist the troubleshooting skills and the ability to make things work is universal. Taxs and Levys only hurt those applying them, take a look at the stupid steel tarrifs, these directly hurt those who have needs which the home producers can't forfill, there are some steel drum manufactures around here who are in a lot of pain. Having a closed and insular market is shortsighted, it merely allows people to continually make the same mistakes again and again without really addressing the underlying failure.

      --

      "There's no scarcity of spectrum any more than there's a scarcity of the color green.", David Reed

    56. Re:Bad Idea by HBI · · Score: 1

      The fact the military (or any other part of the government) sucks to work for is not the fault of the people who signed up at a recruiting station, or even the officers.

      The fact the government sucks to work for is the fault of the civilian work force who have nowhere to go, are mostly near retirement plus a union to protect them. Additionally, this is the fault of the lawmakers who insist on mandating particular organizational structures that don't make much sense from the perspective of getting work done.

      Everyone knows things aren't working right, but the solutions proferred are the equivalent of using a howitzer on a cockroach. They are big and painful and fix tiny problems, rather than the large ones that would have real benefits. These solutions are usually additions to the US Code, mandated by Congress. Congress cares about moving cash back to districts, not about actual government efficiency.

      Other things are complete boondoggles. I won't waste your time explaining. You or I would not want our money spent this way, but it is.

      Of course, the government employees by and large make sure that things move at as slow a pace as possible. Mostly because they don't understand the technology, but in some cases it is simply a power grab. Since civilian government employees in the military can't actually rise to command anything usually (military personnel are preferred), they try to find a nice niche and slow everything around them through the use of interminable meetings, deterring memos, influence with superiors, etc to enhance their personal power and prestige.

      The solution is to hire everyone as a contractor probably - civilian government employees are a lazy bunch (with a few gems buried amongst the shit) and it's fairly clear that jobs are a patronage prize, at least the good ones. The professional military people are in the most part motivated, well culled for efficiency, and need no fixing.

      At least you can hire/fire contractors rapidly. Just don't blame uniformed personnel for the actions of crappy lawmakers though.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    57. Re:Bad Idea by Saeger · · Score: 1
      summary: "programming is counterintuitive; arcane knowledge also required" ... news at 11.

      The trend over the years, though, has been toward higher and higher levels of abstraction. So, it is getting easier, but maybe you haven't noticed?

      I started with nightmarish x86 assembly, moved to ***pointer-hell C, then to OO Java & Python (skipped C++ ... yay).

      You used to have to config apache via 3 separate config files, which were then rolled into httpd.conf, which now has gui frontends to make it even easier.

      I guess what you were getting at is that are always little bits of arcane real-world knowledge which can't be taught, but which you have to pick up (google groups! :) in order to be effective. But there are tricks to every trade. A mechanic might know to my left-front tire with a hammer to fix the stuck blinker light, but I wouldn't.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    58. Re:Bad Idea by mekkab · · Score: 1

      SIDE NOTE:Dewd, TURN ON COMMENTS IN YOUR JOURNAL.

      Other than that- I also agree out sourcing is a bad idea, simply so I can get past the lamness filter.

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  3. Because they can't by Telastyn · · Score: 1

    How do you determine where the software comes from? It's simple to incorperate in the US. It's simple to package product in the US even if the coders aren't here. It's simple to compile or make the code available in the US, even if the coders aren't here.

    1. Re:Because they can't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Friend.
      A paradigm shift is in order.
      Tariff makers should not care where the code was made. The point is, YOU SELL IT!
      I want taxes from you and any effect reduced taxes will have on my National purse strings wil be made up by tariffs on the product you pick up on the cheap in China. I donot need to see the source code, just your balance sheets and SEC filings. After all, the developed world has to keep its machinery well oiled and running off to Russia should not effect the devil getting his due! Especially since it was made so cheaply,...the margins at Microsoft are about 83 per cent across all products, which means Microsoft is SELLING at premium prices software it got dirt cheap - it is tariff time!

  4. Nooooo! by spencerogden · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tariffs are always a bad idea. Instead of looking at way to implement them in the software industry we should looking at how to remove them from other areas. The only people tariff hurt are consumers, who have to pay more for the product.

    I am a soon to be CS grad, and I am scared of the current job market. But if software can be produced better and cheaper elsewhere, oh well. Tariff are just crutch.

    1. Re:Nooooo! by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "But if software can be produced better and cheaper elsewhere, oh well. Tariff are just crutch."



      Good McDonalds wants you! Please clean the grill and cover for the drive thru window. Thank you.

      Ha, you wanted cheaper software right? You got it!

      Your too expensive and can not work for minimal wage.

      Now how do you feel? Tarrifs are part of standard imports on goods for the last century. When you buy sneakers, they are tarrified, when you buy a foreign car its tarrified. If not then American would look more like Mexico or Argentina.

      We need tarifs now!

    2. Re:Nooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well thats fine for you, because I guess you have another easily obtainable career path. But for most of the rest of us coming out with $15,000+ in loans and needing jobs, its nice to have them. Not this "if I have no job then who gives a fuck".

      Think about what you just said, if you are really in need of a CS job. Are you going to say "so what" if you cant find a job, or its moved overseas?

      Think about this. You're in your job, you've got a family (wife 1.5kids) just purchased a house. Starting to save some money for retirement. Then your company moves your job overseas so you're done. They give you say 3-6mo notice. So you start looking for another job, but so does everyone else who just lost their job. The more this happens, the less likely you'll find a job.
      Still so slap happy about complete free markets?

    3. Re:Nooooo! by spencerogden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Now how do you feel?

      It sucks. I'd like to have job doing what I want. But I am not so arrogant to think that my industry should be protected at the detriment of the rest of the country. This same arguement, that we should have tariffs, leads to protectionism. Why should we allow immigration, they'll just take our jobs right? Tariff and other protectionist measures help a few, but do great harm to many.

    4. Re:Nooooo! by MarkedMan · · Score: 1

      I have to respectfully disagree. This is really just an example of policy by cult-like chanting (tarrrifffs are baaaddd, taxesss are baaaaaddd....) The idea that tarifs stand in the way of lower cost to consumers may be true, but it is also true that consumers lose their jobs to (literally) slave labor in China or India (before the flames begin, I'm thinking textiles, not software). We know what laissez-faire (now called free-market) economies look like: the US in 1908 with the people burning to death in sweatshops (quick: who said of their workers, "They're cattle, let 'em burn!"?), children hacking their lungs out working 14 hour days in asbestos plants, and the US government sending in troups to shoot union organizers. If you think I am exagerating then you don't know enough about real history to conduct a real discussion.

      If you don't think it could happen again, I would like to see your reasoning. It would take a lot to convince me to decide that our progress was in spite of the tariffs and unions you despise, and not because of it.

      And of course there are destructive tariffs and corrupt unions (believe me, I install stuff in a lot of union plants and unions are definately their own worst enemies). But when the books are balanced, the advances we have made in the US are due to those things, not in spite of them.

    5. Re:Nooooo! by Jodka · · Score: 1
      The only people tariff[s] hurt are consumers, who have to pay more for the product.

      FALSE. Tariffs hurt both producers and consumers. Tariffs increase manufacturing costs by increasing the prices which manufactures pay for equipment and supplies. Your error was that you failed to recognize that PRODUCERS ARE ALSO CONSUMERS; They consume the inputs to production.

      This is not just theory. The Wall Street Journal a while ago featured an article about extremely pissed-off Republicans who own and work at companies which manufacture things out of steel and compete to sell in the world market. Bush restricted steel imports, steel prices increased, and anyone who manufactured anything from steel in the US is now at a huge disadvantage. In fact, the US has a comparative advantage in manufacturing many things from steel, and a comparative disadvantage in manufacturing steel itself, so the harm might have been targeted selectivley at the US. That is, we might be losing more profits in sales of manufactured steel goods than are gained by US steel manufactures at the inflated steel prices. Looks like a direct shot to the foot. There might be some truth this rumor that Bush is moron. Chief Bush Apologist Peggy Noonan, in his defense, reported that Bush did not want to do it, it was congressional Democrats who wanted steel protection and W. traded that in exchange for fast-track trade negotiation. The fact makes him no less of an asshole for doing it, it does mean that the Democrats are assholes also.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    6. Re:Nooooo! by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      Now how do you feel?

      Personally, if the only reason I have a job is because there's a law keeping those who can do it better from having it, then I'd be ashamed. Wouldn't you?

      But I'm certain that I can provide more value than people who are ten time zones away, so I'm not worried. Competition from India may lower my salary from the boom-fueled absurd levels that it reached, but not enought that I'll sweat it.

      If not then American would look more like Mexico or Argentina.

      Bzzzt! Actually, there's strong statistical evidence that trade barriers make the people protected by them poorer. America historically has been a leader in lowering trade barriers, and that's part of why we're so rich.

      Really, if trade barriers helped make people behind them richer, shouldn't we have trade barriers between the states, too?

      Your too expensive [...] Tarrifs [...] tarrified [...] tarrified [...] tarifs

      Hey, I've got an idea! Let's pass a law so that people with strong grammar and spelling skills won't be allowed to work as writers. Then even if you can't get a job as a programmer, you'll always have something to fall back on.

      I'm sure all those magazines and books will be just as good, and if not, well, that's a small price to pay for making sure that the language-challenged have the full employment that is the right of every American citizen.

    7. Re:Nooooo! by spencerogden · · Score: 1

      There is a huge difference between economic controls such as tariffs, and laws which preventing worker abuse. I am well aware of what factory life was like in the 19th century, but I don't see how being against tariffs condones that situation. I am all for economic sanctions for human rights issue, but protectionism is just plain dumb.

      On a tangent, if a company opens a factory with bad conditions and low wages(compared to the US), but it offers the best working conditions and pay in the coutry it is located in I would lean towards this being a good thing. Would it be better that the factory wasn't there at all?

    8. Re:Nooooo! by spencerogden · · Score: 1

      Yes, 'only' was the wrong word. The point I meant to get across is that tariffs harm people in the protected country just as much as they hurt foreign manufacturers.

    9. Re:Nooooo! by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      the tariffs and unions

      Let's start out by separating these. I agree that unions have played an important role, and that they still can play a valuable one, even if they often don't. But I don't see any evidence that tariffs (or other trade barriers) ever improved worker rights.

      Indeed, I think trade barriers work against worker rights. Why? Because trade barriers make pepole poorer, and there's a strong correlation between wealth and human rights. A fine example of this is the two Koreas. Originally, both were roughly at par. One of them is now basically a giant concentration camp; the other is a booming democracy with real civil rights. But the South Koreans only got interested in such niceties once they were sufficiently well off.

      And of course there are destructive tariffs

      In the long term, all tariffs (and other trade barriers) are destructive. The only ones that might be a net benefit are very short-term, very focused ones that help ease a shock. But even those are risky, as "temporary" tariffs tend to become permanent. Better to just spend a little tax money on transition costs (worker retraining and the like) to ease the pain of trade-induced economic changes.

      For more info on why this is so, see my post on comparative advantage.

    10. Re:Nooooo! by eversunsoft · · Score: 1
      Agreed

      Tariffs will only serve to raise the overall cost of goods. The result of this will only be to make businesses less confident about the future.

      If someone is really concerned about the job situation, then it's time to learn a new skill, or a new way of thinking. A good first step would be to understand the true nature of capitalism and free markets. Something that is usually covered up by media and politics, which are controlled by special interests (read 'people with money, trying to make more').

      But, given the 75 billion dollar cost of war, it's unlikely that the overall prospects for anyones job are likely to improve anytime soon.

    11. Re:Nooooo! by hpa · · Score: 1
      If not then American would look more like Mexico or Argentina.

      Bzzzt! Actually, there's strong statistical evidence that trade barriers make the people protected by them poorer. America historically has been a leader in lowering trade barriers, and that's part of why we're so rich.

      Interestingly enough, both Mexico and Argentina has traditionally been highly protectionist countries.
    12. Re:Nooooo! by FPCat · · Score: 1

      Well put... We tariff you, you tariff us, everyone is hurt. We have lots of X, you have lots of Y, both countries jack up the price to hurt each other. The US (and other countries) seem bent on keeping their status by holding other nations down by not allowing them to compete on an open market for products that are mutually benefical. If western countries really wanted to help the 3rd world improve its standard of living, they wouldn't exploit them. Products are made in Tawain and China for one simple reason: Lower cost of labour. Yet the west does little to improve this problem, we just send aid packages to ease suffering. I'm not an American and have never lived in the US. I am Canadian, and I'm proud to live in a country that has open immigration policies that allow people to try and make a better life for themselves. I mean no disrespect to my southern friends, the US has proven itself as a powerhouse of innovation time and time again. I believe all citizens of western nations should allow others to compete equally in the world economy. However, in North America, Canada will rule... After all, we are bigger, and we're on top! :)

    13. Re:Nooooo! by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
      "Personally, if the only reason I have a job is because there's a law keeping those who can do it better from having it, then I'd be ashamed. Wouldn't you?"



      Are they really better or is it because your boss is greedy?

      Either way even if your highly qualified your demand will hit rock buttom which is what h1b1 lobiests want.

      "But I'm certain that I can provide more value than people who are ten time zones away"

      And if you are laid off and need a new job where your speciality is oversaturated and all the companies IT budgets are slashed because the CEO's know they can hire Indians?

      CEO's are slashing IT budgets because they know can find cheap labor. You may have great skills but the current IT budgets can not fill your salary. You have to match that salary skills or no skills or do not get hired. Plain and simple.

      Part of the reason for the huge slashes is that programmers are viewed as standard commodities that do not bring money into the buttom line. They do not give a shit about your skills if you do not make them money. Therfore an underskilled Indian would be more appropriate then you for the job.

      "Bzzzt! Actually, there's strong statistical evidence that trade barriers make the people protected by them poorer. America historically has been a leader in lowering trade barriers, and that's part of why we're so rich."



      Any proof of this? If anything its the other way around. During the begining of America you could only hire locals so the price of labor went up. Then during the early 20th century factories in Europe were bombed from 2 world wars. America became powerfull because they had the factories and well paid laborers to trickle back down to the economy. Trade barriers began to go down when Clinton accepted money from campaign contributers looking for cheap labor. The current economic slump is partially from cheap labor thanks to NAFTA.

      Also minimum wage laws helped the us economy spreading more wealth back. Is sweatshop labor really helping underdeveloped countries or CEO's pockets? Without laws guarding minimum wage come into existance, these economies will remain poor.

      98% of the world's wealth is owned by 2% of the people. And now this is not enough. The rich are crying boo hoo!

      This number is getting worse and worse and it wasn't this high until the late 19th and early 20th century when cheap immigrants came into this country and brougth demand down. Also conservative politicans and monopolists ruled the economy in many sectors like today. The economy tanked and the rich just got richer. Laws came into place regarding factory conditions and minimum wage and this redistrubted the wealth back. History is repeating itself.

      "Hey, I've got an idea! Let's pass a law so that people with strong grammar and spelling skills won't be allowed to work as writers. Then even if you can't get a job as a programmer, you'll always have something to fall back on.

      I'm sure all those magazines and books will be just as good, and if not, well, that's a small price to pay for making sure that the language-challenged have the full employment that is the right of every American citizen."


      Again you assume foreign programmers wont be hired because they are inferior. Your analogy here is inaccurate.

      All this is is a way to overload supply so they can bring down demand. The ceo's are all laughing there asses off to the bank while you support them.

      You bring up earlier that we should all be ashamed if laws were here to keep us employed. I feel the same way in regards to CEO's who should feel ashamed that the only reason they create offshore jobs at unethically low wages is because of a loophole in tarrif laws that should apply.

    14. Re:Nooooo! by Bodrius · · Score: 1

      You don't know much about Mexico or Argentina, do you?

      Or almost any almost-developed-but-never-quite-made-it country in Latin America?

      Because as far as I understand they didn't get into that situation through deep respect for liberal economics.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    15. Re:Nooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Retard!

      haha. Nice english. Moderators mod this parent down.

    16. Re:Nooooo! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Because as far as I understand they didn't get into that situation through deep respect for liberal economics.

      Most if not all economic and social problems throughout the third world can be blamed on massively corrupt governments.

    17. Re:Nooooo! by dubl-u · · Score: 1
      "Bzzzt! Actually, there's strong statistical evidence that trade barriers make the people protected by them poorer. America historically has been a leader in lowering trade barriers, and that's part of why we're so rich."
      Any proof of this? If anything its the other way around.

      Sure. See this paper. Here's part of the abstract:
      I use nine alternative indexes of trade policy to investigate whether the evidence supports the view that, with other things given, TFP growth is faster in more open economies. The regressions reported here are robust to the use of openness indicator, estimation technique, time period and functional form, and suggest that more open countries have indeed experienced faster productivity growth.
      Although I'm not an economist, my understanding is that the correlation is pretty well established, both theoretically and empirically.

      Are they really better or is it because your boss is greedy?

      The basic purpose of capitalism is to make greedy people useful to society. Overall, it has worked pretty well. People complain about your namesake, Bill Gates, but I'd rather have him making billions than running mafias or starting land wars, the historically typical pursuit of the ultra-ambitious.

      But I don't think people are outsourcing to India because on some absolute scale the Indian programmers are better. I think they do it because they are a better value. To keep our high salaries, we will have to find new ways to earn them.

      Part of the reason for the huge slashes is that programmers are viewed as standard commodities that do not bring money into the buttom line. They do not give a shit about your skills if you do not make them money. Therfore an underskilled Indian would be more appropriate then you for the job.

      So the interesting question is, are the people who think that correct? If the answer is yes, then programmers need to step up to the plate and start providing business value. And if the answer is no, that programmers do provide plenty of value, then we need to make sure that people understand that.

      Also minimum wage laws helped the us economy spreading more wealth back.

      There's a lot of disagreement among economists about the effect of minimum wages, but they are generally thought to be net mildly harmful to the economy. If you want to spread wealth, tax policy is a better way to do that.
    18. Re:Nooooo! by Jodka · · Score: 1

      Oh, ok. Well, I agree. Good point !

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    19. Re:Nooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friend:

      Tariffs are a good idea ONLY if they end up effectively used to change a particular environment.
      If tariffs could raise the standard of living in India while protecting jobs in the US, you would have a level playing field worldwide, economically speaking, in about twenty years - honestly. The problem is, " Never underestimate the other guys greed." Someday we will go to war over rice!!

    20. Re:Nooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am consistently amazed at the ignorance of economic issues the slashdot crowd exhibits. We're generally talking about smart, well educated people. But when a business/trade issue comes up it's obvious no one has read anything. What seems to be a majority of folks are all gung-ho for protectionism and state run economics.

      Tariffs are NEVER in the national interest. Bush's steel and lumber tariffs have driven up costs for US business and had a demonstrably negative effect on the economy. Manufacturers' material costs have gone up. Clinton's imported meat tariffs succeeded in driving up prices for 250 million consumers to the benefiet of a handful of American producers.

      Tariffs are ALWAYS about handing a favor to a few domestic interest groups at the expense of the greater economy. Tariffs on software will simply drive up the costs of all US industries and harm the economy to the benefiet of a handful of software producers.

      Moving production of commodity software overseas simply frees up labor and capital in America for production of higher margin goods. The reduced cost of the imported commodity software further frees up capital for research and investment in high margin American products.

      The highest paying jobs in America are tied to exports. Free trade works. You can root for tarrifs to protect your commoditized coding job, but realize that you are no better than the lamb producer who personally profits at the expense of all lamb eating Americans. New Zealand lamb imported without tarrifs costs far less than domestic lamb.

    21. Re:Nooooo! by Bodrius · · Score: 1

      No, not really.

      That naive (at best) attitude is part of what has kept them jumping from corrupt government to corrupt government in the first place.

      Every disturbingly corrupt government begins with a "clean-up", accompained by excessive trust on the new party and further centralization of government (dramatic changes require power), and sometimes with a period of real honesty that doesn't magically fix the country. Then skepticism and cynicism sinks in, and people realize there are no effective barriers or control on the government since whatever control was not eliminated now rests essentially in layers of trust, usually on members of the same party.

      Development has to be fixed at the structural level. It's not a matter of "good intentions", "sensibility", "hard work" and "good will".

      Corrupt governments are almost unavoidable when you concentrate money and power in a centralized government with tight control of the economy (and hece competing economic power); all of which are necessary qualities for a protectionist, "nationalistic capitalism" (or whatever term is fashionable these days, "humanist capitalism" is another one).

      Corruption is a symptom, not a problem.

      Developed countries have had their share of corruption. Massive corruption sometimes, since these days it's a matter of corporations, not isolated greedy individuals. It has been a problem for them too, but it has not been crippling. Somehow, it has been kept under control and things keep working.

      On the other hand, third world countries have had their share of honest or relatively honest governments that have failed utterly, destroyed economies, messed up foreign relations, reduced civil liberties, and in general lowered the standards of life.

      The problems of the third world cannot be glimpsed from bad American movies with mexican actors, and cannot be fixed by JUST putting honest people in power, just like democracy cannot be brought by JUST having general elections.

      These are misconceptions the US, as a nation, is learning (or should be learning) ever since the end of the Cold War. These are misconceptions that no US citizen, because of their role as citizens and electors of the US, or simply as a matter of basic education, should keep either. Misconceptions are worse than ignorance, they have deeper consequences.

      Excuse the little rant, but your statement is sweeping and absolutely wrong.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
  5. I'm all for it. by bob_the_clown · · Score: 1

    I'm all for it. As a college student, majoring in CS, one of the bleakest prospects is the fact that I won't have a job in a couple of years when I graduate. Anything (reasonable) to keep US jobs here is a good idea in my book.

    1. Re:I'm all for it. by pOrATa+paTima · · Score: 1

      Graduating from a US school does not mean that you are guaranteed a job and a prosperous life. There is nothing like US jobs and jobs staying in US. Jobs go where they are the cheapest to produce. Be it your sneakers, clothers or your work.

      Learn to be competitive with the rest of the world.

    2. Re:I'm all for it. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If you've only completed two years, you can easily switch majors to something better. The first two years are mostly for prerequisites anyway (like English, Calculus, etc.) which apply to any major, so you won't be losing much time.

      If you already know that your career field is drying up, why continue in it?

      You might also try moving into Computer Engineering. They'll probably be in demand in the US for longer than CS people, since their skills are closer to hardware, and thus can't be exported so easily as high-level code writing.

    3. Re:I'm all for it. by namemattersnot · · Score: 1

      Has an thought of foreigners offering far more superior skills ever crossed your mind?

      I've been involved in hiring of human resources for some years now and can say with certainty that domestic pool of QUALITY software programmers is of a pea size. Rarely do I even look at college graduates' CVs, for the curriculum taught in American schools barely gives you any you practical skills and irrelevant amount of theory. In a heartbeat will I prefer a high school dropout who learned to code by trial-and-error to a recent grad (exceptions, of course, do exist).

      Don't be threatened by jobs being outsourced. Those companies that outsource to cut costs are not worth working for, and those who outsource as a result of failing to find adequate domestic workforce, they will gladly hire a local talent should he/she possess the required skill set and experience.

      So, stop complaining and go learn more. Or, should I say, go "hack" more.

  6. I'm against it... by dlek · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm a Canadian! :)

    1. Re:I'm against it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too. Seems to me like america is run by a bunch of dumbass lawyers, politicians, and dumbass corporations. This whole law about hiding information from ISP's is pure bullshit.

    2. Re:I'm against it... by abc_los · · Score: 1

      I'm a Canadian!:)

      I'm so sorry...

    3. Re:I'm against it... by bman08 · · Score: 1

      What's awesome about your ppl is that companies can pay you more AND remain competitive because the government eats the cost of healthcare.

    4. Re:I'm against it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there's so many wogs in Canada now that it's the same as exporting jobs to India!

    5. Re:I'm against it... by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 1

      That is bullshit! I don't mean bullshit for you saying it, I mean bullshit for Canadians telling others healthcare is so wonderful up here. There's 30 contries that have better healthcare systems than Canada, yet Canadians have the arrogance to think that god himself declared Canada be the only country in the entire world to have state funded healthcare.

      Medicare up here pays for the basics and that's it-if you are in an accident and need emergency care, then you receive it, which is about the same that you would receive in the States.

    6. Re:I'm against it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are shots for your condition but Rabies is easier to live with and death easier to cure! But all is not lost, unless yu are french also :(

  7. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should everyone else pay more for software so you can be uncompetitive?

  8. Very bad idea, what about open source? by antis0c · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Very bad idea in my opinion. What happens when you get into Open Source Software? If the government thinks imposing tariffs on software is a good idea, they might deem it ALL software, including Open Source. So will that mean for every time I download OpenBSD I'm going to have to pay a tariff? What about software mirrors? Components? Data itself? I'd rather not open up that can of worms..

    --

    ..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
    1. Re:Very bad idea, what about open source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Read my lips: Know GNU Taxes!"

    2. Re:Very bad idea, what about open source? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      lets see, someone does it for free, then they have to pay a percentage of zero to the government..
      hmmmm

      seems to make open source stronger.

      tarif the money that is spent, that is where the problem is. so you pay an indian company 5 dolars an hour + a tarif that brings the cost of developers in line with the national average.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Very bad idea, what about open source? by Anime_Fan · · Score: 1

      1. Tariffs (at least in Europe), you usually pay it per cent (based on its resale value, I think).
      2. You download the software from a U.S. server. Should be no problem.
      3. If you download it from a server outside of the U.S.:
      If laws and regulations get really strict, resort to https protocol.
      I'm no lawyer, but... Since its resale value is nil, it doesn't have a value/you can't profit from it. It's like bringing home a bottle of alcohol from a vacation. You don't pay any whatsoever tariff on that (in Europe, up to a couple of litres), why should one pay for free software?

      Still, best sollution would be U.S. software mirrors. I also don't hope or think that one would harm OSS by imposing fees for getting a free software product.

    4. Re:Very bad idea, what about open source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friend.
      How much do you charge/pay for downloading free software? 25% of zero is how much?
      How many companies OWN the source code in Open Source software - and then outsource it back to themselves? If they are that stupid they deserve to go broke!
      China has its own Linux distro,....Anyone can make one,....why outsource when it virtually is already! Thousands of other people all over the world made your product and none of them know each other. The tariff is for stealing jobs which is what the article was expressing concern about - Linux is the perfect make-work, level-playing field tariff beater,...think about it!

    5. Re:Very bad idea, what about open source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tariffs are normally imposed as a percentage of the cost of a good. If software is free, there will be no tariff.

  9. We don't think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are automatons.

    Like 1000 brainless monkeys typing code until something works.

    We work in Redmond, WA.

  10. Tariffs by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    I'd be interested to see how this applies within the framework of NAFTA and WTO. The US just got slapped for the Steel Tariff. Like many things, outsourcing to remote location(including countries) has its drawbacks. A few friends have had to put in really strange hours because of meetings/teleconferences with overseas offices, which can be a real drag. "We're cheap, if that's what you're looking for, just don't ask about our customer support, anyone who really knows anything about your problem is probably sleeping right now." I had problems with an IBM RS/6000 a few years back and was very unimpressed by having my tech support call answered by a low level tech (read: knows how to answer a phone and what a keyboard and monitor are, but after that he just types up notes for others to respond to later) in Oz (I was in Michigan at the time) Left to my own devices that would have been the last piece of Blue equipment I ever bought.

    Of course, lunkhead that I am, I've built a home computer out of a large-ish pile of stuff, all from China or Korea. I'd feel a lot better if some of this stuff was made nearby and I could speak to someone in english without some heavy accent, regarding support. The old anti-dumping tariff on memory doesn't seem to have any impact, even tangentially, to the 9,999 things that go into a PC.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Tariffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friend:
      Technically, you cannot tariff in NAFTA - North American Free Trade Agreement - but where subsidies are concerned between NAFTA signatories, tariffs can be levied! NAFTA is an agreement not a Geneva Convention type item which even nations at war must obey. WTO cannot stop tariffs and is the largest tariff imposer of them all - but it all comes out in the wash. You put tariffs on my steel,..I put tariffs on your oil and lumber,..etc., it is robbing peter to pay paul and done between the have nations who sleep together any way!
      Tariff on Software is quite possible once you allow a paradigm shift: They dont care where the code is made, just how much you say you made from it and your margins which you reported to the IRS and SEC! Microsofts average margin across all products is 83% Poor people made it, rich people buy it,....tariffs finally and ultimately are the only tool that can truly touch the rich and well off and leave the poor alone!
      Dont fear the Reaper babe!

    2. Re:Tariffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'd feel a lot better if some of this stuff was made nearby and I could speak to someone in english without some heavy accent, regarding support.

      You mean like people from Kansas? Fuck, there's waaay too much tech support out of there, and, I'm sorry, but you almost need a voice post-processor to understand those folks.

    3. Re:Tariffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Regardless of NAFTA, WTO, etc., if the US wants to do something, it'll do it. It's a big enough economic power that the rest of the world just has to live with it. The only hope for most countries to counter this is to form a large trade bloc; the EU is starting to move itself into a position where it can stand up to the US economically, but whether it will follow through on its potential remains to be seen. In addition, this will still leave out many countries that don't have the political will to join an alternative trade bloc with enough economic power to stand up to the US, e.g. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc.

      Even if this did work out in such a way to least benefit the US, it would still remain of country of ca. 300 (?) million consumers, relatively afluent compared to most of the world and that could never be ignored by exporters.

  11. it's kind of ironic by g4dget · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Among advanced nations, the US is engaged in a race to the bottom when it comes to working conditions, salaries, job security, and the environment. And for years, US politicians have made fun of Europeans because their labor costs were "too high".

    Yet, when other countries get their labor costs to be lower than those of the US, then Americans start complaining and want to impose taxes. Well, which is it? If the US can impose tariffs on Indian computer products, is the US willing to have tariffs imposed on US computer products by Europeans, whose labor costs are higher because of better social services?

    I think this Onion article points out what really is going on: many Americans just can't deal with the fact that the rest of the world is different and actually likes is that way.

    1. Re:it's kind of ironic by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      US is engaged in a race to the bottom when it comes to working conditions, salaries, job security, and the environment.

      This comment is utterly preposterous on the face of it. The US has the lowest unemployment rates and highest per capita income of any developed country.

    2. Re:it's kind of ironic by vandan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You make the assumption that the US understands that there is more to the rest of the world than profit potential.
      History demonstrates that this is not the case.

    3. Re:it's kind of ironic by thuddwhirr · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that this was just one person asking about the wisdom of a software tarrif on slashdot. One person starting a debate is not the same as a population having a widly accepted policy or opinion on the matter. As far as I know, nobody in the US goverment has advocated this (this is the first I've even become aware of the idea), so going of on rant about the irony of whining, tarrif crazed americans seems a little premature.

    4. Re:it's kind of ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *ahem*

      Excuse me but why did Europeans come over here in the first place?

    5. Re:it's kind of ironic by MKalus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This comment is utterly preposterous on the face of it. The US has the lowest unemployment rates and highest per capita income of any developed country.

      You make the mistake to think that the stats you are reading are actually the same.

      The way they are gathered between the US and Europe for example is completly different.

      Unofficial it is said the US has an unemployment rate of 10% and that is roughly the same ballpark the EU has.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    6. Re:it's kind of ironic by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And for years, US politicians have made fun of Europeans because their labor costs were "too high".

      And how, exactly, is this terribly ironic? The jobs aren't going to Europe; they're going to India, Taiwan, China, and other places that lack the benefits (costs) of the US, and particularly Europe.

      If anything, this is proof that the politicians were right: our high labor costs are driving labor demand to other places. Whether the benefits (better standard of living) are worth the costs (more and more outsourcing) is another question entirely; regardless of your decision on that, though, it would appear that the politicians were right.

      (God, I never thought I'd say that with a straight face....)

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    7. Re:it's kind of ironic by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This comment is utterly preposterous on the face of it. The US has the lowest unemployment rates and highest per capita income of any developed country.

      Of course, unemployment only counts those still on unemployment. It neglects those who've been unemployed too long and those who don't qualify for unemployment.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    8. Re:it's kind of ironic by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

      You make the mistake to think that the stats you are reading are actually the same.

      Really? The BBC seems to think they are comparable.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/687918.stm

      Then we have longer term studies that show that the US has far stronger job creation than Europe, and in fact the unemployment measurements in Europe are artificially low because of training programs, early retirement, workweeks limited to 35 hours, etc.

      http://www.epf.org/labor99/intrncontx.htm

    9. Re:it's kind of ironic by Guy+Harris · · Score: 3, Informative
      The US has the lowest unemployment rates and highest per capita income of any developed country.

      Lowest unemployment rates? Not true in January 2003, at least, according to this table from the OECD - the US rate was 5.7%, whereas Austria had 4.1% and Sweden had 5.3%, for example.

    10. Re:it's kind of ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is it just me, or is the hand of colon powell starkingly white?

    11. Re:it's kind of ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me but why did Europeans come over here in the first place?

      Forcible deportation. Your point being?

    12. Re:it's kind of ironic by g4dget · · Score: 1
      If anything, this is proof that the politicians were right: our high labor costs are driving labor demand to other places.

      Well, yes, obviously, duh. But you seem to think that that implies that we should lower our labor costs, for example by cutting benefits further, in order to remain competitive. I don't think so. Do you want to be paid like a worker in a developing nation and work under similar conditions?

      I think we shouldn't lower labor costs. And, I think it is perfectly fine for the US to impose tariffs against countries whose environmental and labor regulations are less strict. At the same time, we should realize that we do not lead the world in labor and environmental standards and should stop complaining when other nations impose such tariffs on us.

    13. Re:it's kind of ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to mention that the Bush administration also appears to be intent on increasing our unemployment rate.

      Well unless we start a military draft to support the empire.

    14. Re:it's kind of ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There seems to be a predominant belief in the US that everything done there is done the best it can be. If anyone can do anything faster/cheaper/better they are somehow cheating and tariffs/sanctions must be imposed, or artificial domestic markets must be created.

      A fine example is the world market price for sugar vs. the US domestic price. Most sugar producing countries do so far cheaper than the US, but this is not considered competition, it is considered unfair dumping and so a domestic market is maintained. You might be surprised at the difference in price, especially when you consider how many products use sugar, and thus, how much consumers pay to maintain this artificial market.

      Sugar info

    15. Re:it's kind of ironic by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      That's a moderately important point - there was an adjustment to the calculation of the unemployment rate just as you say back about 10 years ago, with the impact estimated at roughly 0.5 to 1 percentage point...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    16. Re:it's kind of ironic by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      And how, exactly, is this terribly ironic? The jobs aren't going to Europe; they're going to India, Taiwan, China, and other places that lack the benefits (costs) of the US, and particularly Europe.

      It's ironic because Americans have been telling the Europeans that their social practices are economically unsustainable but its the American economy that's going down the tubes now, and American employees whining that they need protection from competition.

    17. Re:it's kind of ironic by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      This comment is utterly preposterous on the face of it. The US has the lowest unemployment rates and highest per capita income of any developed country.

      And strangely, 80% of Canadians have a higher standard of living than 80% of Americans. The American per-capita-income figure is largely distorted by extremely rich people.

    18. Re:it's kind of ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friend;
      Dont waste your time hating Americans - they have been doing a fine job of that for the past 260 years.
      America is not a monolithic culture, the Whites hate the Blacks and envy the browns etc., etc., etc,....
      Lower labor costs donot last forever,...in FREE societies. You build expensive televisions in Mexico but you can never own one,...but, you know you will see to it your kids will! Tariffs are effective in righting wrongs better than any tool in history including war and second only to Judgment Day!
      A tariff on software would look more like a tax than a normal tariff but would work against say, Microsoft whose margins across all products is about 83% - just tariff that! The poor make the product the rich buy - you burn the fat cat and feed the mouse,..please, think about it!

    19. Re:it's kind of ironic by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      And, of course, they just changed the polling method to make it more intrusive, thus depressing the reported levels of unemployment.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    20. Re:it's kind of ironic by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

      What ?

      For the last year or so, the US has been averaging about 5.7% unemployment. The UK has been averaging about 5% for the last 2 years.

      ATB,
      Simon

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    21. Re:it's kind of ironic by Baki · · Score: 1

      Like it or not, the west (neither US nor Europe) does not have a God given right to more wealth than the rest of the world. If we are better off in the west, it is/should be because of certain advances in capabilities, education, productivity.

      If countries such as India, China, Taiwan develop themselves to get up to par with us, it is inevitable that our wealth is spread and equalized with their levels.

      The only other option is to shut yourself off from the rest of the world and become an isolated block: that would mean no more competition from abroad, but also no profit potential, export, cheap import of raw materials etc. You cannot have the advantages without the cost.

    22. Re:it's kind of ironic by beakburke · · Score: 1

      And strangely, 80% of Canadians have a higher standard of living than 80% of Americans. The American per-capita-income figure is largely distorted by extremely rich people. Is this before or after taxes? Just curious.

      --
      ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    23. Re:it's kind of ironic by Hobbex · · Score: 1


      I can't speak for Austria, but the Swedish number is complete fiction. The Swedish government spends most of it's employment efforts shifting people between different "reeducation" programs and giving them state supported early retirements so as to keep them out of the statistics (more than 5% of the population is prematurely retired).

    24. Re:it's kind of ironic by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      The original poster was right to some extent. I've lived and worked in France, the UK, and the US, and I still can't understand any of the figures given for "unemployement". For exampele here in the US, "unemployement" does not mean that you're out of work, it only means that you're eligible to receive unemployment benefits for a very limited time, that's it. In the UK and in France, "unemployment" means something entirely different, for instance in the UK -- I could perceive unemployment having never even worked in that country. There are lots of studies, yes, but the interpretation of the data is usually politically-driven, so I wouldn't put much stalk into those.

      The only thing I can say, is based on my personal experience, as fallacious as it may be. As a French person with duel citizenship, I feel *much* more comfortable looking for a job here in the US. I think this is what it comes down to, just ask people who had the opportunity to look for work in multiple countries.

    25. Re:it's kind of ironic by ego.no · · Score: 1

      You really got it backwards.

      First of all, the entire world, including the US, is "nothing more" than a profit potential.

      Second, neither the Americans, nor the rest of us, understand this.

    26. Re:it's kind of ironic by THEbwana · · Score: 1

      Calculated on the same basis - using the same definitions of what constitutes unemployment (who is included in the survey to start with, what constitutes an active job seeker etc.), Sweden has approximately 16 % unemployment when using the same criterias as used when calculating the US statistic. You're comparing apples and pears here.

    27. Re:it's kind of ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Lowest unemployment rates? Not true in January 2003, at least, according to this table from the OECD [oecd.org] - the US rate was 5.7%, whereas Austria had 4.1% and Sweden had 5.3%, for example.

      Yeah, but we have more niggers than them.

    28. Re:it's kind of ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Per capita income = average. With the Ken Lays, Jack Welches, Walton clan, Bill Gates, etc. pulling in the obscene amounts they do, the average looks very very good. But the people working for them see lower and lower pay. That's the lucky ones, who still have a job. The older (better paid) ones are all laid off, replaced by new grads, H1Bs, and slave-labor outsourcing.

      The real measure is median income, or better yet the 10-20 percentile income. Life at the bottom of the corporate food chain is not looking up.

    29. Re:it's kind of ironic by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Is this before or after taxes? Just curious.

      "Standard of living" figures are after taxes. You're only better off financially living in the U.S. if you make more than $60K. And then there is "quality of life", which is more subjective, in which the U.S. consistently rates in about 10th position.

    30. Re:it's kind of ironic by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
      Calculated on the same basis - using the same definitions of what constitutes unemployment (who is included in the survey to start with, what constitutes an active job seeker etc.), Sweden has approximately 16 % unemployment when using the same criterias as used when calculating the US statistic.

      The OECD page that links to the PDF in question says

      The OECD standardised unemployment rates, compiled for 27 OECD Member countries, are based on definitions of the 13th Conference of Labour Statisticians (generally referred to as the ILO guidelines). Under these definitions, the unemployed are persons of working age who, in the reference period, are without work, are available for work and have taken specific steps to find work.

      The uniform application of the definitions results in estimates that are more internationally comparable than those based on national definitions. National unemployment data in some countries only include persons registered at government labour offices. Under the ILO definition, persons without work who are seeking employment through other means can also be classified as unemployed and registrants can be excluded if they worked or were not available for work. The standardised unemployment rates shown here are calculated as the number of unemployed persons as a percentage of the civilian labour force (i.e the unemployed plus those in civilian employment). The standardised unemployment rates are seasonally adjusted.

      The standardised unemployment rates for the European Union (EU) Member countries and for Czech Republic, Hungary, Norway, Poland and Slovak Republic are produced by the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat). The OECD is responsible for the collection of data and calculation of standardised unemployment rates for the remaining countries.

      So how do the different measurements of unemployment differ in ways not ruled out by the use of the ILO definition? Or is the Swedish or US rate not using the ILO definition?

  12. Taxes and Foreign labor by luzrek · · Score: 1
    In my opinion you will not see tarifs on imported software because the corporations which import that software are very large and very powerful and it would be against their interests. Additionally, imposing tarifs on software would be a protectionist move and would harm the US economy in the long term (as well as harm those in other countries whose lives are being improved by their relatively high local wages) since it would discourage inovation.

    On top of all that, MS and other big software companies would oppose it since it would encourage open source and free software (which wouldn't have the tarifs imposed since it is free/relatively low cost).

    This is going to sound calus, but US computer programmers need to realize that just knowing how to program a computer does not gaurantee a high paying job. People who have an additional skill and can use their programming skills to enhance that skill will be in a much better position. That is why MIS's are able to get jobs as Database Administrators and CS majors generally cannot.

    --

    Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.

  13. Free trade? by scalis · · Score: 1

    I think the US or any country for that matter should apply the same level of taxes for this as it does on other products.
    No product should be subsidized by the government wether it is US steel or European grain in any country that embrace free trade.
    Either you let free trade show its advantages and disadvantages by letting it run free or you impose the same level of taxes/fees for all imports.
    I hate to say this but if someone beats your prices by 50% then taxes is not going to be of much help in the long run if the quality of the delivery is good enough.

    --

    True ravers don't need drugs
    1. Re:Free trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah, but you forget that there are strategic considerations that go along with a country being able to:
      a) produce its own refined metal products
      b) feed itself
      c) etc.

      it is simplly unrealistic to allow basic industries to be destroyed, as well as being VERY dangerous and VERY unwise.

  14. Tough cookies by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    If they'll work cheaper than you, its YOUR problem, not theirs. Complain to your local Congressman/MP about the government-sponsored inflation which raises the costs of doing business where you are.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Tough cookies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I would say it is our problem. So lets stop giving money to other countries and pump it into the US economy. I say screw all the other countries that constantly mock and insult the US while begging for more Foreign aid.

    2. Re:Tough cookies by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1
      That's a rather naive way of looking at it. It isn't a matter of someone willing to work for less, it's a matter of differences in cost of living. Software developers in the US are generally paid well. Software developers in India are also generally paid well. "Paid well" means something very different in India because the cost of living is so much lower.


      It's hard to compete on a cost basis with an Indian developer making under $20,000 who lives well on that sum. That would put me well below median income where I live, and I doubt very seriously that I could live on it at all.


      I've always been against tariffs and unions and the like, but I do have to ask myself who benefits by sending the jobs to India. Prices are only tightly tied to production costs when the product is a commodity. Microsoft stuff is an excellent example. Most of it is sold at a loss while Windows and Orifice are sold at a big profit. Now, when Bill moves all the software development overseas, which do you think will happen: fatter bottom line or lower prices? In contrast, hire a U.S. developer and that money flows back into the U.S. economy.


      I remain undecided, but convinced it is not as simple as most would like it to be.

  15. Dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this is a pretty dumb idea really...

    The world does not revolve around the US (Well, not ENTIRELY)

  16. Taxing software by jetkust · · Score: 1

    Why doesn't the US tax the import of software?

    Taxing software seems impossible. What exactly is importing software? Sending code over FTP? Sending the finished product? If its compiled in the US and developed elsewhere is that still imported?? Maybe taxing the actual labor that would make more sense.

    1. Re:Taxing software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other countries will positively *love* the idea of the US imposing tax on their local labor...

  17. Welcome to free trade by RealSkee · · Score: 1

    There is a slight chance that some tariffs might be imposed but I doubt it. The computer industry is much to powerful at the moment to allow such a swing, it would mean that the major idea behind the free trade is being neglected. Dream on.

  18. US Software development will be dead in 10 years i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US Software development will be dead in 10 years if the government doesn't step in. People are going to india to get their software made at 1/5th the cost.

  19. US National Security Considerations by Montgomery+Burns+III · · Score: 1


    Lets not forget about the opportunity for mischief.
    I frankly get a bit nervous about certain integrated systems that drive many aspects of the nation's critical infrastructure where there is no domestic producer.
    I am not attempting to call into question the motives of the people of Elbonia... They are good folks. But might Elbonians have potentially higher motivation to introduce rogue backdoors?
    Could the Elbonians have political or other motivation to do harm to the USA?
    --

    'ta
    1. Re:US National Security Considerations by scalis · · Score: 1

      I frankly get a bit nervous about certain integrated systems that drive many aspects of the nation's critical infrastructure where there is no domestic producer.

      Quit whining, you still have Microsoft to rely on! :P

      --

      True ravers don't need drugs
    2. Re:US National Security Considerations by Montgomery+Burns+III · · Score: 1

      touche'
      What was I thinking?
      ;-)
      --

      'ta
    3. Re:US National Security Considerations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although you make an excellent point, I would like to point out all the people who were extemely paranoid about the NSA using its power over domestic software producers to put backdoors in their software (Microsoft NSAKEY crap).

  20. Tangible? by jasonditz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If software isn't tangible how can it be imported to begin with?

    Software in an intangible form is basically just an idea. Can we tax ideas now? How can you regulate its importation to begin with if it doesn't exist in any physical way? Are we going to prohibit foreigners from coming into the country on vacation now, lest they write a piece of code, and in effect, import software?

    What about all the software that hasn't been written yet? Maybe we should start taxing foreigners on the basis of software they might potentially create in the future, since the software really exists in his mind, just waiting to be written down...

    1. Re:Tangible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software is a physical configuration of physical data on a physical device.

      Therefore, it is a tangible thing.

      Thanks for playing.

    2. Re:Tangible? by SanLouBlues · · Score: 1

      What about software on a CD? Does it matter where the CD was made? If a CD is made in Hungary with American music, the US gov't still gets PO'd. So if a CD is made in the US with Hungarian software it should still be taxable.
      And what's the difference between a CD and a hard drive? One's optical and isn't bolting to the rest of the hardware. So a download onto a hard drive should be taxable too.

    3. Re:Tangible? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      No we are taxing a service via "protective" tarrif.

      Its to protect American companies and workers from cheap under minimal wage labor. Its mainly used for goods but since labor is a service it should be taxed!

      If not then kiss your jobs goodbye.

      Its not about the government taking away technology folks. Its about protecting American markets.

    4. Re:Tangible? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      I'll go you one better... suppose an American goes to Hungary and learns a programming technique from a Hungarian. Then he comes back to the US and writes a piece of software using that technique. We should be able to tax that since its an originally foreign idea, right?

      But then, what if he writes the software and doesn't sell it, only uses it personally? Perhaps we should have an annual "code inspection" of all software in the country to make sure its free of foreign concepts... and if it isn't, then by god they should have to pay!

    5. Re:Tangible? by DEBEDb · · Score: 1
      I'll go you one better... suppose an American goes to Hungary and learns

      ...Hungarian notation?

      --

      Considered harmful.
    6. Re:Tangible? by SanLouBlues · · Score: 1

      If the american sells the idea (ie a book), then he should attribute it to the hungarian. The attribution is payment (and if its a completely unoriginal book, money should go with the attribution, like Feynman's Lectures). But if he uses the hungarian idea (like a mechanic uses a wrench), he's ok. Same as using compilers, but not paying Intel to sell the compiled code.
      Once you get into theory and algorithms, unless you patent your idea it has no market value. The value is in the implementation or the teaching materials which are still fully marketable and traceable to their origin.

    7. Re:Tangible? by _J_ · · Score: 1


      That gives me a thought:

      What about distributed computing? Write the code outside of and then provide it as a service via SOAP. You might have to revert to charging tariffs for services as well as software.

      IMHO, as per
      J:)

    8. Re:Tangible? by sploxx · · Score: 1

      Its basically the same as with copyright.
      You can argue similar in the copyright field.
      Anyway, copyright enforcement works, at least for the business sector.

      I have not said if it is good or bad :)

    9. Re:Tangible? by jasonditz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because we all know how well protectionism has worked in the past.

      If the only way I can seem productive enough to warrant hiring/buying from is by artificially inflating the prices of others I'm in the wrong business, plain and simple.

    10. Re:Tangible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software in an intangible form is basically just an idea. Can we tax ideas now?
      It's already taxed... it's called "sales tax." You pay it when you pick up that copy of Unreal Tournament 2003.

    11. Re:Tangible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not about the government taking away technology folks. Its about protecting American markets.

      No, it's about the government "protecting" one american market, while penalizing every other american market.

      Take some economy courses, or STFU.

    12. Re:Tangible? by NFNNMIDATA · · Score: 1

      Wow are you missing the point. The labor cost is much, much cheaper in India. It is not a living wage in the US. If you want to compete with that, be my guest.

    13. Re:Tangible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good idea! Listen, I'm in Europe and I happen to be a professional programmer with a few ideas. I would like to make my legally required contribution to the American treasury, as suggested above, for all the programs I'll write in the future.

      Of course, "no taxation without representation"... I want the right to vote in the USA as well. I want a senator I can harass over silly laws (not because I particularly want to influence what happens in the USA, but because history suggests your laws invariably trickle down to Europe after a few years).

      So, how about it? Where can I apply?

  21. Lies, Damn Lies, And... by sidespace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are several fundemental assumptions this post makes that have to be corrected.

    First, as someone who works a lot in both the USA and Canada, I can guarantee you that living costs in Canada are, on average, HIGHER than the USA. If your job was moved to Montana (which has lower living costs than where you are now) would you be asking Montana for import tariffs? Of course not; so please, drop this argument.

    Second, I see a lot of Slashdot posts discussing the movement of I.T. jobs to "cheaper" locales. A lot of the arguments made against this move are the same arguments that were lodged against Japanese auto companies in the 1970's. North American IT workers may be in denial now, but the offshore trend will continue to deteriorate the IT job markets of both the USA and Canada.

    So what is the solution? Just as the auto-workers realized in the 1970's, the successful worker will be one who not only performs menial tasks (i.e. programming) well, but also adds significant value to their position. For example, if you are a good communicator AND understand technology you will have no problem finding a job. If you prefer to lock yourself in the back room and code (and complain to Slashdot) then you are going to be in for some tough times. Keep in mind that times now, on average, are good. Use this time to retrain and expand your skillset, not reading up on arcane NAFTA regulations.

    1. Re:Lies, Damn Lies, And... by Malc · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I moved from Denver to the most expensive part of Canada: downtown Toronto. The cost of living isn't higher... the salaries are often lower though.

    2. Re:Lies, Damn Lies, And... by arkanes · · Score: 1
      I don't know what kind of smoke you're inhaling to think that times are, on average, good, at least in the IT industry.

      So here's the question - the American auto industry was crippled in the 70s and took years to recover. It's still pitifully weak compared the Japanese companies. So how does the US IT industry avoid this, remembering in particular that in the auto industry, there were only a few big auto manufacturers, whereas IT has many more players, and the players are part of the problem since they can trivially move development overseas - it's not Indian companies hurting us, it's our own companies hiring outside workers. If the American IT industry can't avoid this, what do we do? Just wait for our economy to depress enough that we're worth hiring again? Just "get another job, you slacker" isn't really an answer - what happens when that job goes overseas as well? An American worker, especially one on the east coast (where I am) literally cannot compete with an Indian one who's cost of living is a tenth of his, no matter how much "value" he brings to a job. Is America going to become a nation of managers, where no usefull products are actually produced here? That's actually where we were heading in the 80s, and then the software industry blew up and everyone said that it didn't matter that we produce hardly anything physical, because America is where all the intellectual development was. And for a while, it was even true.

    3. Re:Lies, Damn Lies, And... by tc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But didn't the American auto industry deserve to be crippled in the 70s? The Japanese battered the American auto industry by being more efficient at producing cars. That's how free markets work - you do something more efficiently, cheaper, better, you win. And that's a Good Thing.


      Similarly, if a bunch of people Someplace Else can write the same software cheaper than Americans can, then good for them! They deserve to get that software writing business.


      I've seen a lot of whining about standards or costs of living, and clamouring for tarriffs, but why exactly is it that it's okay for US workers to earn vastly more than third world workers for doing essentially the same job? Why should a US worker have some divine right to be protected by tarriffs against his more economically efficient competitors in foreign lands?


      Let the free market do its thing.

    4. Re:Lies, Damn Lies, And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      First, as someone who works a lot in both the USA and Canada, I can guarantee you that living costs in Canada are, on average, HIGHER than the USA.


      Sorry, but that is bullshit. In Canada, there may be marginally higher taxes and generally lower wages, but the actual cost of living is less than in the USA. The only thing I can think of that is generally cheaper in the US is gas.

    5. Re:Lies, Damn Lies, And... by DrCode · · Score: 1

      Yes. By the early 70's, it was obvious that most American cars were of far lower quality than the Japanese or Europeans. In addition, the American companies just didn't seem interested in creating decent, fuel-efficient small cars, even though though there were recurring gas shortages. Consumers didn't buy Japanese cars because they were cheaper, but because they were better.

      The IT situation is entirely different. Is software produced overseas of a higher quality than that produced locally? And even though we know people work for less, is it really more efficient to outsource this work?

    6. Re:Lies, Damn Lies, And... by tc · · Score: 1
      And even though we know people work for less, is it really more efficient to outsource this work?

      If they produce the same quality of work, but cost less, then they are more economically efficient. That's more or less by definition.

    7. Re:Lies, Damn Lies, And... by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      An American worker, especially one on the east coast (where I am) literally cannot compete with an Indian one who's cost of living is a tenth of his, no matter how much "value" he brings to a job.

      So if cost of living determines where software will be built, then how do you explain that most software is made in states with high costs of living? Given that we don't have tariffs in the US, by your logic most software production should have migrated to Oklahoma and Arkansas.

      Is America going to become a nation of managers, where no usefull products are actually produced here?

      You remember the 80s, when everybody was worried that the Japanese were so darned clever that there wouldn't be a single worker left in the US? But somehow, our unemployment is lower than it was then, and we're all much richer.

      And this has been happening for a long time; the earliest US example I recall was Smoot-Hawley which was circa 1930, but I know the Brits have been doing it at least since the Corn Laws in, uh, 1815. People regularly get in a panic that [insert state, nation, or ethnic group here] are taking jobs away from honest, hardworking, patriotic [insert your own state, nation, or ethnic group here]. This is just the latest wave of a plausible-sounding but wrongheaded fear.

    8. Re:Lies, Damn Lies, And... by Astrogen · · Score: 1

      Okay heres the deal.

      I currently work in Canada, and am moving to the states. The simple fact is that the Canadian dollar used to be worth more than the US dollar, over the past 20 years the Canadian dollar has fallen.

      What does this matter?

      Simple.

      Because the dollar is lower, the labour costs are lower in Canada, but in both places I get paid the same.

      If the Canadian dollar rebounds (which it has rallied lately not rebounded) than the pay in either place doesn't change.

      Businesses also don't tend to take jobs to Canada because although they might save a few bucks for now because of the weaker currency the taxes are much higher for businesses.

      -Astrogen

    9. Re:Lies, Damn Lies, And... by NFNNMIDATA · · Score: 1

      First, the Japanese made more fuel-efficient cars at a critical time for that, and they also worked obscene hours to do it.

      You can say let the person who works hardest win, whatever's best for the consumer, yadayada. But the bottom line is that money flowed like a river from the US to Japan and made that country a financial powerhouse in the 80s. Japanese investors & tourists put a bunch of that money back into our economy, but can we assume the same will happen with the various countries we now steadily pour money into via outsourcing?

      Also, foreign products are one thing, labor is another. The reason why is that with a foreign product you are dealing with a foreign company that hires its own people and pays them something that makes sense within the closed system of their economy, whereas with just labor you have a US company paying that same person much less in US dollars than would make sense in the US economic system. The exchange rate could take care of this kind of problem, but it obviously doesn't since the cost of living doesn't seem to line up with it.

      Finally, I can't believe this has to be said, but if it's us or them I CHOOSE US.

    10. Re:Lies, Damn Lies, And... by mojotoad · · Score: 1
      I've seen a lot of whining about standards or costs of living, and clamouring for tarriffs, but why exactly is it that it's okay for US workers to earn vastly more than third world workers for doing essentially the same job? Why should a US worker have some divine right to be protected by tarriffs against his more economically efficient competitors in foreign lands?

      But why should a worker in India or Pakistan have access to a loaf of bread 100 times less costly than a U.S. worker pays for essentially the same product? Why should non-US workers have some divine right to have access to cheap bread?

      Seriously -- I'm all for the global market. But your comment ignores the problems inherent in the impedance mismatch inherent in partial blending of economies. It's all or nothing. Focusing on a single aspect of the mutual economy can lead to false conclusions -- one way or another -- about the holistic interaction of the two economies.

      Matt

    11. Re:Lies, Damn Lies, And... by error0x100 · · Score: 1

      But why should a worker in India or Pakistan have access to a loaf of bread 100 times less costly than a U.S. worker pays for essentially the same product? Why should non-US workers have some divine right to have access to cheap bread?

      Well, why is bread (and other basic cost-of-living items) cheaper in these countries? This is a genuine question, I really want to know why. It seems to me bread should only really be cheaper in India if the Indians can make bread cheaper. In other words, if they are better at making bread, more efficiently, for lower margins. Why should bread in the US cost more? The price of bread is determined by what the producers of the bread want to charge for it. US producers of bread simply charge more for their bread. There are no unfair measures in place forcing American bread producers to have to charge more for their bread. Why not start up a bakery that sells cheaper bread? If your bread is still good, I can guarantee you that people in the US will start buying your bread.

    12. Re:Lies, Damn Lies, And... by mojotoad · · Score: 1
      Well, why is bread (and other basic cost-of-living items) cheaper in these countries?

      Bread is cheaper in these countries because the bread makers are competing in the local market, not the global market. Once entire economies reach par with one another, then you will see bread prices equalizing (ignoring problems inherent in the transport of physical goods for the moment).

      This is what I was getting at with "it's all or nothing" -- you can compete globally in IT, but the underlying economies are not on par, so labor seeks the weaker economies.

      Matt

    13. Re:Lies, Damn Lies, And... by arkanes · · Score: 1
      One of the major reasons our unemployment is lower and we're all richer (some of us, anyway) is because of the boom of IT in the 90s. Anyway, it's not just plausible - it's actually happening. Whether or not it's good in the long run, for the global economy or the national one, the fact is that it hurts people very badly right now, so they naturally object. It was true in the past, also. The American car industry is still barely competing with Japan, and the reasons why they can have alot to do with firings on our end - the national economy may be better off, but I doubt it's so much better for auto workers. I can't think of a single consumer electronics device that's designed and manufactured in the US. I think we ARE trending toward a nation of managers, and that we have been for some time. I'd like to see some numbers about what we actually produce in America - REALLY produce, not assemble from overseas parts to avoid tariffs.

      It's not wrongheaded unless you're watching from an ivory tower - it's a perfectly straightforward, legitimate, realistic fear. And unless you have an answer for all the people who'll ask what they should do now that the job they've trained for and done all thier lives is gone, you shouldn't tell people not to worry.

      This kind of hits close to home for me - I grew up in a small area on the northwest coast in a town based almost totally on lumber and fishing. But a combination of over-fishing and clercutting killed all the salmon, and they laid off all the loggers and moved most of the mill work to Mexico, so the whole area is basically dead. The only thing that keeps it afloat is limited tourist trade and drugs. So whats the answer for all the people living there? It took me 2 years just to save enough money to move, and that was with a free place to stay when I left. I'm not recomending protectionism, neccesarily - I don't really see how it will help, at least in software - but I'd like someone who claims that the economy will sort all this out to give me some sort of answer.

  22. Intellectual vs Physical Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't add import tariffs because software is "intellectual property" and much different than "physical property". It is much too difficult to track the movement of something like that and that can be distributed so easily.

    That is exactly why distributing music and movies is theft is because its just like someone stealing my car....

    Oh wait, those view points contradict one another, dont they. Oh well I'm the US government I'm allowed to do that.

    Re: WMD are evil we need to disarm those that have them. How? By using our WMD's on them of course....

  23. So you want worse software as long as its US made? by happyhippy · · Score: 1

    Not that Im saying all software made in the US is bad, but slapping a tax on all non-US software is just going to make people use inferior though cheaper products.

  24. Most Software is Developed "Internally" by Marillion · · Score: 1

    Most "premium" software is developed internally for non-IT companies to solve a need unique to their industry. Consider airline reservations systems and the airline industry.
    It would be "tricky" to manage what a large multi-national does for offshore programming.

    --
    This is a boring sig
    1. Re:Most Software is Developed "Internally" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually even this industry fall prey. One company for example would be Caleb. They supply software to Jet Blue, Southwest, Northwest,Continential, and Air Tran. They also ship about half their development to China. Anything really can be offshored and if we Americans don't like we are just going to have to do something about it.

    2. Re:Most Software is Developed "Internally" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's really more of a service rather than an import. Boxed products/goods are normally subject to tarrifs...service agreemets aren't.

  25. stupid by john_smith_45678 · · Score: 0

    It's a stupid idea.

  26. Re:I'm all against it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked from remote for US companies and it was great experience - working with such distributed team. :) Anyway, If you're not lazy or stupid or narrow minded - you'll find your job, I'm sure.

  27. Global Minimum Wage by tjansen · · Score: 1

    Instead of punishing other countries that are less wealthy, why not establish a international minimum wage. You can still impose tarrifs on those countries that don't have them, but this would as well protect people in your country and help people in less developed countries. And, of course, re-established international competition at a fairer level.

    1. Re:Global Minimum Wage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of americas high standard of living comes from exploitation of cheap labor.

      If you think that campaign promise has a chance in hell of being kept i can sell you a bridge...

      oh and let's not forget the insane inflation that would cause if they actually did do it...

      What if the people growing your coffee got paid a fiar price? think starbucks is expensive now? haha. What if the people who make your clothes got paid a fair price? and you thought trendy clothes where expensive now! haha.

    2. Re:Global Minimum Wage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the minimum wage is such a resounding success in this country. Let's export it!

      I'm sure that poor bastard in Bum-Phuq SE Asia will appreciate the fact that some enlightened American has seen fit to price him out of the labor market.

    3. Re:Global Minimum Wage by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      No because then we all would have to work for international miniumum wage. We need protective tarrifs!

      I am supprised about the negativity here about them. I assumed most slashdotters would support them.

      What about "protective" do you all not understand? They are to protect our jobs and American corporations.

    4. Re:Global Minimum Wage by DEBEDb · · Score: 1

      Priced him out in favor of what? Sweatshops on Jupiter? That's the point of it being "international"...

      --

      Considered harmful.
    5. Re:Global Minimum Wage by tjansen · · Score: 1

      Well, as somebody else already noticed, the majority of software still comes from the US. If you start protecting the US you will only hurt yourself.

    6. Re:Global Minimum Wage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be kidding. How would this be fair? This would just deny people in less developed countries jobs, a low wage is better than no wage. How will this help these people? A less developed country just wouldn't be considered for the IT shop, and it would be built in a country with an market wage already at the international minimum wage.

    7. Re:Global Minimum Wage by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      why not establish a international minimum wage

      During the Great Depression, my grandfather quit school at the age of 12 and helped support the family by working assorted jobs, all paying well below any reasonable "living wage". Ask around in your family, and you'll probably find similar stories.

      Now if other countries had imposed tariffs on the US because we allowed children to labor below some international minimum wage, would that have helped or harmed my grandfather?

      The answer, of course, is "harmed". A minimum wage means that some people get more money, but fewer of them will have jobs, shutting low-end workers like 12-year-old boys out of jobs.

      Worse, since trade is a positive-sum activity (meaning that trades only happen when both sides benefit from making them), then less trade means that both sides are poorer. If both sides are poorer, there's less to go around, which generally hurts poor people disproportionately.

      Poverty sucks, but refusing to do business with poor people makes it suck more.

    8. Re:Global Minimum Wage by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      What about "protective" do you all not understand? They are to protect our jobs and American corporations.

      You're right to use "protect" in quotes.

      Imagine two futures, one without tariffs and one with. The main difference between the two is the amount of money American programmers make. (Although the popping of the bubble means a temporary imbalance between demand and supply, long-term trends will still require a lot of tech talent for the forseeable future.)

      So if the American programmers make more, where does that come from? Well, from American consumers. They don't get anything more, but tariffs force them to pay more than they otherwise would for software. This means that, say, 1-2% of workers do better, but the other 98-99% of Americans do worse. And studies show that tariffs are a terribly inefficient way to transfer wealth; if we think that programmers deserve subsidies, the government should just send them all programmer welfare checks.

      But that's not the only bad part.

      Because American businesses have to pay more for their software, they are less competitive. And because all those Indian programmers have a harder time getting into the American market, they'll sell their wares even more cheaply to non-American markets, increasing the competitiveness of foreign companies. These factors both cause the destruction of American jobs.

      Another ugly effect is that if they aren't getting American dollars, those Indians are much less likely to buy American products and invest in American companies, especially since they're not very competitive anymore. And that would be a disaster for us; somebody has to keep buying all those American stocks and bonds, especially once those baby boomers start to retire.

      And protectionism can easily backfire. As another poster pointed out, British attempts to protect their computer industry pretty much sunk it. By staying competitive, we've managed to stay on top of the industry. By putting up trade barriers, we may gain in the short term, but we make ourselves weaker over the long haul.

    9. Re:Global Minimum Wage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, All hail the New World Order!

    10. Re:Global Minimum Wage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would establishing an international minimum wage not punish less wealthy countries? The increased cost of labor to employers would simply be passed on to consumers, ultimately doing nothing for the minimum wage earner. Also, as that minimum wage increases, everyone's buying capability diminishes.

      Minimum wage is a bad idea! It may make the uninformed feel better about themselves, but it's upward affect is damning to everyone.

      And one more note in this little rant: There is no such thing as equality among humans in our current state! It's utopian to believe such equality exists. It's also utopian to believe the application of systems designed to accomplish this nebulous notion only accomplishes the equal distribution of misery.

      Labor in the U.S. suffers by it's own hand, constantly attempting to stick it to the wealthy, whether through legislation or unionization (primarily the former these days). If those in labor positions would stop being envious of the wealthy and learn how they became wealthy and then apply that knowledge to become wealthy themselves, they would be much happier and better off than they would be worrying about the next politician who came along who might cut their precious government sponsored socialist programs. Capitalism people! If you want the socialist life style, there are many countries you can choose to live in. Please go to them! Please leave those who believe in the American dream alone!

      So, let the retorts begin. Please go ahead and tell me about how corporations are out to rape the poor, how the Great White Father in the White House is oppressing us, bla bla bla... I'll be doing something else more intellectually stimulating - like sleeping.

    11. Re:Global Minimum Wage by toriver · · Score: 1

      Instead of punishing other countries that are less wealthy, why not establish a international minimum wage.

      Because wages and prices are interlocked. If you measure wages in terms of "necessities" purchasing power, someone earning $1/hour in a low-cost country can purchase the same amount of food that someone earning $5 in a higher-cost country (like the U.S.A.).

      If that $1 wage was increased to $5, prices would necessarily follow. The only net effect would be that the company's costs would increase, and also the tax income to the state.

      This is also a reason why people demanding that e.g. Nike pay higher wages to their Asian workers are evil: If Nike's workers got richer, prices would increase and thus harm lower-wage non-Nike workers in the same economic region.

    12. Re:Global Minimum Wage by tjansen · · Score: 1

      The system that has been proposed has different levels of wages. Thus less developed countries would have lower wages, higher developed countries have higher minimum wages. It just regulates them to be more fair for all participants.

  28. Re:programmer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are the biggest programmer in the world!

  29. Sure, we need a recession! by farrellj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tax Software like that, and you will trigger a deep recession. Software shoud compete on it's merits, not on marketing, and it shouldn't matter where it comes from...common, does this person really think that us North Americans (Canadians and USAians) couldn't compete against anywhere else without artificial barriers? Good software will eventually rise to the top especially as Open Source becomes the major paradign for software creation.

    ttyl
    Farrell

    --
    CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
    1. Re:Sure, we need a recession! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      enjoy your continuing deepening recession while we do NOT tax software and companies who offshore.

  30. We need this! by MCHammer · · Score: 1

    I personally know of several companies that already have development centers in India and are planning to move all operations there soon. The average wage for these developers is 20K per year. The problem is that they can live like kings there on 20K.

    Nobody in the US can afford to pay for college and raise a family on such a salary. The result will be a complete loss of technical skills from our country (US). At least with textiles, they have to pay to ship it back. There is no cost associated with e-mailing software back to the US. If we do not take action soon, the number of bright young kids going into computer science will plumment and our country will be void of software expertise....

    Michael

    1. Re:We need this! by ManicGiraffe · · Score: 1

      If we do not take action soon, the number of bright young kids going into computer science will plumment and our country will be void of software expertise....

      Good. I know a bunch of programmers who need jobs and have plenty of expertise - thinning the herd is alright in my book.

    2. Re:We need this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a problem. Then bright young people will move into other fields. IT isn't the future, face it. Truthfully, I think the day is coming when companies won't ship products overseas. Programmign is unskilled labor. Pretty soon you will be able to train welfare mothers to do it for minimum wage. It won't even take a HS degree to take a design document and translate it into code. All that is needed is the proper tools. I work for a company currently developign these tools. Engineers will of course still be in demand as they do the design work, but eventually 20K a year will be about right for US workers. Plus the tax benefits for hiring people off of the welfare rolls. Takes your skills and move them somewhere else.

    3. Re:We need this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that tariffs don't work. You might think they do in the short run, but in the long run YOU lose.

      Let's assume the US slashes code with 200% duties. What do you think happens?

      In the short run you will get slightly more jobs.

      In the long run, Sun, IBM and all other major computer vendors would move all their operations abroad since US is only a small part of their market. This will make it way cheaper for them to sell to Europe/Asia, and it won't make it more expensive to sell in the US since the salaries are lower in Asia anyway.

      So, congratulations - with tariffs you've just accomplished losing even more jobs.

      Why do you think we have abandoned tariffs in almost all other fields? Would the US be better or worse off if cars, electronics, steel, food, and clothing was twice as expensive?

    4. Re:We need this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we do not take action soon, the number of bright young kids going into computer science will plumment and our country will be void of software expertise....

      Nonsense - just look at MySQL; it is developed in Sweden which is one of the world's most expensive countries when it comes to salary costs.
      US kids will have to get a PhD and develop advanced software/systems or do research. The only change is that you won't be able to lift $70k with a BSc and 2 years of education.

      Do you think that is unfair? Well, think of everybody else in our society. I'm sure US textile or car workers would like 100% higher salaries too, so of course we should increase those tariffs. You might get to keep your salary, but everything here will be twice as expensive. Or did you mean that YOU should have a high salary, but everybody else a low one?

    5. Re:We need this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The problem is that they can live like kings there on 20K.

      Why not just cut out the middleman, and move to India, where you can live like a king!

    6. Re:We need this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't think their were any bright young kids in CS. Give me a break quit crying over spilt milk and find another carrer if your so worried.

    7. Re:We need this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This software industry will not be what anybody thought it would be 20 years from now. The way most people are taught computers now is that they just work. If it isn't in the instructions you call up tech support. In the 80's and early 90's, there was no tech support, or the didn't know much. So you had to learn and figure out things for yourself. 20 years from now if they don't work, you're in trouble, because the only people who know what they are doing will be the engineers.

    8. Re:We need this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what's wrong with that?

      Do you somehow think that the right of living a rich and prosperous life is somehow restricted to US citizens?

    9. Re:We need this! by Dirtybomb · · Score: 1

      We'll be killed.

  31. Re: I'm a Canadian! :) by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    Me too, but that is just another excuse for them to get angry/impose tarrifs. They're just jealous that we have universal medical coverage for less per capita than they spend for partial medical coverage because of HMOs, and everything else that makes us different.

    So employers can hire healthier people, not worrying about catastrophic health-insurance bills, which makes everything a bit cheaper to make up here.

    If the US wanted to reduce its' corporate costs and make business more cost-competitive, instead of whining, they could do away with the HMOs and give everyone access to health care. After all, a healthy, educated workforce is cheaper in the long run.

  32. Its been tried before and it doesn't work by ShadowMind · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm a bit too drunk to comment on this fully, but a few points as to why this approach doesn't work in the long term.

    The UK tried this when other countries semiconductor capabilities exceeded their own - tariffs were impose on imported components. It was meant to protect the UK computer industry - but it backfired badly. Unable to compete in the manufacture of ICs, UK companies couldn't even import components and produce full systems competitively. The policy led to the death of systems manufacturing without benefitting the component producers.

    The same thing happened to the UK film industry. In order to fight against films produced in Hollywood, a law was passed requiring a certain percentage of all films to be produced in the UK. Since the general public wanted Hollywood films, the only way to comply was to show supporting features produced in the UK. Since this was more profitable than producing feature films, the UK film industry ended up producing supporting features about candlemaking in Birmingham. So it died. We are now seeing some recovery, but only after at least two decades of decline.

    As has been seen in the automotive industry, protection of national producers in this manner only leeds to apathy within the domestic industry. Protected from outside innovation and competition there is no reason to improve, instead the industry will settle into a cosy cabal with domestic producers. When, eventually, the import duty is removed the existing industries are far behind their foreign competitors. This is detrimental not only to the industry long-term but also to the domestic consumer.

    Eventually, for the reasons outlined above, domestic producers will not be able to export - for two reasons. Lack of competition will lead to an atrophying of the state-of-the-art within the country and hence be behind other counties producers that are open to a free market. Also profit from export will be much lower than domestically. These factors will produce an inward facing industry which does nothing to help the balance of trade.

    Lastly, those countries who have tariffs levied against them, may retaliate with equivalent tariffs or legislation against the import of other goods and services from the tariff imposing country which will hurt the countries export marketing and thier domestic industry as a whole.

    For better or worse (and I believe better) we all operate in a global market. This drives competition and innovation and in the longer term will bring benefit to all. Protectionism only serves to kill those it seeks to protect.

    1. Re:Its been tried before and it doesn't work by roard · · Score: 1
      The same thing happened to the UK film industry. In order to fight against films produced in Hollywood, a law was passed requiring a certain percentage of all films to be produced in the UK. Since the general public wanted Hollywood films, the only way to comply was to show supporting features produced in the UK. Since this was more profitable than producing feature films, the UK film industry ended up producing supporting features about candlemaking in Birmingham. So it died. We are now seeing some recovery, but only after at least two decades of decline.

      In France, we had a similar law for films and for radio; on radio, a minimum percentage of french songs should be broadcasted, etc.

      But in fact, it worked really well ! a great bunch of good french movies came out of this politic (for example, Amélie), and same for songs (new singers/band, etc.).

      Of course, it's not always perfect, but it worked. It's perhaps due to local characteristics (heavy support of private firms (french tv channels such as Canal+ or TF1) for films, etc.), it was perhaps less "state driven" than in UK, I don't know.

      Anyway, the "cultural" protectionnism at least could works. I think it's possible that thoses sorts of things works, if only there is a real incentive to let people produce things locally, not only simply less or more taxes, but a real implication of local actors (private firms and state).

    2. Re:Its been tried before and it doesn't work by beakburke · · Score: 1

      " But in fact, it worked really well ! a great bunch of good french movies came out of this politic (for example, Amélie), and same for songs (new singers/band, etc.)." The question is, are these groups so good that they might have made it without the government requiring a certain quota of French songs? The answer is that you will never really know, but people will credit the law for the success of these group, which may (or may not) have happened anyways.

      --
      ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    3. Re:Its been tried before and it doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      frankly I can't see where this will matter as a) most of the places these jobs get offshored to aren't buying the software int he first place as they cannot afford, and b) even with these offshored jobs these people still cannot afford to buy the products in question.

      summation: your argument is meaningless as they are NOT the prime market and probably will NOT be for centuries.

      Frankly I see no point in doing business with countries that are not at a similar socio-economic level as the U.S. The only entities who benefit from these associations are companies taking advantage of cheap manufacturing to try to help maintain their unrealistic growth targets. Meanwhile this puts most of their customers out of work, and the whole thing spirals down the tubes anyways as their old primary market is primarily unemployed, their outsource countries are little tin cup beggar countries who can't afford the products anyways, net result they're right back in the hole.

  33. Because the US collects Microsoft Tax worldwide by zmahk31 · · Score: 1

    Collecting tariffs on software imports would be the most stupid thing to do. Billions of dollars each year flow into the US economy just because of the global Microsoft Tax. This only works for as long as other countries continue to play nicely, and don't get funny ideas like trying to get their cut of Microsoft's tax by themselves levying tax on software imports (and imports of other "intellectual" property like movies that have zero material value but nonethelesse generate huge flows of cash into American pockets).

    In short, the US is arguably the worlds greatest profiteer from trading software, and would be damn stupid to give this up to just "protect" the lifelyhoods of a bunch of hackers. Nobody's going to shake up a system that's probably the only reason for keeping the US trade deficit from causing instant economic implosion.

  34. Better for Micro$oft... by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

    This is fine in theory...

    that is until you want a Linux distro made outside the US like say SUSE...

    What we _do_ need is a control on our US population other than corporations and the government that _teach_ people rather than prefer them stupid. The jobs aren't just going away because of money. Some of them, no flame intended, are going aways because the IT market is glutted with a lot of paper people that never are up to snuff. The good ones get drowned or hang onto small lifeboats to survive while the bad ones get big fat paychecks for doing a crappy job.

    The companies will cease moving the jobs when two things occur:

    1 - Salaries, and job working conditions get hashed out to normal levels like they are in other types of jobs.
    2 - People work as hard as other people in other positions to make the companies money. (No offense to the hard-working people - I'm referring to the useless that pretend to know IT skills. You all know who they are.)

    --

    "Bah!" - Dogbert
    1. Re:Better for Micro$oft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This is fine in theory...

      >that is until you want a Linux distro made outside the US like say SUSE...

      Don't forget that other countries will tax US software the same way once the US starts doing this.
      As consumers in other countries will not be prepared to pay more for US software, that will increase the sales of non-US software and decrease the US income.

  35. who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't you canadians realize that down here in the USA we don't care what you think?

    1. Re:who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you USians realize that up there in Canada we don't care what you think also? Better that way.

    2. Re:who cares by schon · · Score: 1

      don't you canadians realize that down here in the USA we don't care what you think?

      really? for a country that doesn't care, you sure have a thin skin

    3. Re:who cares by dlek · · Score: 2, Funny
      don't you canadians realize that down here in the USA we don't care what you think?

      Yeah, it's been made pretty clear, especially by your current government. Actually, your government doesn't seem to care what anyone thinks... not Canadians, nor Europeans, nor even Americans.

      Well, I don't think my karma's gonna be "Excellent" anymore...

    4. Re:who cares by qnxdude · · Score: 0

      for a bunch of fucking International Terrorists Yanks (you are undeserving of the term american) have very thin skin too.. all i want to know.. Where are iraq the weapons of mass destruction? you come up empty handed so far.. you better hurry up and plant some weapons so you can justify your murdering spree. Perhaps its time for canada to shut down the energy so you can understand that you need Canada more than Canada needs the US. here's a stat for ya.. 5th largest producer of energy and Canada supplies 2/3 of the US's energy..

  36. A bad idea for so many reasons... by praksys · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Trade war. The US exports for more IP than it imports. Just to give you an idea of how big the difference is, US spending on R&D is roughly equal to spending by the rest of the OECD combined. When it comes to software production the disparity is even larger. If the US starts a trade war in this area then they have almost nothing to gain, and they have a very large and lucrative export sector to lose.

    2. Racism. Why is it that people have so much trouble with the idea of competing with poor people for work? Do you think they aren't hungry enough already? Does the idea of them actually developing some sort of economy disturb you? After all they have to compete with cheap mass produced products from industrialized nations, and massively subsidised food. Why shouldn't we have to compete with them for work?

    3. Self-interest. Why the hell would any country want to encourage their best and brightest to waste their talent doing work that could be done for a fraction of the price by cheap labor in other countries? For that matter why would you want to waste your life doing something that is not economically productive? Find something worthwhile to do with you life, instead of trying to strong-arm your customers into paying artificially inflated prices for skills that are not needed.

    4. Freedom. It isn't just good for software. When ever you see someone who is trying to shut out the competition you can be pretty sure he is trying to get a free ride by screwing everyone else.

    1. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) True.

      2) Uh... Serious lack of economics there. And what was with the out-of-the-blue use of the word "Racism"? You provided nothing in your statement to back that up, even though it *might* be involved.

      3) Maybe

      4) But isn't that exactly what a lot of software companies are doing to their US employees now?

    2. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I especially agree with number 3). Too many people are going into programming simply because it pays the most. We need people to move into other, more creative areas. There is plenty of work to be done in biotech. Real, groundbreaking work instead of makign a web page for a corporation to sell worthless widgets. Or, if you are upset at jobs being exported, strike back! Develop software to automate to programming process so that coders are unnecessary. My company is working on such a tool now.

      People of any country have a right ot live and work and compete. It is up to you to compete right back. If they really are unskilled, use your skills to beat them. If not... then enjoy better and cheaper software.

    3. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      2. Racism. Why is it that people have so much trouble with the idea of competing with poor people for work? Do you think they aren't hungry enough already? Does the idea of them actually developing some sort of economy disturb you? After all they have to compete with cheap mass produced products from industrialized nations, and massively subsidised food. Why shouldn't we have to compete with them for work?

      Oh yeah, pull the race card. I don't care that Indians are brown and Chinese are yellow. What I care about is that we are exporting our industry to the third world. There's more to good business than the next quarter, and once there's no reason to develop software in the US, there won't be any US software companies. That includes microsoft, oracle, and probably Sun. Never mind that I can't even go where the jobs are - India is very protectionist.

      3. Self-interest. Why the hell would any country want to encourage their best and brightest to waste their talent doing work that could be done for a fraction of the price by cheap labor in other countries? For that matter why would you want to waste your life doing something that is not economically productive? Find something worthwhile to do with you life, instead of trying to strong-arm your customers into paying artificially inflated prices for skills that are not needed.

      Ahem. Refer back to that bit about maintaining local talent. Then realize that most of the places that are doing the outsourcing (like Tata) tend to exaggerate the qualifications of their employees. What sane person takes a senior development position that requires years of experience and farms it out to a fresh grad?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    4. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the obvious....it's not that we hate competing with poor people...it's that we can not move to India nor would we want to. You think getting paid 20k in India makes that person poor? It does here...it doesn't there....THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE OR WHERE THEY ARE IT HAS TO DO WITH THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THEY CAN DO THINGS FOR CHEEPER THAT WE COULD NEVER DO HERE. So if we pay taxes here and if these companies want to stay here (ie the managment) then we should have the say: either get the hell out of our country and move to india or hire US workers. I have no problem competing with Indian workers....I do when they don't plan on living in the US or when they are only here to ship the ~= to millions back to India for their families to live in luxury when I would be lucky to afford a car on the same salery. Hey I wouldn't have the slightest problem working for 20k a year if it ment I could retire in a 3rd world country after a decade of work. OH I get it now...I'm supposed to learn from this...foolish me.

      Ok in that case I'll divorce my wife...leave my kids and move into the shittiest appartment I can find and buy a Kia. I'll work for 20k a year for a decade doing work that cost me 100's of thousands of dollars just to learn and many years to learn so I can then retire in India. Now I get it....foolish me. Guess to be moral I should just ship my family out to India today instead of divorcing them.

      It's real simple....US upper managment is greedy and selfish...in a way we have a class system here and the only way to get the good end of the stick is if you're the boss. SO if you do want to stay in the industry and you don't have on your resume that you developed 90% of sendmail...then either start your own business coding with NO clients...move into upper managment...or move to India.

    5. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by evilWurst · · Score: 1

      2. Oh, there's no need to bring race into it at all. It's economic - US citizens *can't* compete with "poor" countries, because their cost of living is so low. They can work for rates we can't even survive on - I don't mean living in luxury here, I mean *survive*, as in being able to feed, clothe, and shelter oneself and one's dependents (spouse, children). We can remove race from it entirely - if you're insinuating that all Americans are white - by looking at Canada, because US workers have trouble competing with Canadians; they aren't poor at all, but if push comes to shove they can underbid us every time.

      I'm not agreeing with starting a trade war, just disagreeing with the myth that this is more of a race/nationality thing than a survival thing.

    6. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by Thomas+M+Hughes · · Score: 1
      I'm only going to deal with this issue at the moment, since I'm not awake enough to deal with the whole message at the moment. If you would like me to, please drop a reply requesting it.
      3. Self-interest. Why the hell would any country want to encourage their best and brightest to waste their talent doing work that could be done for a fraction of the price by cheap labor in other countries? For that matter why would you want to waste your life doing something that is not economically productive? Find something worthwhile to do with you life, instead of trying to strong-arm your customers into paying artificially inflated prices for skills that are not needed.
      First, why would people want to encourage their best and their brightest to do things that could be done cheaper elsewhere? The short answer to this is that for the local economy, its healthier to waste money on people who exist in the local economy, then to be efficient in someone else's economy. By outsourcing out of the country, the money paid leaves the country, and the overall health of a national economy declines. That is of course, unless those best and the brightest can get jobs elsewhere within your economy, now that they can't do the job that has been outsourced. Most of the time, this alternative job has a lower pay then the original job. Thus, global wages for everyone are depressed. This may be offset by lower prices, due to the free market. Or it may just continue into the Marxist spiral that leads to the paradox of capitalism, and the world system implodes as the number of people with money to support the system becomes too small.

      On the other hand, why would you want to waste your life doing something that's not economically productive? There's a very easy reason for this. You don't base your life on your economic productivity. Instead, you value your life based on other factors, such as your individual happiness or contentment, how much you enjoy what you do, etc. Who cares if you're "economically productive"? Just worry about being happy. If being wealthy makes you happy, then you have a reason. But economic wealth alone isn't enough.

      Something worthwhile to do with your life may be buying a farm out in the middle of nowhere doing subsistance organic farming. Its certainly not economically productive, but if it makes you happy, go for it.

      Now, following all this, what's the answer? Trade tarriffs? The free market? A centrally controlled economy that builds up new markets as old ones go away? Its hard to say in a slashdot comment.
    7. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      industry to the third world. There's more to good business than the next quarter, and once there's no reason to develop software in the US, there won't be any US software companies. That includes microsoft, oracle, and probably Sun. Never mind that I can't even go where the jobs are - India is very protectionist.

      Here's an interesting point, if you have a parent company in the US and the profits are going to the country, but they have no staff, that means that more profits go to the share holders.

      So you are going about this the wrong way, get 3 or 4 million dollars worth of loans and buy shares in these companies and rake in the dollars. This is the reality of the US service economy.

      In a few more years, the US won't produce anything, they will just receive money from other countries producing things. However tarriffs will affect all of the little subsidiary companies lurking around the world, the dividends will shrink and your economy will tank. I read something the other day about 70 year old women having to go back to work because their superannuation collapsed.

      That sucks.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    8. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by BrianH · · Score: 0

      3. Self-interest

      Self interest should be the BIGGEST reason for imposing tariffs, and not just on I.T., but across the board. I saw a great quote on the subject recently that basically boiled down to this: The U.S. has the highest cost and standard of living, per capita, in the world. The globalization of jobs means that they will tend to gravitate towards the nations with the lowest costs and standards of living. This has two potential implications for the U.S.:

      1) The "We don't compete" scenario: All of the good jobs will eventually move offshore. We'll still have a limited amount of low paying service positions, but that's it. Per capita income and standard of living plummet, and the U.S. becomes a third world nation with a big military.

      2) The "we compete" scenario: We somehow manage to get competetive with the offshore workers. This causes per-capita income to plummet and standards of living to decline. Once again, the U.S. becomes a third world nation with a big military.

      And that thought should scare the hell out of people, because poor, desperate people with big militaries have a nasty habit of doing horrible things.

      Fact is, when you're at the top of the heap, the ONLY way to compete with the guys at the bottom on price is to lower your standard of living and incomes. That scenario should NOT be acceptable to any American who cares for his/her country. Are tariffs fair? Not really, but I'd rather not sell out my kids future just so some exec can show improved quarterlies and take home a bonus.

      Some days, sometimes, I think that I'll live to see a revolution in this country and either a return to the things that made this country great (freedom, community, family)...or the imposition of a protectionist socialist regime(hey, we've got a growing socialist movement here so it's possible). If that happens, I predict that it'll be a subject like this one that provides the catalyst.

      --

      There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
    9. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by Jodka · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Trade war....

      "Trade War" is an oxymoron. Trade is a form of cooperation, not a form of agression. Perhaps the term you meant to use is "Protectionism War" ?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    10. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. Racism. Why is it that people have so much trouble with the idea of competing with poor people for work? Do you think they aren't hungry enough already? Does the idea of them actually developing some sort of economy disturb you? After all they have to compete with cheap mass produced products from industrialized nations, and massively subsidised food. Why shouldn't we have to compete with them for work?

      What the HELL does this have to do with Racism???

    11. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it poor to insult a large portion of readers, by claiming that software engineering by United States citizens is a waste of our lives.

      The trend to offshore jobs is hardly a recent phenomena, it goes in cycles and has failed the past two times it was attempted in the financial software industry (mine). As a director of services in my organization, I find the work of offshore to be of less or equal quality and generally less flexible than onshore work. In my experiences I have found that most of the offshore resources that are truly exceptional, end up onshore under some type of work agreement.

      I agree their must be a place for it, maybe for the development of components with stringent requirements or shrink wrapped products.

      However, in the service based industry (especially financial), we'd lose customers if they knew their accounts and funds were being serviced by software developed overseas.

      Fear not my fellow U.S. software engineers, most large organizations are requiring a job requisition be open for 6 months before hiring any onshore non-U.S. Citizens. My organization for one, is looking to help bolster our own economy by keeping the majority of its software engineering needs here in the U.S.

    12. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Here's an interesting point, if you have a parent company in the US and the profits are going to the country, but they have no staff, that means that more profits go to the share holders.

      The majority shareholders being the already rich. More money goes to the rich, less to the middle class and poor. This causes the middle class to shrink, and the country to turn to shit. It's not my idea of a pleasant place to live.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    13. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by orchy · · Score: 1

      I agree. Why is a worker from a rich country entitled to be "protected" from a worker in a poor country? With all the advantages you've been given - superior education, welfare safety net, political stability and powerful men who share your culture more likely to promote you - why do you need to stick another roadblock in the way of poor worker? All those benefits you have should have improved your employability. This should allow you to charge more than the Latvian peasant according to the free market. But if even after all that, you're still no better than him, what right do you have to say he and his family should remain in abject poverty?

    14. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by beakburke · · Score: 1

      or option 3. in which american workers continue to become more productive, thus justifying our high wages and high standard of living. If it was cheeper to do everything elsewhere, then why would international companies to anything in the US. Fact of the matter is, the more software jobs that move to india, and the greater the trade imbalance, the cheeper it becomes to do work in the US. You completely disregared exchange rates. If the US standard of living dropped and we could suddenly not afford to import as much from overseas, then the value of the dollar, relative to other currencies, would be cheaper, thus making US produced products "cheeper" to foreigners, because even though the cost in dollars is the same, the cost in terms of say, rupees, is much lower. You are extrapolating a trend instead of seeing that it is an equation with an equilibrium.

      --
      ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    15. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 1

      "US spending on R&D is roughly equal to spending by the rest of the OECD combined"

      Please provide a source for this claim, it sounds incredible.

    16. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by praksys · · Score: 1

      Take a look here:

      http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind00/c2/c2s7.htm#c 2s 7l1

      I made a slight mistake. US expenditures are roughly equal to G7 expenditures combined (and the G7 accounts for roughly 85% of OECD expenditures). As a fraction of OECD expenditures, US expenditures have varied between 48% (1985) and 43% (2000). Part of the drop was due to the addition of countries to the OECD, and part was due to increased expenditures in some non-G7 countries. As a fraction of G7 expenditures, US expenditures have increased in recent years (in 2000 expenditures by other G7 countries was equal to about 98% of US expenditures).

    17. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Trade war. The US exports for more IP than it imports.

      As a US citizen who likes having money to spend, this is just the way I like it.

      2. Racism.

      Wrong word. Hm... how about "Economic discrimination"?

      Why the hell would any country want to encourage their best and brightest to waste their talent doing work that could be done for a fraction of the price by cheap labor in other countries?

      This isn't actually the case. The best and the brightest keep their jobs, it's the good but not quite extraordinary that are losing them.

      The trouble is, there are people here who want to do these jobs. Using cheaper labor elsewhere makes them poor, and this makes its way through the economy.

      Why shouldn't we have to compete with them for work?

      No one wants to compete for supply. Either we want to be in this market or not, depending on what the profit margin is.

      4. Freedom. It isn't just good for software. When ever you see someone who is trying to shut out the competition you can be pretty sure he is trying to get a free ride by screwing everyone else.

      Yeah, and it really sucks if you're the everyone else, but if you're on top it's good.

      You want fairness, well fairness is the right thing to do, but bad for the US because we're profiting from the established system.

    18. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by bfree · · Score: 1

      On point 1, if the rest of the world responds to the US actions by imposing their own tariffs on US owned copyrights and patents (that's what a trade/protectionism war is, tit for tat) then as an American you a going to have less money to spend. All it takes is one overseas company to choose to take another route instead of paying the increased price and your countries cash goes down. Now how much money you lose depends on the level of the tariff, but don't forget that tariff money is being collected by your opponents and they can then spend that money on fighting you or improving their own country.

      Even more interesting would be if the rest of the world decided to examine patent law. Perhaps they would simply state that US awarded patents were unrespected outside because the US Patents Office is so useless it should be ignored. Perhaps they could also co-operatively destroy any potential applicability of the areas where the US has sought to extend patents (software and business practices).

      --

      Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

    19. Re:A bad idea for so many reasons... by TeraCo · · Score: 1

      Sure, but it doesn't have to be like that. In Australia we have more ownership among the moms and dads then any other country IIRC, thanks to the privitisation of our major comms company. I do agree that it's hard to get 'share ownership' out to the middle and lower classes. I leave that solution as an exercise to the reader! [Since I don't have one]

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
  37. You don't want free software? by stienman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why is software different

    Because it's bits and bytes, and can be replicated infinitely. So a programmer makes a program in 40 hours, and it's taxed forever, even if the programmer isn't continuing to work on it.

    and how would this change...if we did tax software imports?

    It would legitimize software as a 'thing', which has the same copyright, property, IP, patent, etc protections as things that exist physically and can't be duplicated for free.

    If software is ever to be free, programmers need to be free. For programmers to be free, we must invent real jobs that pay well that a real programmer can do for only a few hours a day. Then it won't matter if your job is shipped out, since your job simply won't exist anymore.

    Oh, wait, software will never be free. Sorry, guess you're screwed...

    -Adam

  38. Downloadable Software by Sepherus · · Score: 1

    What about downloadable software? Does downloading software from a non-US server count as importing?

  39. Software should be taxed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the companies that are outsourcing software overseas to save money are making their money off of the U.S. economy. Why should they have their cake and eat it too? Yes, consumer goods are made overseas for little money, but by the time they get here they are marked up conciderably. What we have now are companies that want the benefits of foriegn labor (cheap wages, no taxes, no unemployment, no retirement, etc...) but at the same time want to have all the marketing benefits from the USA. Sorry, no way.

    And all this talk about how it's a bad thing, and what about open source software, and whatever: too bad. Half the people saying this are probably from other countries and want to import their software for cheap. These same countries protect their people, but the U.S. is not allowed to protect their people? And the other half saying this probably have jobs now and think they are immune.

    That's the most beautiful things about America today and why we are in so much trouble. Our own people are the first ones in line to help our competitors. Sure, let's let in the H1 visa workers. Oh, and let's send even more jobs to India. Don't forget, make sure you don't do anything to impede the cheap software so none of our own businesses can compete. And while you are at it, if there are any problems make sure that the guest workers get to voice THEIR opinions to our politicians while they ignore the people they represent. Hell, the rest of the world just has to sit back and relax and let us destroy ourselves.

    If this was WWII we wold have bombed Pearl Harbor for the Japanese and then apologized to them after.

    Of course we all know the deal. Anyone who sticks up for themselves is a racist and thanks to Bill Clinton will get sent to jail for more time than murdering someone.

    And why is all this happening? Easy, a few people at the top of a few companies want to be billionaires and own everything and they don't care if they ruin the United States or screw over every last person as long as they get their money. And 20 years from now everyone will look back and wonder how everything fell apart.

  40. Yeah, this will work... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the WTO will love this idea just as much as they loved those steel tariffs...

  41. wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Satellite office or not, products made outside the US are subject to import duties and tariffs in other industries.

    The question is only how you would force the disclosure of allocated resources, etc., since software can be transmitted digitally and is thus much harder for US customs to monitor.

    -rt

  42. I think that you are being too accomodating. by composer777 · · Score: 1

    What we need to do is limit capital flight as well as allow weaker markets to impose tarrifs. So, the best solution is to make it illegal for companies to relocate overseas. I think that solves the problem much better. After all, they made there money here, and they should be required to keep their money here and support the country and the people that helped them get where they are.

    1. Re:I think that you are being too accomodating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot limit capital flight unless it is government money. For a DARPA contract or SBA loan, there could already be provisions for this.

      Would you really think it would be a better country if the government told you where you have to spend you money?

      Why not do it for states as well. Development in Utah is cheaper than California. So now you have to prevent capital flight to Utah from California.

      Oh, wait, Silicon Valley is cheaper than San Diego, so you have to enable legislation to prevent county-hopping. And mountain View is a bit more expensive than FremonT?

      So we might have to have local police monitor suspicious software development between city lines..

    2. Re:I think that you are being too accomodating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      make it illegal for companies to relocate overseas. I think that solves the problem much better.

      Great idea. It was used extensively in the Soviet Union, and we all know how well it worked there.

      Of course we shouldn't stop with companies: It should be illegal for US citizens to travel abroad since they would just spend money there.

      After all, they made there money here

      Oh, really? I was under the impression that Microsoft was selling Windows in more than 150 countries. The US isn't even 25% of their market.

      How well do you think we will do when the rest of the world does the same, and introduces 500% tax on software coming from the US? After all, they are making the money in those countries, so it should stay there.

  43. Re:programmer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    teh heh ... he said 'BIGGEST'

  44. US tariffs are not 'free trade' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Great. More unfair US tariffs locking out other countries from competing. I notice that the US vigorously opposes similar actions by other countries, and yet has the gall to claim they believe in free trade.

    Here in Australia, we dropped our tariffs long ago, partly at the insistence of the US. Now they can compete in our markets, but we can't compete in theirs. Australian jobs are effectively lost to the US. I don't expect US citizens to agree that this is wrong, but I don't have to agree with or even like the bare-faced hyprocisy of the US trade stance.

  45. How to maintain a wage differential by benwaggoner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, basically, the problem is that overseas workers can in many cases produce more good code per $ than US workers? Adding a tariff will protect some jobs here, but at the greater cost of increased administrative costs of handing (and working around) the tariff, and higher software costs in general. Basically what the tariff does is make outsourcing more expensive than using local talent. Sounds nice in general, but unless the USA spends more money on software, the net effect of this is that our software dollars will buy less productivity, and hence we'll have less software. So, instead of saving an American job, it might just mean that the software project doesn't happen wholesale.

    A much better approach is to find a way to justify the higher wages of American works. In order to not get outsourced, find a way to prove you're worth the money. Is that sheer code productivity, product insights, or what? There needs to be an angle. If you look at laptop manufacture, while most of the work is done around the South China Sea, product management, marketing, sales, etcetera all happens in the US. And while it sucks to be a laid off engineer, it certainly rocks to be able to buy an excellent laptop for half would an equivalent product would have cost a few years ago.

    The thing about free trade is that its benefits are diffusely spread, but those it hurts are highly concentrated. So, even though steel tariffs cost more American jobs than they save, the steel industries and unions are more concentrated and vocal than the broader steel consumer industries, which is everyone from car manufacturers to can makers to appliance builders, or whatever. Higher steel costs might have saved a job in Pennsylvania, but they probably cost twice that many jobs in lots of other places. People were laid off from car dealerships because of them, even if the person laid off didn't know that was the root cause.

    I've worked with several engineering projects where components were outsourced to India. The Indian engineers were are talented and motivated, and wrote good code. And, honestly, I can't say they need the money any less than "native" programmers. Our long term national interest is certainly aligned with India developming a modern, integrated economy! And I'm happy to be able to pay less for software, or buy packages that otherwise wouldn't have been written, than if all software had to be authored in the USA.

    1. Re:How to maintain a wage differential by dnahelix · · Score: 1

      I just wish my company leaders had actually asked me if I would work for less before they fired everyone and outsourced to India.

      --
      Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
      They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
      I Hate \.
    2. Re:How to maintain a wage differential by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      A much better approach is to find a way to justify the higher wages of American works. In order to not get outsourced, find a way to prove you're worth the money. Is that sheer code productivity, product insights, or what?

      My favorite is to make use of short-cycle, agile development methods like Extreme Programming. If you take full advantage of the high-bandwidth, low-latency medium of physical presence, you can achieve things that outsourcing can't match.

    3. Re:How to maintain a wage differential by pongo000 · · Score: 1

      A much better approach is to find a way to justify the higher wages of American works. In order to not get outsourced, find a way to prove you're worth the money.

      We're worth more money than foreign labor because our standard of living is higher than many third-world countries. Taking away a job from an American worker and giving it to a foreign worker forces the American worker to lower their standard of living, while the standard of living of the company's CEO is actually increased due to increased profit margins thanks to decreased labor costs. Outsourcing benefits two parties: The foreign workers, and company executives.

      Ever seen the price of a product reduced because of a change in manufacturing locale from the US to overseas? I haven't. Nikes are still expensive, as are Levis. I don't remember either product taking a price cut when manufacture moved overseas.

      The idea of foreign labor being beneficial to the American worker through cheaper goods (which is really what free trade is all about) is a fallacious argument. Overseas outsourcing is simply another way for companies to fleece the consumer by increasing profit margins while screwing American workers.

    4. Re:How to maintain a wage differential by benwaggoner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A heated argument, but completely not founded in economic reality. Nikes aren't cheap, but this isn't because of the money saved by manufacturing overseas. They're cheap because of the huge numbers of people they employ in design and marketing, and the huge fees they pay to sports figures. I'd sure that 90% of Nike's revenue stays in the USA. Here in Portland, Oregon, my neighborhood is chock full of very well paid Nike shoe designers, with wives who did graphic design for one of Nike's ad agencies before having kids. Seriously, I know five famlies within four blocks of me meeting this profile.

      These are jobs I'd much rather have in the US than, say, gluing leather together. You seriously want Nike factories here?

      As for the standard of living thing, you've got it backwards. Our standard of living is higher because our productivity is higher, not the other way around.

      As for fleecing the consumer, how many companies are posting record profit margins these days? Investors have gotten royally fleeced these last few years, but consumers have it pretty darn good.

      For specific examples of products that are cheaper due to oversease manufacturing how about, oh, everything dicsussed on Slashdot. Ever notice how kick-ass a laptop you can buy for $1000 now? Ever notice how many of those parts were built in the USA? Even as computers get better, they get cheaper, both due to outsourcing, and the pressure on prices of outsourcing.

      High tariffs would erode your standard of living more via higher prices than you'd gain in job protection. Ponder the most effective free trade agreement of all time - the Constitution of the United States of America. Lots of the same arguments you're making now were made then, but I'd have to say allowing stuff into Oregon from California without us being able to charge a tariff has been a good thing. I sure wouldn't want to force every state to have its own complete supply chain for everything. Take the same principal, and apply it to the rest of the world.

  46. So then... by Duncan3 · · Score: 1

    Redhat Linux will cost $0 but Red Flag Linux will be taxed and cost $0...

    We're saved!

    Get over it, software jobs are leaving, start retraining yourself now so you still have a job in a year.

    --
    - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
    1. Re:So then... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      I'm.. I'm a UNIX admin and system-level debugger. My job isn't safe anymore, either. Indians will do it for a quarter the rate I have to make just to be able to support myself.

  47. Dell needs to stop lying. by t0qer · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've heard that Dell outsourced all it's frontline support to India.

    It makes me sick everytime I see that Dell Intern "Who turned out the lights in tech support?" commercial knowing that what they portray on TV doesn't resemble reality at all.

    Dell cannot draw me into it's delusion of an american company anymore. I still love their service contracts though :D

  48. it's very ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That those who consider themselves most informed would latched on to the comments of a few uninformed, powerless individuals and state that the US is heading in the wrong direction.

    There is no evidence to support the idea that the US is heading towards more protectionism. If anything, the recent regimes are taking the opposite tack.

    Our willingness to put up with adversities like this have made our country incredibly economically strong over the years. Far stronger than the Europeans with their more worker-friendly laws.

  49. you should just move to canada by burnitall · · Score: 1

    less wars, better beer, fresher water =)

  50. Taxing ousourced labor by Sonicboom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree wholeheartedly about making corporations pay some sort of tax for outsourcing US jobs to another country. By removing jobs from the US, they're hurting the economy. The only people that benefit from this are the rich owners who are more concerned with lining their own pockets rather than keeping our economy stable. The combination of the "dot bomb" and outsourcing of IT jobs has caused the pay scales to stagnate because (1) there's not as many IT jobs, and (2) why pay a programmer top dollar when someone in some other country will do it for a fraction of the cost.

    The same for production of goods, like computers, TVs, cars, clothes, etc... but there should be a clause that says that the burden must be absorbed by the corporation, and not passed onto the consumers.

    Conversely, companies who produce goods in the USA using US labor and US parts should be given tax breaks.

    Our problem is that since the 80s we've moved out of being a "production-based economy" - and we've become a "service-based economy"... and it's cheaper for US corporations to exploit workers overseas to produce our goods rather than pay US workers an honest wage. Now that most of our goods are made overseas, we're moving our service-oriented jobs there, too.

    Notice that the "american dream of being middle class" is now pretty much a fantasy. (one parent works, the other stays home and raises kids, 3 bedroom home 2 car garage - nice suburban neighborhood). Now it takes 2 incomes to make ends meet in this scenario - and barely...

    --
    [Connection closed by foreign host]
    1. Re:Taxing ousourced labor by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      By removing jobs from the US, they're hurting the economy.

      Are they?

      Trade has increased drastically over the decades, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP (from under 10% in the late 60s to over 25% now). So by your theory, the economy should be a wreck.

      But curiously, we're much better off by almost any measure. We're in the middle of a downturn, but unemployment is still under 6%, and the economy's still growing.

      So perhaps your theory needs a little revision.

    2. Re:Taxing ousourced labor by Sonicboom · · Score: 1

      Not really.

      One example of many: Clothing Industry.

      Imagine how much more the dollar would be worth if the clothing companies moved production back to the US, and gave those jobs back to Americans.

      Unemployment would decrease, spending would increase.

      That's one example.

      Your stats about the trade increase since the 60s are irrelivant. You forget to add other variables such as inflation.

      It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you create jobs, you lower unemployment. if you lower unemployment and create jobs, people have money. If people have money - they spend it. If people spend money - it's good for the economy.

      *duh*

      --
      [Connection closed by foreign host]
    3. Re:Taxing ousourced labor by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      Your stats about the trade increase since the 60s are irrelivant. You forget to add other variables such as inflation.

      No, I don't. Take a look at US household income statistics. Adjusted for inflation, the median household income has increased 26% over the same period. And that's using the CPI, which if anything understates things. E.g., consider what kind of computing power (or home entertainment gear, or about eight zillion other things) you could have bought in 1968.

      Imagine how much more the dollar would be worth if the clothing companies moved production back to the US, and gave those jobs back to Americans.

      If all clothing were made in the US, then there would be a few more US jobs, true at least for a while. But to benefit a very few workers, all US consumers would pay more for their clothing, making the consumer's dollar worth less, not more. And if people are forced to spend more money on clothes, that's less that they spend elsewhere, putting other Americans out of work.

      It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you create jobs, you lower unemployment. if you lower unemployment and create jobs, people have money. If people have money - they spend it. If people spend money - it's good for the economy. *duh*

      As H. L. Mencken says, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

      It's true that creating jobs is good. But trade barriers don't create jobs; they just move them around. And since they move them from more efficient producers to less efficient ones, they destroy value, making everybody poorer.

    4. Re:Taxing ousourced labor by Sonicboom · · Score: 1

      If all clothing were made in the US, then there would be a few more US jobs, true at least for a while. But to benefit a very few workers, all US consumers would pay more for their clothing, making the consumer's dollar worth less, not more. And if people are forced to spend more money on clothes, that's less that they spend elsewhere, putting other Americans out of work.

      No. The Government needs to regulate "big business" - maybe put a limit to what a Corporate owner/board of director/CFO/CPO/CIO eieio, etc.. makes for a salary. The salaries at the TOP of the ladder are over-inflated, and the people who run big business are nothing more than gluttonous pigs.

      In Japan, a corporate exec's salary is based upon the success (or lack of success) of a company. That is a proper business model. Maybe it would make our business leaders more honest (read: ENRON, etc...).

      I agree that there's never an easy solution, but if the US Gov. was to properly regulate big business (including making sure they are honest, hire US labor, produce goods in the US, and not pass the cost back onto the consumer) - things would be better.

      One of the reasons we thrived after WWII was due to the fact that we were a nation that produced goods for the entire world. Every part in those goods were made in the USA, by Americans.

      We can't say this about most goods that are produced in the USA nowadays. Alot of labor is outsourced, and the production too. Then some big business companies (example auto industries) take all the parts made elsewhere, and then have them assembled in the USA. Why? Cheaper labor in other countries, and more importantly, little to no environmental regulations. Meanwhile the corporate leaders exploit the poor of some small impovrished company, evade environmental laws, evade proper working conditions, etc...

      It's all about making the people "at the top" act more responsible and benevolent towards the betterment of the USA - rather than lining their already gorged coffers with more Ben Franklins.

      Just because they can get away with evading environmental laws in another country doesn't mean that we're not affected by it... look at the destruction of the rainforests, and the effect it's had on global warming! Why tear down the rainforests? - So companies like McDonalds can buy their meat from 3rd world farmers who will raise cows on the newly cleared land. What's wrong with paying US farmers to raise cattle on US soil? Instead of the CEO of McDonalds making 48zillion, he could suck it up, tighten his belt, buy US raised cattle and only make 40zillion. *gasp* a 8 zillion dollar loss. But hey - when you've already got a few billion - what's a zillion?
      (yes - I know... zillion... I'm trying to make a point)

      --
      [Connection closed by foreign host]
    5. Re:Taxing ousourced labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The only people that benefit from this [outsourcing] are the rich owners

      And of course the poor workers in Canada or India, but they don't count, as they are not Americans, right?

    6. Re:Taxing ousourced labor by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      By removing jobs from the US, they're hurting the economy. The only people that benefit from this are the rich owners who are more concerned with lining their own pockets rather than keeping our economy stable.

      Bullshit. The real beneficiaries are the consumers who pay lower prices for products and services. That's why steel tarriffs are a problem: yes, they protect steel producers, but steel users cannot benefit from lower prices that are the result of competition, and of course, in almost every industry, there are far more buyers than sellers. That removes the incentive for producers to compete, raises prices across the board, and then, those protected domestic industries will find themselves unable to export, as the foreign industries are forced to find new markets to sell into, at their reduced prices. Protectionism always fails for this reason. Why do countries do it then? Because it works long enough for the next election, and the next generation of politicians will be blamed for the downturn anyway, because our political system does not encourage long-term thinking.

      but there should be a clause that says that the burden must be absorbed by the corporation, and not passed onto the consumers.

      You seem not to understand what a corporation is. It is not an alien entity with its own resources. It is an organization of individuals united to perform economic tasks, and the only money it has comes from the sale of goods and services. If "corporations" are forced to increase their outgoings but as you say, not increase their income, what does that mean? It means lower wages and fewer jobs. Exactly the result you were trying to avoid.

      it's cheaper for US corporations to exploit workers overseas to produce our goods rather than pay US workers an honest wage.

      Firstly, there is no such thing as exploitation, apart from slavery. People are paid what their work is worth. If they don't want to work, they can quit and someone else will take their jobs. Oh, you say, if they don't work they'll starve? Shame on those American corporations, offering people the ability to earn money and support themselves! And of course it works both ways - if your work is worth more than you're paid, you can quit and get a better job.

      You see, Americans are paid an honest wage - and they find that being born in the US doesn't automatically mean they are more skilled and productive than those born in India.

      I am always amused by people who say corporations should show more loyalty to their employees, because it's a two way street. When times were good, employees left established companies in a stampede to go to "dot com" jobs. Where was the loyalty there? If you want to deny corporations the right to fire, you must also deny employees with right to quit - and that's in no-one's interest.

    7. Re:Taxing ousourced labor by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Did you not notice how badly Japan's economy has been sucking for the past decade? Salary caps decrease the willingness for people to innovate and be an entreprenuer which is what any economy needs a lot of to keep job growth and creation strong. Centrally planned economies with artificial salary caps HURT the economy, they don't help it. The market will dictate what every worker from the lowest to the low to the highest on high will get paid.

      By capping salaries at the top you don't redistribute wealth, you destroy it. No one gets the difference from what you capped. But you wouldn't understand that would you? Its not like you have even the most basic of a grasp on economics do you?

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    8. Re:Taxing ousourced labor by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      Instead of the CEO of McDonalds making 48zillion, he could suck it up, tighten his belt, buy US raised cattle and only make 40zillion. *gasp* a 8 zillion dollar loss. But hey - when you've already got a few billion - what's a zillion?
      (yes - I know... zillion... I'm trying to make a point)


      Why don't you go out and try this will real numbers? Look up the McDonalds CEO's salary, calculate how many cows they buy, and how much difference him giving up his salary would make?

      I'd bet the difference is much smaller than you'd think.

      In Japan, a corporate exec's salary is based upon the success (or lack of success) of a company. That is a proper business model. Maybe it would make our business leaders more honest (read: ENRON, etc...).

      You should learn a little more about the topic. Simpleminded solutions about making corporate leaders more responsible are one of the major causes of the recent accounting frauds.

      Why? Well, it used to be that CEOs were mainly paid via salary. But it was felt that CEOs weren't responsible enough that way, that they tended to do things that were interesting for them, but not necessarily beneficial to customers or shareholders.

      So some bright people said, "Gosh, let's make it so that their interested are better aligned with shareholders. We'll give them stock, and stock options. And bonuses, too."

      Which in many cases worked. But it also gave a very tempting opportunity to a lot of feckless MBA-fueled locusts, who took the options, bent the corporate numbers to look better than they were, took their fat checks, sold their options, and ran. And you know the story from there.

      The lesson? Yes, it's important to make people responsible, especially the executives. But simple, obvious solutions generally come with unintended consequences.

      One of the reasons we thrived after WWII was due to the fact that we were a nation that produced goods for the entire world. Every part in those goods were made in the USA, by Americans.

      If we made goods for the entire world, what would we get back? The answer has to be "other valuable stuff," otherwise we'll stop doing it. That's trade, and tariffs harm it.

      And if we make goods only for ourselves, we end up poorer than we would if we traded. Honest. Go do some research on "comparative advantage", the economic principle that underlies trade. Or imagine what would happen if each state, each city started putting up tariffs to "protect" local industries. A giant clusterfuck, that's what.

  51. PLEASE s/loose/lose/g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    loose is the opposite of tight
    lose is the opposite of win or obtain

    Your lucid comment was marred by your inability to write proper English. I weep for my language.

  52. fairness by six11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At one point in the past I would have agreed with the poster. But somebody asked me: what do I have against these people from other countries who want to make a living selling software in my own country?

    This is a question that anti-globalization people need to ask themselves. If somebody in mexico can turn screws for $1.24 an hour, it makes sense that you would use that labor source before using a $38 an hour source in Michigan. That $38 figure only because so obnoxiously high because of some tortured sense of nationalism, and the wonderfully effective extortion campaigns brought to us by national unions.

    This situation is entirely brought on because people either don't understand basic economics, or feel better about themselves if they feign ignorance.

    As with physical labor as with software: Nothing good can come from the government issuing a tax on the import of what is essentially foreign brain power. As another poster mentioned, once written into law, such a tax would be damn near impossible to undo.

    If a Mexican (or Indian or Russian) programmer is willing and able to write equivalent code as I can for half the price, which would a rational buyer choose? Yes, it sucks for me, but these other people have made good decisions to get to where they are that they can threaten my job security. I think tariffs such as this is at best nationalistic and at the worst, racist. Such tariffs only succeed in widening the artifical economic gaps in the world, and supporting them is tantamount to supporting poor quality of life in other countries.

  53. What goes around comes around by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

    Employees did not show an ounce of loyalty to their employers during the boom so why should the employers show loyalty to the employees during the recession? Many overpaid and incompetent IT works jumped shop as soon as they got a higher offer from some other company. Those people are the ones who ruined everything for the rest of us.

    --
    1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    1. Re:What goes around comes around by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Oh, bull. They're motivated by money and nothing else. It's asinine to assume otherwise. Once there's profit to be had from hiring an American worker, watch how fast the jobs come back.

    2. Re:What goes around comes around by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      "They're motivated by money and nothing else."

      Wouldn't you say the same thing for some of the IT workers during the boom?

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    3. Re:What goes around comes around by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. I would chock that up more to the business owners and venture capitalists during the boom. Personally, I was interested in technology and it was easy for me to get my foot in the door because of the boom... I'm still motivated by technology and my interests. I never made THAT much money. I don't think anyone else that couldn't be called "guilty" did either.

    4. Re:What goes around comes around by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      True, I wouldn't mind the money but you can usually tell who's in the IT field for the money or for their interest in technology. My current boss did not have formal education on IT but he's quite knowledgable due to computers being his hobby. My former boss was just into for the money and he was pretty usless.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  54. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work at Dell and if its an L1, chances are, you are talking to one of Apu's son's.

    Those who give up freedom for security deserve time IN SOVIET RUSSIA!!

  55. Thos Evil Canadians... by stygar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ....are already subject to enough punitive measures by Americans who don't want competition, even in spite of NAFTA. Ask a BC logger or a Saskatchewan wheat farmer.

    Why is an American programmer any more entitled to a job than one in Calgary? It's not like you can claim that the Canadian is working for ten dollars a week like one in India.

    This is typical of the American attitude towards international trade: other countries exist to serve as markets, not sources of competition. Buying things from Americans good, selling things to Americans bad!

    1. Re:Thos Evil Canadians... by blueforce · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's the point at all.

      I think the "typical American attitude" is pretty much synonymous with any other country's civil "attitude" - The fear of losing jobs, livelihoods, and a future.

      That "attitude" is HARDLY unique to America. Retorting with the typical "find another career field" isn't the answer. Most people - regardless of their nationality, home, race, or religion - invest huge amounts of time, money and passion into learning skills and a trade that interests them, that makes them generally happy and that they believe will provide a future for themselves and their families. Eventually, they lose their job because a company wants to move to Canada, Mexico, India, <Insert country here>. Regardless of the occupation - be it blue collar or white collar, it's devastating to lose your livelihood because it moved to another country. I suppose when a Canadian mentions This article Then it's different right?

      I don't have the answer or the solution. Further, I don't believe for a minute that there aren't legitimate, sound business reasons to move business divisions to other markets. But to make such blanket statement that Buying things from Americans good, selling things to Americans bad is just plain ignorant. - We've been buying electronics from Japan, toys from Hong Kong, shirts from Pakistan, and shoes from Taiwan for decades.

      --
      If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
    2. Re:Thos Evil Canadians... by stygar · · Score: 1

      I think most of my bitterness came from his implication that competition from Canadians was somehow unfair. Both countries agreed to free trade, presumably in good faith, yet the US has acted in bad faith on major trade issues a number of times since then.

      As an example, the US (under pressure from domestic farm groups who dislike Canadian competition in their home market) has repeatedly accused the Canadian Wheat Board of unfairly subsidizing Canadian farmers, dumping wheat on the US market, etc. in spite of having these claims discredited and rejected repeatedly during arbitration. Typically, they wait six months or a year, then make essentially the same claim as last time (though none of the facts have changed), and reimpose tariffs. The tariffs paid are eventually refunded, but no compensation is given for lost trade because of the customers that were scared away by them. The US has also been engaing in similar tactics against the Canadian softwood lumber industry.

      The common theme in these cases is US industries or workers claiming that the competition has an "unfair" advantage whenever they are losing business to Canadian competitors. This is exactly what the original poster was implying. Sure it's not fair to him that he lost his job through no fault of his own, but it doesn't follow that foreign competitors must therefore have an unfair advantage that needs to be rectified through tariffs.

    3. Re:Thos Evil Canadians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I remember when Clinton placed (another) tariff on New Zealand Lamb being imported into the US, while threathening NZ with sanctions if it dared to move away from its ludicrous, complete free market economy. "Free" as in "no restrictions for rich Americans".

  56. Impossible to enforce and assess taxable value by rollingcalf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Software can be encrypted and sent over the Internet so the IRS cannot detect it coming into our borders.

    Then even if they detect it, how do they decide a value on which the tax will be applied? A piece of software can cost anywhere from $0 to a over a billion dollars. The IRS will always end up undervaluing or overvaluing it.

    Some countries are actually retarded enough to impose import duties on software; anything downloaded off the Internet gets in duty-free because they can't catch it, while anything physically brought in on CDs or diskettes gets taxed based on a value that the customs officer pulls out of their ass. I recently sent my brother 2 CDs with Linux and other free software because broadband is not widely available in his country, and they slapped on US$50 duty, ignoring the $2 value I put on the customs form (for the cost of the media) and the glaring FREE SOFTWARE label on the CDs.

    Then there is the consideration that software can be duplicated infinitely. Someone can import a single copy of a software package that is worth $200 by itself, then get it installed on 10,000 machines.

    And how would you assess the foreign value component of software that was developed by teams in the US collobarating with overseas developers?

    --
    ---------
    There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    1. Re:Impossible to enforce and assess taxable value by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      You don't tax it when it comes in, you'd tax it when the money went out. If you send $100,000 seas for labor in making sofware you should pay a tax on that similar to what you'd be taxed if you spent $100,000 in labor for US employees. We're not worried about valueable software getting into this country duty-free like you would with a car, we're worried about US dollars heading out of the country to buy cheap labor.

      It keeps the playing field level for US workers. It's unfair, agreed. Personally I'd rather see businesses go unregulated here to a much larger degree. If US consulting companies played by the same set of rules (tax systems) as Indian companies we'd probably be able to compete with them on a fair playing field. I don't know what income taxes are like in India, but I'd wager that they're lower than they are here.

  57. tangible, from dictionary.com by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    tangible Audio pronunciation of tangible ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tnj-bl)
    adj.
    1.
    1. Discernible by the touch; palpable: a tangible roughness of the skin.
    2. Possible to touch.
    3. Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence.
    2. Possible to understand or realize: the tangible benefits of the plan.
    3. Law. That can be valued monetarily: tangible property.

    some people don't seem to know the context of tangible in this instance.

    I think the poster wants to tarrif the money paid to outside vendors.

    If it is done as a percentage, then free software would be free. however if you paid someone to write software, free or otherwise, that would get tarrifed

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  58. Incorporate(n/t) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  59. International teams? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem situation:

    What if a piece of software is created by a team composed of both off-shore foreigners and on-shore yankees. Should it get taxed?

  60. free trade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this from a country which is all for free trade... as long as it suits the interests of US enterprises, of course.

    Guess what? It's capitalism. If you're not willing or able to be competitive, that's your fault, no?

  61. Tit for Tat by evenmoreconfused · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since the US is surely a net exporter of software, does that mean you think it would be a good idea for the EU, Japan, etc to put import tariffs on Oracle, IBM and yes, even Windows?

    --
    No. Well...maybe. Actually, yes. It really just depends.
  62. As an Economist by hottoh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tariffs are best used to protect an 'infant' industry. When it is able to compete in the world market, then lift the protective tariff. There are other mechanisms to assist the adolescent industry that effectively support a competitive world price.

    Tariffs are tools, and they should not be used in a mature marketplace.

    One of the jobs of a government is to develop their economy with the hopes of a healthy export economy. That is best done when that economy produces a good that is comparatively cheaper than the good being traded. A healthy export economy makes for a good chance of a positive trade balance.

    I do not support these software tarrifs.

  63. PEOPLE WHO SAY 'USian' CAN SUCK MY ASS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:PEOPLE WHO SAY 'USian' CAN SUCK MY ASS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn not to shout, you loud-mouthed USian.

  64. Re: I'm a Canadian! :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, that's it. We're jealous. Right. Holy Shite, what are putting in the water up there? Soma?

  65. the Law by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1
    basically, there are some natural Laws (like gravity) that one learns to accept and handle very easily, else death follows pretty quick. then there are conventions created by humans for the sake of trying to grow "more human" in some way (often through the literally torturous route of considering oneself to be "more human" by forming mental models where other people are "less human"). these conventions are called Laws by various groups of self-deluded people. sometimes there are people who manage to understand their delusion and taint the happy ignorance by aligning their personal conventions w/ the natural Laws (e.g., by recognizing that All is Impermanent and doing their best to foster some maximally varied richness according to some perceived universal aesthetic). in making this choice they Leave their Family and the inherent comforts of dancing the limited-scope dance. they move away from overspecialization (the realm of insects and arachnids) and make pilgramage towards the source of the Law. an icy mountain pass, a rabbit spirit cultivated to demonic ambition, a river wider than than all its would-be ferriers (now dead at the bottom), a misguided dragon prince here and there. the pilgrims pass these and other obstacles on their way.

    some pilgrims have the monkey mind and some the pig snout. some are of more earthly stock and do not have ability to call the wind or tread the luminous cloud. but they travel together anyway, bound by the Law they have yet to understand. peaceful provinces, well-regulated and hospitible, are a night's work, two at the most; bellicose lands full of foul hatred and easy deception, likewise --- to dally is to fall behind. but what is it that they head towards? and why do they laugh and not understand calls for a tax on codified thought?

  66. Your sig doesn't work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    404 error..

    1. Re:Your sig doesn't work. by benwaggoner · · Score: 1

      Well isn't that embarassing! Thanks for catching that.

      Fixed.

  67. Soon we'll all be american anyway.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We may like being different from america, but we will not have the choice. Today Iraq, tomorrow, Iran, then Syria, North Korea, on to France and Germany.

    The invasion of Europe will be launched from the USA's nearest aircraft carrier, USS Britain, which was the first Europen country to be liberated, its' Premier having donated it as a gift to the New American Empire. UK subjects now have the unlimited access to the US media and goods that they have craved so much and for so long during the long, dark days of independance.

    "Blair -a restraining influence on the President"? Chamberlain thought he had Hitler under control....

  68. Foreign Sys Admins Telecommuting into US by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
    What about admins from India, Australia, etc., providing remote admin services of US-based servers?

    If the same people were in the US, they would need an H1-B. How is this going to be equallized?

    How can we compete with a person willing to live in a coldwater flat, and subsist on ramen noodles and rainwater?

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  69. Cliff... good question. by zymano · · Score: 0
    Your probably right.

    Let's not treat software differently than steel or any other product.

    I expect to see more 'foreign' countries try to steal jobs from the U.S. .

    This concept of fair trade makes no sense. The steel industry gets hit hard with 'dumping' all the time.

    Tariffs should be added to their software. I don't think India has a free market economy.

  70. COL in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I have to disagree with you there. There's only a handful of places in Canada where COL is even approximating that of the US (namely Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa). Pretty much everywhere else is substantially less.



    Ironically, buying a house in Canada is made considerably MORE difficult than the US, due to the number of tax incentives and cool benes from being a landowner down there. Go figure.

    1. Re:COL in Canada by single_user_mode · · Score: 1

      & where are 90% of IT jobs to be found in Canada...hmmm...could it be (namely Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa)

      --
      remove NOT from email.
  71. How? by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    So all of us have to get PHDs in Nano Technology now because big companies gave our jobs away? And then when the rest of the world catches up, we have to get another PHD? and another? Fuck that.

    I should be able to keep a stable job for 5 years without having to worry about the third world catching up and robbing me of my job every 5 years. Not all of us can afford to be in college all our lives and not everyone in this country is smart enough, so theres going to be a problem.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:How? by kubrick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I should be able to keep a stable job for 5 years without having to worry about the third world catching up and robbing me of my job every 5 years.

      Why? Divine right?

      This is what globalisation is all about; well, that and ensuring that the people at the very top of the heap don't lose out in the process.

      If you're not competitive (or don't want to compete), drop out of the race. Live your life by your own standards, not someone else's.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    2. Re:How? by Anti-HanzoSan · · Score: 0

      *sigh*

      I see you've returned, HanzoSan. Oh well, I guess it's time to jump in a phone booth, logoff of my usual handle and emerge as...

      *BOOM!!!*

      Anti-HanzoSan!!


      So all of us have to get PHDs in Nano Technology now because big companies gave our jobs away? And then when the rest of the world catches up, we have to get another PHD? and another? Fuck that.

      Um, how do you figure those are "our" jobs? As the companies own the workplace, the resources and pay the salaries, I think you mean their jobs. It's your job only as long as both you and the company decide that arrangement is to your mutual benefit. Companies have as much of a right to act in their own interest as you do.

      I should be able to keep a stable job for 5 years without having to worry about the third world catching up and robbing me of my job every 5 years.

      Robbing you?! Gimme a break! If you don't want to keep your skills up in order to add value above and beyond what your competition can add, the only thing robbing you is your own laziness and incompetence.

      Of course, if you don't like how other employers do business, you can always start your own company. Then you can keep your job in this country as long as you like.

      Not all of us can afford to be in college all our lives and not everyone in this country is smart enough, so theres going to be a problem.

      Why should that be the company's problem? As I said, they have as much right to act in their own interest as you have to act in yours. What gives you the right to demand they sacrifice their interests for yours? Something tells me you'd scream loud if someone expected you to sacrifice your interests for theirs.

    3. Re:How? by HanzoSan · · Score: 1


      First, Its impossible for me to compete with 6 billion people, we Americans may be smart but we certainly arent the smartest people on the face of the Earth.

      I have enough competition here in the USA, do I really want to compete with people all around the fucking globe as well? You are right, competition will help in the long run, but in the short term the cheap labor is bad because only the CEOs benefit from it.

      Look, I'm all for competition when its fair, if the world converts to the Euro, and we all have the same system, fine, I'd gladly compete against people in India, Pakistan, China etc, but as it is right now I cant compete at all because they dont even have money thats worth the same as me.

      So their economy has less inflation, and our money is more expensive, this prices me out of the competition unless I move to China. SO I cannot even compete because the system is giving them an unfair advantage? Fuck that.

      If we are going to have a global economy, we need a global minimum wage, a global dollar/euro/yen all worth the same, and a global tax system which follows American companies overseas. Meaning if an American company goes to China, they should pay Chinese and American taxes, they shouldnt be able to get out of paying taxes because they go over to China where the taxes arent so high.

      Look I'm all for Microsoft building offices in China, but a programmer in China, USA, Europe, etc should cost the exact same, period because we all should be using the same dollar/euro system.

      You cannot have a system thats out of balance and then let the CEO keep the change.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    4. Re:How? by Saurentine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I should be able to keep a stable job for 5 years without having to worry about the third world catching up and robbing me of my job every 5 years.

      Why? Divine right?

      This is what globalisation is all about; well, that and ensuring that the people at the very top of the heap don't lose out in the process.


      It is NOT divine right that would provide such a thing. Sound government policy can provide this stability to the economy of any nation.

      It is one of a government's duties to manage the economy to meet the goal of stability. Any worker competent in their field should be able to find and keep a stable job for at least 5 years on average. When people can't rely on anything more than a day-to-day future, the economy suffers badly because people don't feel secure. This is part of the problem we are facing in the US today.

      Unfortunately, the current US administration's economic policy is very well focused on stimulating the economy... ...of south China.

    5. Re:How? by Anti-HanzoSan · · Score: 0


      It is one of a government's duties to manage the economy to meet the goal of stability.


      Would you care to point to the clause of the Constitution that gives the government the authority to be managing the economy at all?

    6. Re:How? by allolex · · Score: 1

      [...] if an American company goes to China, they should pay Chinese and American taxes, they shouldnt be able to get out of paying taxes because they go over to China where the taxes arent so high.

      Actually, the US is one of the few countries in the world that reserves the right to tax its citizens abroad. Right now, however (and this partially supports what you say), if a US citizen earns below $80,000, she or he qualifies for the so-called Foreign (Earned) Income Exclusion.

      --

      Allolex

    7. Re:How? by allolex · · Score: 1

      Actually, the $80,000 is a tax credit. There is no earning limit.

      --

      Allolex

    8. Re:How? by freestyle-fiend · · Score: 1

      > China where the taxes arent so high.

      I couldn't find the rate of tax in China, but I would imagine that it is far higher than that in the US. The US has far lower taxes than most industrialised countries.

    9. Re:How? by platypus · · Score: 1

      Sound government policy can provide this stability to the economy of any nation.

      No it can't. It was tried and it failed. The net effect would be that a state who tries tries shield its home companies from foreign competition will get the other nations to do the same thing to him. The effect is that local companies suffer and the economy goes down.

    10. Re:How? by Beliskner · · Score: 1
      If we are going to have a global economy, we need a global minimum wage, a global dollar/euro/yen all worth the same, and a global tax system which follows American companies overseas
      Impossible. There is not that much wealth in the world. We are a poor planet with billions of starving and dying people. It's right that they take money from us, our selfishness dictates that we must now go and bomb those starving Ethiopean bastards for taking our jobs. They should shut up and eat our damn grain handouts. Do Americans eat grain or McDonalds? Hmmmm....
      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    11. Re:How? by Saurentine · · Score: 1

      Would you care to point to the clause of the Constitution that gives the government the authority to be managing the economy at all?

      If you'd even GLANCED at the Constitution before posting, you'd know that it is contained in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1-10 and 18, dipshit. The authority is very clear. Look twice as Clauses 2, 3, 5, and 18 if you don't understand. Then go over 3 and 5 again.

      Your deliberate ignorance of the US Constitution, and the tradition of over 4500 years of human government efforts is amusing, and nothing more.

    12. Re:How? by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Sound government policy can provide this stability to the economy of any nation.

      That's a very 19th century perspective, I think. Now that money is so fluid, those with lots of it can do an end run around any laws relating to tax, workplace safety, etc. Any government that tried to stand against the rest would see its unit of currency drop like a stone as speculators went to town on it... George Soros and his like have been responsible for more than a few catastrophic economic implosions in the last two decades or so.

      When people can't rely on anything more than a day-to-day future, the economy suffers badly because people don't feel secure. This is part of the problem we are facing in the US today.

      You're very right about this -- but it's a self-peretuating state. Economies depend on confidence, from investors, producers and consumers alike -- if any of those feels bad about things, it impacts badly on the whole system.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  72. competitive disadvantage for U.S. by drugdealer · · Score: 1

    If this is implemented, then it will create a disadvantage for companies located in the U.S. relative to companies in other countries which are free to make use of cheap labor resources. For example, a company located in Canada that was free to contract out to Indian programmers without paying a tariff would have an advantage over a U.S. company that had to pay a tariff, all else being equal.

    This would encourage U.S. companies to relocate their entire operations outside the U.S. They might not move to India, but moving to Canada, Ireland, etc. would not be far fetched in this scenario.

    Look at the history of tariff-protected industries around the world. Tariffs are usually a crutch that props up weak companies.

    The best example of the ills of propping up the weak is Japan's banking industry.

    At the moment, the U.S. software industry is probably the strongest in the world. Let's not weaken it by adding barriers to doing business.

  73. Actually... by JediTrainer · · Score: 1

    It seems simple enough. What we are experiencing here is a reversal of an issue Canadians have had to deal with in the height of the dot-com hype...

    Many, many talented IT workers, doctors and other skilled labourers were moving down south, because the jobs were there and the same jobs were paying more. Now, the tables have turned. The employers seem to have the upper hand, and the jobs are returning here. True, I don't earn as much as someone with an equivalent job in the U.S. (ie: I earn the same amount in Canadian dollars as someone in the U.S. would earn in U.S. dollars).

    I hate to say "that's life", but that's what it is. I didn't move south, even though I had considered it. I stayed put in Toronto, earning less, but I am now rewarded with somewhat improved (arguably) job security. I've had the same job for the last three years, since I left school. Bad or good, the world economy is certainly changing things around a lot.

    --

    You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
  74. Why combine aid and tariffs? by dpm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why send aid to third-world countries to help them develop, then prevent them from selling what they make by imposing import tariffs? It sounds like a terrible waste of money.

    Or, to take another perspective, compare the industries in the U.S. that do have tariff protection (such as steel and agriculture) with the ones that do not (such as software and entertainment). In which ones does the U.S. lead the rest of the world?

  75. Charginng more doesnt work unless theres monopoly by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    If you charge too much people wont buy your shit, problem solved.

    Tax them, use the tax money to fund our schools and colleges so our students can be better educated than the third world.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  76. Intel wanted tariffs on RAM by rolofft · · Score: 1

    An instructive comparison might be the tariffs Intel wanted on cheap RAM from Asia.

    Cheaper RAM hurt Intel in the short term - Intel accused foreign competitors of "dumping". But in the long term, cheap RAM made the tech industry grow. We wouldn't have 128MB video cards today if Intel had successfully lobbied to use tariffs to stiffle competition back then.

    ---
    "Most of the statutes, or acts, edicts, and placards of parliaments, and states for regulating and directing of trade have been either political blunders or obtained by artful men for private advantage under pretence of public good." -Benjamin Franklin,

    --

    "Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"

  77. Tariffs are a GOOD for US but Complex issue by AustinTSmith · · Score: 0

    Tariffs are used to boost the US economy (or any other nation that uses them). A Tariff on incoming software will BOOST the sales of US produced software and encourage corporations to make the software within the US. As a result there would be more demand for more programming jobs.

    Tariffs are used for a reason (or else they would not exist) however complex to approve. The NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) is an alliance between US, Canada, Mexico and is growing to include the Carribean Islands and Argentina. It was put into play to decrease the over all Tariffs percentages (I believe the average for the US is around 5%) in the involved countries. Instating a Tariff must first be approved by the WTO (World Trade Organization) which takes a very long time because an individual agreement must be made with each country affected.

    I think the real challenge is finding a percentage that will in a sense, "equalize" the software industry in the US with it's foriegn competitors.

    As far as out sourcing works it is a complicated task to Tariff. Some corporations such as Keane Consulting have two locations in India where all of the programming is done. So in a sense they are not outsourcing and it would be difficult to Tariff such a thing. However other companies do outsource their programming to other countries.

    Overall they are an effective strategy for to increase US made products, let me know what you think.


    - Austin T Smith

    --
    austintsmith.com
    1. Re:Tariffs are a GOOD for US but Complex issue by dpm · · Score: 1

      Tariffs are usually a net loss to the country that imposes them. They bring a temporary benefit to the industry they're trying to protect, but that usually turns sour as the protected industry becomes less and less competitive. In the meantime, they are a form of taxation on everyone else in the country, who is denied the opportunity to buy less expensive, imported goods.

      The worst kind of tariffs are the ones that fall heavily on the poor. For example, let's say that a country imposes tariffs on imported milk to protect its dairy industry, and the result is that milk is 25% more expensive. That is nothing other than a 25% sales tax on milk, and the single mother with three children will be paying a disproportionately large share of it.

  78. I think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you should either (a) lower your costs (b) move to the country in question AND lower your costs or (c) consider another job class.
    And before you get all shirty with me, our office is probably going to close in a week due to two clients failing to make payments to us over the last few months (now in litigation with them over their breach of contract), and I'm considering if it's worth staying a software developer in the current climate.

  79. USD is overvalued by Goonie · · Score: 1

    It seems to me obvious that the USD is overvalued, making US-produced goods and services wildly overpriced, and imports too cheap. So why isn't the US dollar devaluing?

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:USD is overvalued by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      It is (its down about 10%-15% to the Euro, as well as other currencies, since January), but there is another factor besides trade goods that affects exchange rates. Investment in the US has been the counter what should have made the dollar decline. Once the bubble popped, and an increasingly large group of foreigners grew concerned about our political situation to invest elsewhere, the dollar started falling. Currently, Asian investments have stemmed the massive selloff, but they could decide to move away from the US as the Euro becomes an increasingly important store of value. Free markets have many, many self correcting mechanisims, if you are willing to wait for them.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  80. Tarrifs will never be placed on software by Featureless · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's near impossible to enforce, and it's not in anyone's economic interests but domestic software developers.

    Can you really picture the American government taking an altruistic stand to preserve our domestic software developers?

    I thought not.

    Our government will sell out cheap (sorry, have sold out cheap) to the big indistry consortia that stands to benefit from that particular kind of cheap labor. This is old news.

    Taking the long view on "cheap foreign competition" over the years, the lesson of history is that labor always loses.

    Fans of capitalism will announce that even though you're out of work, the economy benefits because as goods (and now services) are cheaper, everyone (businesses and individuals) can afford more, and be more productive, etc. Theoretically you'll get another job doing something else and progress marches on.

    Globalization as a whole is tricky, though... simplistic thinking like this doesn't take into account the vagaries of currency markets and national conditions. I'm not qualified to really get into currency and other macroeconomic games, but as for the other... overseas software shops may never be as bad as it is in the garment industry (though I won't bet on it), but generally speaking "free trade" is often just code for "legal loophole" - it allows one to shop around for a "friendly" environment (child labor, inhuman work weeks, totalitarian security, exploitive wages and contracts, "flexible" legal system, no environmental regulations, and even the occasional ability to "disappear troublemakers without too much fuss"). They could never get away with this stuff in America - we have (or had) decent public education and functioning democracy. So they shield themselves in the complexities of trade to do it elsewhere.

    Ultimately I think favorably of globalization only as long as there are enormous punitive tarrifs to correct for legal imbalances, and a very healthy reexamination of global economic (and especially currency) policy to insure that games aren't being played. But I am always learning more about the topic and I would love to hear other opinions about this.

    1. Re:Tarrifs will never be placed on software by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      generally speaking "free trade" is often just code for "legal loophole"

      Sometimes that's true, but it's mainly in the short term.

      Take a look at what's happening to formerly low-cost producers like Japan and South Korea, the scary monsters from decades gone by. We all got richer through trade. And rich people don't like to work at crappy jobs, so they are exporting a lot of the low-cost manufacturing they used to do to countries that are still poor. Along the way, South Korea has picked up a lot in the way of democracy and human rights.

      totalitarian security

      This strikes me as an especially pernicious issue. My first instict is that we shouldn't do business with oppressive regimes. But on the other had, trade with China has been a big moderating influence on them, and the new generation of capitalists has been forcing political reforms that seemed impossible 20 years ago.

      I wish I had a better answer than "take a middle path" between economic isolationism and lassez-faire globalization, but it seems that economic wealth and democracy (and all the regard for human rights it entails) are tightly intertwined.

    2. Re:Tarrifs will never be placed on software by Featureless · · Score: 1

      Very thoughtful, thank you. But I can't convince myself that everywhere free trade has gone it was ultimately good for democracy or quality of life. Has it even worked out that way a majority of the time, in our lifetimes? I think about Central and South America (heck, even Mexico), Malaysia, Indonesia... Even on the the deficit chart I see a bunch of countries that are still waiting to see South Korean style prosperity.

      One reason I think it's slow is that free trade is not about reform. Businesses are in business to make a profit. If reform happens, what luck. I think it boils down to how much the population's wealth really increases from working in the foreigner's factory, and whether or not their governments can carve out enough to invest in new services, education, etc. Nation building (as opposed to Swiss bank account building).

      What troubles me especially about it is that the the foreign investors (big businesses) then have an incentive to maintain the status quo, and they have even more pull with a 3rd world nation (government, media, etc) than they do with ours. In practice I think the sweatshop trickle down effect often leaves much to be desired. I wonder if we can find other, more effective methods than giving businesses carte blance to loot and plunder in exchange for economic (and hopefully social) development. It sounds like psychotherapy. Sometimes it might work, usually it doesn't, but it sure is profitable for the shrink.

      That's the bad scenario I imagine, anyway.

      I think of the backflips and cartwheels Eastern Europe (for instance Turkey) did to gain consideration for EU membership. The EU didn't say... we'll admit you, and when you're exposed to our wealth as a trading partner that will reform you. They said, "reform, or you can't get in." And with that incentive, they got real results. Those famous Turkish prisons have already started losing their old-world charm.

      China is an especially interesting point. I'm not an expert on China and I'd love to learn more specifically about what is improving over there right now. But I gather from my reading that they're doing basically what Japan and South Korea did, which was highly protectionist. They kept their currency very cheap. They instituted lots of tarrifs and restrictive trade policies (and in the case of Japan the Kieretsu just didn't buy from Americans). Do I have this right?

  81. Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Foreign economies rely on this type of income: India for example has had a huge economic boom because telemarketing has been moved to that country by many US companies. If we imposed taxes on imports, then foreign economies would suffer. US companies would move their workforce back to the US, and while it would be good for our economy, it would devastate the rest of the world.

  82. Welcome to "free" trade, USian style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's free when they want it.

    If you want it, you gotta pay out the ass. ... and they wonder why the world hates them.

  83. Nope! by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Companies outsource to other countries because the product is not hard to ship and the exchange rate is so favorable to them. I can hire 8-10 Romanians for every 1 US programmer. As an added bonus I don't have to muck around with all those work saftey laws, income tax blah blah blah, etc, which makes hiring a US worker so much more expensive.

    The reason I can do this is because the first time I went to Romania, the exchange rate was 17000 Romanian Lei to $1. The second time I went it was 19000 Romanian Lei to $1. In a word, the exchange rate favors me.

    SO... obviously what you need to do is devalue the dollar against the world economy to the point where a dollar is roughly in line with the Romanian Lei. And the only way to do that is to have rampant inflation. The easiest way to do THAT is to get the Fed to print more money. Lots more money. While this WILL cause a massive devaluation of your savings, if you are like most Americans, you won't have a lot of savings to devalue in any event.

    Once we've persuaded the Fed to print a few extra trillion dollars a year, we can start working on repealing some of those pesky workplace safetey laws. My company just had to spend a lot of money to remove some asbestos and really, was that asbetos really bothering ANYONE? I submit that it was NOT! If it weren't for some goddamn hippie worried that someone might get cancer, that stuff could have stayed up there forever.

    Once our population becomes one of the poorest and least safe workforces in the world, there should be no further problem with overseas IT outsourcing.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Nope! by hughk · · Score: 1
      Intriging idea but if you run a sweat shop in Romania. You then have to either pay their taxes and follow their regulations or you have to pay bribes. These get expensive, because there is no open market in corruption.

      In my limited experience of outsourcing to lesser developed economies is that it is very difficult to avoid paying off officials. This, is actually illegal under the FCPA. If the FCPA was actually applied, then the real costs of offshore manufacturing/development would be rather more obvious.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    2. Re:Nope! by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      No taxes on software in Romania (Been there, done that.) If you do manufacturing of physical items there, that can be expensive. In theory, the government will refund most of that money a few months after you pay it, but I talked to a guy from Siemens while I was there and his people were talking about closing up shop and moving elsewhere because of the manufacturing taxes. Our software shop, on the other hand, had no such problems (Though it was occasionally difficult to get our hardware through their customs.)

      So we didn't have much in the way of taxes, there are apparently no regulations in Romania (Though the offices we had there were much nicer than most of the armpits I've experienced back in the states) and no bribes were needed (to the best of my knowledge.) Our guys there did pay 60% income tax, but that didn't impact us at all.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    3. Re:Nope! by hughk · · Score: 1

      If you have them as freelancers the no problem. If you have registered your business there, you can get caught up with everything from certification of premises through to employment taxes and social security contributions.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  84. If war in Iraq has taught us anything..... by laugau · · Score: 1

    It is that the federal government can do anything it damn well pleases..... The arguments about 'They can't do it' don't hold water.

    If it comes down to it, drop the tarrifs for intangible products and raise the corporate tax for companies that make a product where the producers overseas outweigh the consumers overseas. If 95% of your production takes place in foreign development centers but 60% of your sales take place domestically, then you have a trade deficit. It is a pretty simple damn model.

  85. Form a Profession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Taxes/Tariffs won't help. What we need to do is form a Profession, with:

    - a significant educational requirement (degree)
    - licensing
    - ethics body
    - core standard for practice
    - discipline for malpractice

    Face it, high-tech failed as a commodity-based industry and has become a service industry.

    Without being Professionals, practice in our industry will get worse. Look at what happened to the food and manufacturing industries. If we don't -do- something we will follow.

    Look at how doctors/dentists, accountants, lawyers, realtors have protected their businesses as a good example.

  86. Absolutely Shocking! by CodeMunch · · Score: 1
    I was laid off and my position moved to Canada last year

    Being an enemployed Canadian in a similar situation, I can sympathize with your loss. I will personally visit said company and discuss this issue with them. Please respond with complete contact details and job description.

    Thank You.

  87. Interestingly... by X-Nc · · Score: 1

    There's such a big push for Intelectual Property and all the other DRM/DMCA which makes bits and bytes property. Yet, when it becomes expensive or effort filled, the same organizations that are fighting for those IP rights then decide that there's no tangable good.

    --
    --
    If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
  88. Buy American -- Buy Microsoft!? by AArmadillo · · Score: 1

    As has already been noted, tariffs would do more harm than good in the tech industry. Perhaps what IT workers need to do is rally support for products built by American labor. For example, I haven't heard of Microsoft outsourcing its labor to other countries, and it continues to hire many people even in the middle of this recession in the tech economy. Perhaps our (as in tech geeks) disapproval of Microsoft software and support of companies like Sun, who is planning to do massive foreign outsourcing, is/will hurt the American tech job market in rebounding. Some food for thought, at least.

  89. when does import occur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you run an applet on your machine that comes off a server in India do you have to pay import duties?
    If not, why not? What's to stop you from calling up versions of everything as "applets"?

  90. Make your case by thefinite · · Score: 1

    Well, since tariffs result in directly higher prices for consumers, you are asking me to pay more for software so you can get a job they could pay someone else less to do. Tell you what, make your case, keeping these things in mind:

    1) You are no more entitled to a paid job than the foriegn programmer doing the job you want to do.
    2) You could learn a skill that *is* in higher demand in the US so paying you is actually the efficient thing to do.
    3) Tariffs to preserve jobs are the equivalent of welfare in that they raise costs for everyone else (not that welfare is inherently bad, but that is what you are asking).

    Now you know how American steel workers feel. Should they learn another skill? I think that they absolutely should. Here is an article for your consideration: link.

    --
    Boom Shanka
    1. Re:Make your case by HeelToe · · Score: 1
      Now you know how American steel workers feel. Should they learn another skill? I think that they absolutely should.

      Yes, I do know how they feel. When I realized that the same thing was happening to IT a while back I felt pretty bad about my lack of empathy. I'd always thought they should learn another skill. Now I'm in that position and I realize it's a sucky situation.

      I absolutely intend to learn another skill, find ways to differentiate myself, etc.

      PS - thanks for the link... good article

  91. WWAYD? by milktoastman · · Score: 1

    It means, "What would Ayn Rand Do?" She'd hate tariffs, because she likes free markets...or something. Anyway, the most important things is that as a follower of rugged individualism, I should defer all of my own decision making ability to what a dead russian writer who had obvious neuroses would tell me to do...even if I would naturally tend to want to do something else. That's rugged individualism alright.

  92. Sony avoids wage agreements by noz · · Score: 1

    Sony Music often outsources the support musicians for recordings (who are paid once for their work as they are not the authors of the piece) to Mexicanos down south.

    Of course Sony doesn't volunteer to pay them agreed minimum wages in the States.

    I don't know where the CDs are produced, so I know nothing about the import tax in this instance, just about the employees rights in recordings.

  93. Speaking of loosing jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You wanna talk about loosing jobs to other countries, you should see how many canadians are out of jobs becuase of tarrifs imposed on our wood. It doesn't matter if it's software or tagible items. Free trade is free trade.. plain and simple.

  94. But What About... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the fr0sty?1!

    i will NOT FAIL IT next time... i swear!

  95. Economic Warfare by Shugart · · Score: 1

    Posts like this makes me wonder what an army of disgruntled, unemployed hackers would be able to do to the IT infrastructure. We might be in for some interesting times!

    I also wonder whether the outsourcing is a reaction to the failure of the .coms. Perhaps investors that lost a lot of money have a vendetta against 'puter geeks.

    --
    History is so yesterday!
  96. how long has he been thinking about this ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your claim of having thought this through is false

    firstly how are you going to determine where the software is originating from ? What do you think these companies will do to avoid the tariff - hmmmm ?

    secondly what do you think other countries will do if the US imposes a punitive import tariff , maybe they'd impose them too , maybe they'd even impose tariff so high that it would cripple our software exports. Where do you think your job would be if US software exports contracted by 30 or 40% , at jiffymart probably.

    thirdly tariffs don't protect jobs , they protect corporations. Historically every US industry that's been protected by tariffs has shrunken in GDP terms and consolidated - ever heard of Bethlehem Steel ?

    fourthly it's not your god given right to have permanent employment.

    and lastly if your job moved to Canada you're either totally incompetent or there's some other reason not related to labor cost advantages. Canada is one of the worst countries in the world to do business in , it's like sweden without the pretty women ! No one would ever move to canada to gain a competitive advantage.

  97. Tariffs are why you're in this situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the reasons jobs are going to other countries is because the cost of living in the US is so high.

    The reason the cost of living is high is because almost every imported commodity( from apple juice to steel ) from other countries is taxed to protect local producers.

    As a result, a meal that would normally cost you about 1 dollar without any import tariffs, now costs you 5. Hence a person in the US has to be paid 5 times as much as a guy in China.

    Thats why people working in free market industries like software are the ones to feel the pinch at times like these.

    So the next time you vote for more protection of local producers, remember our software engineers.

  98. Loser mentality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Some thoughts:

    * The location of where software is developed should be based on some weighted avg. of the best programmers/software outcome ratio to cost. Outsourcing software abroad is a free market, capitalist US decision that we use to become competitive. The consumer benefits, and in the long run leads to a stronger economy. Ask IBM, Intel, Cadence, etc. who are outsourcing their R&D efforts.

    * Every US operation I've seen that outsources SW dev still has programmers in the US that direct architecture and leadership issues. These guys are either A) luckier than the counterparts that lost their jobs or B) more skilled.

    * If taxes were imposed, you would see companies start to incorporate somewhere else (Caymans?), develop R&D in Asia, and have heavy sales forces in the US while still opening on NYSE, NASDAQ. This would reduce US jobs even further.

    * From the venture capital and financial perspective, it's becoming more difficult to fund startups because the software/hardware execution costs are so high. You can't make money on a company that you poured 50M into anymore. Did you know Cisco raised less than 10M of venture money TOTAL?! (src: VentureSource)

    * India and China are moving from "code monkey" type programmers, to advanced software (solid architecture, innovative algorithms, etc.) and beyond. It is becoming a myth that only simple, "dumb" jobs are being farmed out abroad. An enabler of this is that many foreign-based US programmers are leaving their US-based jobs and going to their home countries in part because standard of living is HIGHER in their adjusted income bracket. They took knowhow from US development processes and are spreading it around the worl. Intel is moving some software and hardware design to India. Cadence has an Indian ops (fairly advanced EDA software). Motorola, HP, etc. They aren't making web pages over there anymore.

    * China and India are poised to become leaders in VLSI (chip design) if US doesn't keep up with engineers, etc. Entire chip design is being done in India today. Government and universities are putting a lot of money in this area. They may not develop the latest and greatest Pentium anytime soon, but more of the chips in your cell phone or other high volume devices (802.11) are being designed there instead (read Jobs).

    * If you are a top programmer/architect, you will get hired in the US. It won't be easy like it was in 1996-1999 when they were giving 10K bonuses just for a CS grad from MIT to sign on. Programming jobs will not be a commodity like it was once today.

  99. *NO* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2. No. You do not understand - you can't understand. It is you who are the racist and your damned system that must collapse, but you and it are blind. You think that your exploitative capitalist ethic is the way the world ought to work.

    It is ethically impermissable to allow workers, in this case foreign workers, to work at this wage and under these conditions in the employment of corporations over which we (yes, *we*) have economic and political control.

    The system you advocate is fundamentally exploitative, and in this situation, undeniably racist.

    If it means that these foreign workers will not have a job, then that is how it must be. The situation must be rectified, but advocating exploitation is not an ethically permissable way of bringing this about.

    Human beings, workers, have intrinsic value, and a noble spirit.

    For you to say that their best hope is to be exploited all their lives is to spit in their face.

    We must not extend the means of production, extend the exploitation, for when we do we serve as slaves to our capitalist masters.

    We, the workers, noble in spirit, must sieze these means of production, and only then can there be hope of global equality, and realized universal value.

    3. Because there is more to life than seeking the most effective way to line the pockets of our capitalist masters?

    4. Only you who are blinded by your capitalist ethic think this. You are wrong.

    We will *not* be lead by you and your type.

    We will *not* be decieved by your propagandizing.

    We, all of us, are too good for that.

    1. Re:*NO* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hey, here's $5 for you to suck my cock. Won't do it? OK, here's $10.

      Still not enough?

      How about $1000.

      How about a billion.

      How about a trillion dollars.

      I don't know much, but one thing I do know is that eventually, you will become a capitalist and suck my cock. We're just arguing over the price, that's all.

      If you mod me down, you're missing the point. You too, will mod me up for the proper amount of money.

  100. Go do your homework by realberen · · Score: 0

    Go do your homework from Economics 101, kid. People have tried this since mideval times. Go learn something useful

  101. Free Market by coli2 · · Score: 1

    What ever happened to the free market/capitalism that you people loved 2 years ago? No intervention, no regulation, etc? You choose to live by the sword, now you die by the sword.

    1. Re:Free Market by freestyle-fiend · · Score: 1

      > The free market is about avoiding violence in
      > human interaction.

      This sounds interventionist to me. In the free market, the wealthy make deals that benefit themselves as much as possible. The result can be that even when the poor do the best they can, they get poorer. Eventually, they use violence (for its bargaining power), unless there is some kind of saftey net.

      > And this isn't a zero-sum game.

      I did not mean to imply this when I said "If the consumer benefits, but the worker loses out, then perhaps no net benefit has been made." What I meant was that if the highest objective is value achieved for the customer (perhaps not a free-market goal, but the original comment mentioned it), then large costs to the workers can be justified by small benefits to the customers. If we all do both, then I can't even justify this as a customer using self interest.

      > In the absence of violence, trades occur only if
      > both parties perceive a benefit. A net loss
      > occurs only in the presence of coercion, or
      > because an agent makes a bad decision (in which
      > case the loss is self-imposed).

      The fact that the poor are not well informed, that advertising seeks to confuse them, that unions and companies wield more power (per person they represent) than individuals, that laws chosen by elites for elites are backed up by force, that international trade agreements are backed up by sanctions (and force?) and that disasterous privatisations are forced on countries by international organisations representing the interests of wealthy companies all make the ideals of the free market (which I find questionable) difficut to achieve. I think coercion and bad decisions are very widespread (and will be) even in free market 'paradises'.

    2. Re:Free Market by AnotherScratchMonkey · · Score: 1

      If there's coercion, then you don't have a free market. That violates the basic definition.

  102. WTF?!?!? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

    How do you propose to tax this?!?!

    $ wget http://software.org.du/act/actg-1.4.tgz

    $ tar -zxvf actg-1.4.tgz

    $ cd actg-1.4; ./configure; make; make install;

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  103. Tariffs are a bad idea by JWhitlock · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Tariffs act like a tax that we all pay but can't see, for the benefit of a single group.

    Let's say the U.S can produce a widget for $2 and Third-World country X can produce it for $1. Any reasonable business person (and many consumers) would save 50% and buy the $1 widget. Of course, the American Widget Workers will scream bloody murder, and ask for some government protection.

    So the U.S. puts a 100% tariff on widgets, so that the U.S. companies can compete. Great for the widget makers, but everyone that uses widgets is paying a dollar more than they would have to. Any product that uses widgets is that much more expensive. Companies that use widget-based products need more money for inventory and can spend less on salaries, so there are less total jobs in the economy. The only people that benefit are the American Widget Workers. And even they don't benefit as much as they think they do - the tariff works it's way invisibly through the economy, making the goods they buy more expensive than they would normally be. Plus, the third-world manufacturer can still sell widgets to other countries, whose products will have an advantage over the U.S., since they'll be using half-price widgets! There goes the exchange rate on a dollar...

    Now replace widgets with software, and it gets a whole lot worse. What business doesn't use software? What sector of the economy wouldn't be helped by having to pay much less for software?

    If job security really bothers you, there are some software jobs that can't be outsourced. Most U.S. military projects go to American companies, for reasons of security. It's even better if you can get security clearance.

    It's not easy to be a worker in a fast-paced economy, where the skill sets are changing and job security is non-existant. But it's a lot better than the alternative, a broken economy where the government protects the jobs of a few privilidged workers at the expense of everyone else.

    1. Re:Tariffs are a bad idea by rabidcow · · Score: 1

      Plus, the third-world manufacturer can still sell widgets to other countries, whose products will have an advantage over the U.S., since they'll be using half-price widgets!

      "I think we should tax the foreigner abroad."

  104. Oh well. by archen · · Score: 1

    Look on the bright side. Some Canadian got hired for less then you, and within the next year (if not already) he won't have a job either once the company gives that guy the shaft and moves his job to India.

  105. repeat after me "Tariffs DO NOT protect jobs" by Jodka · · Score: 1


    The debate over trade protection might seem like a complex issue, but in fact it is resolved by recognizing one very simple an irrefutable fact. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF JOBS ON EARTH CAN INCREASE. Protectionists incorrectly beleive that the total number of jobs in the world is constant; If a programmer in India gains a job, then someone elsewhere in the world must lose their job. That is quite simply FALSE.

    In fact everyone already knows that employment grows, even those who do not know that they know it. There is a statistic recited in the news, to the point of tedium, called the "rate of employment". It tells you what percentage of a population has jobs. That number changes. And what that change tells us is that the number of jobs is not constant. Yes, it really is that simple, yet totally unobvious to so many.

    So refuting the arguments for trade protection is a trivial exercise. Just point out that it is not necessary for one person to lose a job for another to gain a job. End of debate and the protectionists lost.

    How can so many be so wrong about something so obvious ? They way the human mind works is interesting, but even more interesting are the ways in which it fails. Protectionists believe in a conservation law where there is none, while those who invest in perpetual motion machines are unaware of a conservation law where there is one. (Energy, of course). While opposed with respect to their faiths in conservation, they are alike in getting the facts wrong. Both groups lack essential knowledge about the way the world works, operate on false convictions, mispredict consequences and outcomes and ultimately misadvocate.

    The difference between a stupid investor funding Perpetual Motion Generators Inc. and a protectionist advocating tariffs is that, while a the investor loses only his own investment, a protectionist harms others by unnecesarily denying them employment. Furthermore, those denied work as a consequence of tarifs are often the ones most deperately in need of pay.

    There is a saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" by I think in this case "misguided intentions" is more apt. Protectionists are out to protect their own jobs, at the expense of other people, so in the benevolent sense of the word, their intentions are not "good", but selfish. And they are indeed misguided, for we can identify the misturn exactly: The FALSE belief that the number of jobs on earth is a constant.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  106. Something need to be done by acomj · · Score: 1

    America/Europe/Canada is in trouble. Labor is cheaper elsewhere. Look at what this did to the textile business in the US.

    And software is easier to import. And its comodification will drive the value of developer down.

    Compaq laid off an entire department in the US and is moving the jobs to india. The US workers spending there last months training the people who are taking there jobs/

  107. Isn't the US meant to be pro-Free Trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Last I heard, the US government was pushing free trade? Do you not support that?



    Or is it that you only want free trade that works to your benefit, as a programmer?

  108. The export of intellectual industry. by Mezzrow · · Score: 1

    I have come to grips with the exporting of the american software industry. We do live in a global economy, and it will be done, whether or not tariffs are introduced. The real question, I suppose, is what is the future of american industry. During the Great Manufacturing Exodus, the argument was, "Well, this will allow for cheaper products for customers, and future jobs in America will be well paid cutting edge jobs requiring a highly educated workforce." Now, those technical jobs are moving. So here's the question I have for slashdotters...
    What is the future of industry in America?
    And here's a second question that will get a lot of flak from the 'Tough Buttons' crowd.
    What can America do to maintain its leadership in the world economy?

    I've lived in the U.S. all my life and understand how lucky I've been to enjoy the quality of life that I do. I very much want that to continue, but don't think that tariffs are the answer. Any ideas?

  109. I am opposed to tariffs by Travoltus · · Score: 2, Funny

    I propose we give government subsidies to corporations who choose the cheapest labor possible.

    We need to do more business with countries where child labor is encouraged, and where prisoners provide more skilled work for free. The United States needs to take the lead in encouraging nations to avoid imposing socialist employee safety laws on employers.

    America! Of corporations! By corporations! For corporations!

    Sincerely,
    Fascistus Maximus
    CEO, Omni Consumer Products

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:I am opposed to tariffs by spRed · · Score: 1

      I propose we give government subsidies to corporations who choose the cheapest labor possible.

      We need to do more business with countries where child labor is encouraged, and where prisoners provide more skilled work for free. The United States needs to take the lead in encouraging nations to avoid imposing socialist employee safety laws on employers.


      You kid, but this would actually be a good way to develop the third world. You have to build factories and infrastructure to use cheap labor. You also have to train them. The country you relocate to gets income it didn't have before. By definition the people who work at your factory work there because it pays more than whatever they were doing before.

      [This of course ignores the child & prisoner comment. Prisoners doing labor I have no general moral problem with, but that if we're talking about tribes with flags and petty dictatorships the prisoners will likely be political prisoners. Child labor is a bit murkier, but it will always be a bootstrap problem. Once the first generation gets a bit of money in its pocket things tend to stabalize b/c parents want their kids to have the education they never did etc]

      --
      .sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
  110. Economic terrorism by Jetson · · Score: 1
    Lastly, those countries who have tariffs levied against them, may retaliate with equivalent tariffs or legislation against the import of other goods and services from the tariff imposing country which will hurt the countries export marketing and thier domestic industry as a whole.

    Another method of retaliating is to impose *export* tarrifs on critical goods sold to the USA, thereby causing inflation in the USA. I live in British Columbia, where the huge softwood lumber industry is being crippled by unfair (as ruled by the WTO on several occasions) US import tarrifs on finished lumber even while the American saw mills are asking for lower prices on raw Canadian logs. There is a huge resentment up here because of the way the tarrif has caused 90% unemployment in some towns, and the silly trade war has caused housing costs in the USA to jump significantly.

    Many people are calling on the Canadian government to impose a punitive export duty on oil, water and electricity, particularly since California is still in default on its electrical payments to B.C.Hydro from last year's shortages. You (Americans) don't mind raping other countries when you are in need, but quickly turn on your friends when you see an opportunity to fatten your wallets and protect industries that aren't competitive.

    1. Re:Economic terrorism by dlbowm · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't blame "you americans" for this one. The citizens of the US weren't behind this, and, as you pointed out we are hurt by it too in the form of horrendously expensive lumber. It's the US lumber companies that are profiting, and profiting big. Everyone else, you and the common American, are getting screwed.

      This is the kind of generalization that has to stop. "Americans" are not warmongers. George Bush is, and through our once sided censored "free" media, we are coerced into bobbling our heads. "Americans" are not tariff imposing Canadian haters. That's the US deep pocket lumber mills talking. "Ameicans" are not Muslim hating Israel supporting oppressors. That's the massively over represented jewish lobby that can pass ridiculous one-side anti-palestinian legislation while representing a very small percentage of the actual american population.

      In reality, most americans are very nice people. we respect our canadian neighbors, care for and love our children, attend church, mosque, synogogue, or whatever, and rarely think ill or arrogant thoughts about other countries. Except maybe these days. Damned french ruining our invasion plans :)

  111. Unequal Protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A tariff such as this (a tax imposed on a product when it is imported into a country) serves to protect high wage jobs - the kind we all like - they also protect the poor and the environment (I'm serious). How can a tariff do this?

    It's pretty simple - A product costs $10 to make in a high wage country. Corporation moves to country where product costs $.01 to make because they can hire 12 year olds who work 16 hour days for $3 dollars a week (no child labor laws or pesky worker's rights or expensive toxic waste disposal requirements etc...). This has already happened to entire sectors where tariffs were relaxed and "free-trade" (the euphemism of the century) has been imposed. Corporations exist to maximize shareholder value - the majority of the $9.99 in savings is not passed on to you - it is used to build - you guessed it - shareholder value.

    Now, if a tariff of $9.99 is imposed for importation of said product the corporation has no incentive to hop from impoverished nation to impoverished nation paying slave wages to powerless peasants until they grow weary of slavery (at which time they are dumped and a nation poorer still is recruited for the next round in this trans-national dry-humping). They have no incentive to drag wages down to a global lowest common denominator polluting and dragging everyone else down in their pursuit of wealth.

    I highly recommend the book Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights
    by Thom Hartmann (which if i remember correctly was reviewed quite positively here on slashdot recently). It completely changed my mind on the whole issue of tariffs and the government's legitimacy when it comes to taxation as it relates to promoting the greater good.

  112. Now the rest of the world can tax microft exports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now the rest of the world can tax the Microsoft Exports.

  113. The usual reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Heeltoe, the reason that you will not see any government action is quite simple, it has been decided by investors (rich people, rarely do work themselves, all about greed) have decided that as a highly educated, intelligent developer you are making too much money. The problem being that software developers make about 40% more than your average factory worker, and that's 40% that could be going into someone elses pocket.

    The first solution is the beloved H1 (amongst others) Visa. This was designed to reduce teh so called "tech labor shortage" (read: high salary) of the high-tech sector. When this failed to increase corporate margins, companies were forced to make prfound sectors about the bold new global economy (read: outsource work to places labor is cheap). I have watched a number of projects get outsourced to the 3rd world for exactly this reason.

    So when I think back to those years when mom was telling me that all I needed was a good education, work hard in school, etc. I get sad. I should have tried to be a football player like those "losers" I figured would work a check out counter. I was right of course, they are working the check out counter, but the business world won't stop until my salary is reduced to the level of a check out clerk, but those football players sure got laid more.

    hmph.

    1. Re:The usual reason by jst666 · · Score: 1

      "rich people, rarely do work themselves" Making some important economic decisions, or whatever, is considered also as work.

  114. Technology Agreements by djupedal · · Score: 1

    The US Govt. has various technology agreements with other countries that tend to override such things as import tax, duties etc. These agreements cover such things as human resources, education research grants, software, hardware, etc. Software isn't the commodity you suspect it is...

  115. is this guy serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if he is working on the theory that employment should be in the country where the product is used, then the same rule could be applied by all other countries. Wanna see what happens to the US economy when other countries insist on the same rules?

  116. tariffs are always counter-productive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You need to study how the economy works. Then you will realize that tariffs, like embargoes and any other restraint that is inflicted on the free flow of goods and services, always ends up hurting people rather than helping.

    The road to hel is paved with good intentions, and in the same manner, opportunism and political actions always have unintended, opposite consequences.

    For a start, read http://www.mises.org/power&market/power&market.pdf

    Then read "The theory of money and credit" and wou will understand how government intervention is never the solution.

    And don't say "well capitalism has failed and is evil therefore we need the government to correct those wrongs" because neither I, nor you or anybody on this board has ever got to try real capitalism. We live in a bastardized socialistic controlled half baked shadow of capitalism, that is capitalism in name only.

  117. Is this supposed to be a fucking troll? by AnimeFreak · · Score: 0, Troll

    Jesus Christ, I have never seen such utter bullshit posted on Slashdot before. Give me ONE GOOD GOD-DAMN reason why every fucking job in the world should be in the United States?

    I am a Canadian, and right now my part of the country is experiencing a slump in the lumber industry because the neighbour to the south does not appreciate the fact that the government gives subsidies for lumber exports. Since that, the fucking companies in the United States have imposed a fucking 19% tariff on all processed log exports.

    Shut the fuck up and get a God damn job you fuckhead.

    1. Re:Is this supposed to be a fucking troll? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      All Your Canucks Are Belong to US.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:Is this supposed to be a fucking troll? by DaytonCIM · · Score: 1

      You have to remember that the majority of Americans actually believe that they "deserve" every job in the world.

      19% tariff on all processed log exports

      The United States imposes tariffs in order to asure it's native industries high prices for lower quality products. The truth of the matter is the rest of the world can make anything better and cheaper.

      How many Ford Explorers are sold outside the US? Not too many since they began to overturn and catch fire.

      Americans have a prevailing sense that they are "owed" the American Dream. They have COMPLETELY forgotten that the American Dream is EARNED, not given.

    3. Re:Is this supposed to be a fucking troll? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1
      You have to remember that the majority of Americans actually believe that they "deserve" every job in the world.
      Sad but true. Even sadder is the fact that that attitude rubs off on those around you. Now we all think that we deserve those jobs. ;^)

      Seriously, you could take comfort in the fact that that attitude is universal. I believe that that attitude is almost as universal as love & hate. Look @ Russia, China, Korea, etc. Frankly, I'd rather be "oppressed" in the US & Canada, than in Asia & Europe.
  118. what's an elbonian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ummm no clue

  119. We'd go out of business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're a US company, but we've always developed our products in russia. Why punish us? We didn't take your job.

    I feel for anyone that lost their job, but the world changed people. Businesses have to make money, and be profitable. If they don't, then they aren't going to be around for long. Certainly their are abuses, and I'm not going to go universally defend the practice, and say its always done for the right reasons. But at the same time, inasmuch as people might complain about a business doing this to make more money, you as individuals will job hop to make more money too.

  120. Completely off topic... by Quinthar · · Score: 1

    First, as someone who works a lot in both the USA and Canada, I can guarantee you that living costs in Canada are, on average, HIGHER than the USA.

    Hm... I'm considering moving to Canada (Vancouver) and am very curious on this topic. In particular, I'm trying to figure out how to compare salaries in the US to those in Canada, adjusted by my lifestyle.

    For example, housing appears to be much cheaper in Vancouver than SF (even when both are priced in US dollars), but because I'm only renting the smallest, cheapest place I can find, the overall savings for my lifestyle are very slim. At the same time, those areas where I do spend freely (nightlife, restaurants, imported equipment, international travel) are definitely more expensive in Vancouver than in SF. On top of that are the higher taxes, as well as intangibles like slower health care (it may be more expensive in the US, but it's faster and not taken out of your salary in the form of taxes), and so on.

    Thus, I'm struggling to figure out what salary in Vancouver/Canadian dollars would be equivalent to a $85k US salary in San Franciso. Right now I'm thinking a good number is around $130k CA, but I really don't know. Any insight? Thanks!

    1. Re:Completely off topic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      130K is about the top end for programming jobs here in Vancouver. Don't expect that unless you have many many years of experience.

    2. Re:Completely off topic... by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 1

      I know friends that lived in Frisco (I was in san jose a while back), now I'm in Toronto.

      Housing is much cheaper in Vancouver (or even Toronto).

      Food, clothing, car payments (if it's domestic or Japanese) are at parity -- ignore the exchange rate on these.

      Take the exchange into account for the portion of your disposable income you want to spend on U.S. produced equiment or if you want a European car. SO if you wanted to drive a Ford or Toyota in Canada, most of those cars are actually MADE in Canada so it's price competitive with the U.S. European cars tend not to be.

      Similarly, most computer electronics are sold through U.S. companies and you get hit with the exchange rate embedded into the price.

      But otherwise - I usually haven't seen nightlife & restaurants more expensive in Canada than in SF or NYC. Depends on the "class" of restaurant I suppose: fast food in the U.S. is cheaper, but sit-down or classy restaurants in Canada tend to be cheaper.

      International travel would cost more if you fly Air Canada, but Seattle is a quick drive south and may temper that somewhat (for example, being in Toronto, I use JetBlue from Buffalo at times).

      Health care varies. It isn't slow across the board. Clinics and checkups aren't slow in particular, it's the ER that sucks at some hospitals (but that's not much different from U.S. ER's :)

      Taxes are shrinking in Canada, but they're still high... the marginal rate @ $103,000 in Canada/BC is 40.7%, above that it's 43.7%. Take home income is roughly $76,000 at $135,000, $60,000 at $102,000 .

      One thing Canada does have better than the U.S. (IMHO) is the RRSP program, (like a 401k), where you can tax-shelter up to $13,500 a year -- but there aren't any real penalities (other than getting taxed) to withdraw that income at a later date. You can also put that $$ into education or a house without being taxed.

      Anyway, I believe $85k in SFO with some extra travel and imported equipment probably would be about $100k in Vancouver.. maybe up to $120k. That's also rather high for IT jobs, though not unheard of for senior positions (including bonus).

      --
      -Stu
  121. Microsoft Tax... redux! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got an idea. How about for every time Windows crashes, Microsoft has to pay us $10. Imagine all the money I'd make!

  122. Outsourcing to Canada by canuck57 · · Score: 1

    The way I see it is that there are multiple issues here. Companies that outsource, and go outside of the local (US) norm are usually in trouble. They are dysfunctional internally and outsourcing is the "politically" easy way out to address their lack of internal acumen. It is a management issue. The average I/T shop has a "butt kiss" attitude to servicing their companies needs. Little emphasis is placed on need or benefit to the company. Often users know more than I/T. We talk of business aware I/T people, but might I suggest your average I/T person might make a better plant manager than they would a I/T tech specialist. But the reality is tech usually do not command the power to correct such issues. It is a organizational disipline issue, and not a technical one. In the mean time the CIO/CTO are out making techical decisions over lobster and wine, they bitch about why they are in finacial trouble. Vendors often have more clout than the people who have the most to loose, the employee. Yet management refuses to change. As an investor, I would suggest to the CEO, outsource the whole thing including the CTO/CIO. Eventually you must cut to the problem and outsource managment, and the problem. But for companies that outsource, they should read more. Often the company you outsource to will sell your expertise to others at a discounted price. It is like playing with fire. Often the match holder gets burned. I once worked for an employer (in Canada no less) that brought in others from other places to show how how "cheap" and most residents fell over laughing. Needless to say the company is near bankrupsy as of 23 some C++ gurus in the 80's and 90's, only one remains. The real issue here is companies wish to surpess wages. They isnore the fact that a 12 million dollar a year CEO can afford 120 of the best programmers around. They base their value on political hype and not peoples needs of a decent wage. In the end the I/T organisations must become more like consulting companies with a solid engineering philosophy. After all teh customer is always right, but it does not give them the excuse not to pay for it. By oursourcing, it forces engineering principles and appropriate charge backs to the customers needs. As it is is the users responsibility to know if the cost is worth the benefit. In the end, the market will win.

    1. Re:Outsourcing to Canada by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      It's pure profit driven. Companies like Wipro make a case that their workers work for less and produce "better" product. However companies like Deloitte and DUchebag who want to rake in $200 + an hour to screw up your IT organization don't want to let you know that they pay a poor schmuck in Bangalore $10/day to screw it up for you. EDS, Microsoft it's all the same, as long as the quarterly profits are up and on target building that ol shareholder equity, that's the name of the game. Oh those 1000 professionals in the 25% tax bracket, screw em. No Social Security Contribution, no Benefits, it's great.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  123. Shouldnt this be Labelled "US"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is no concern for the rest of the world. Shouldnt this be labelled "US"?? Oh, btw, this is the reversal of roles - last century millions of people in thirdworld countries (aka colonies occupied by the european land grabbers) starved themselves, when their manual processing labour was exported to the industrializing europe. I cant tell you all how much I love capitalism now! Those british call center operators are going without jobs just like the indian weavers did last century! duh! revenge!

  124. Welcome to the new Tennis Shoe Industry by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    The same thing that's happened in Sports Shoes, Nike for example, is happening to IT jobs. Eventually they'll be Geraldo Rivera reports of sweat shops in Malaysia with kids hunched over screens.

    Unfortunately, Companies are finding cheaper ways of doing things in IT and still maintain big profit margins. This was one of the presumptions of the H1-B visa program which Software Companies "Couldn't find qualified people." Even though there were people available. This fortunately meant that at least the people who were brought in under the H1-B program contributed to the society and the tax base, now the revenue is going completely overseas. Unfortunately what the Economists don't realize is that a "Service Based Economy" doesn't necessarily mean that the Service comes from the U.S.

    So, next time you buy a pair of Nikes, or Levis remember that at one time there were U.S. Jobs making those products, now it's all outsourced overseas, not because the U.S. Laborforce was greedy, but because they could be made cheaper and still maintain high profit margins.

    Remember that when the some CEO gets his $18M bonus next year. Right. Unless the IT industry starts to stand up for itself, then all of it will be in Bangalore or Singapore and we'll all be poor.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Welcome to the new Tennis Shoe Industry by HeelToe · · Score: 1

      These are the types of reasons that led me to say it seems like we should tax imported software.

      I asked /. mainly because I don't really understand all the economics or longterm dynamics of it and wanted to see what some others thought.

      I don't much like unions, but maybe the IT industry really needs one. What we truly need is a good industry-wide certification like engineering has. A union would help us stand up for ourselves and avoid the 80 hour week for no overtime type situations, but I think in the end the union would become corrupt like so many others.

      It's a tough situation.

  125. no way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a computer programmer as well, I refuse to behave like some US farmer or special interest group using the government to protect my lousy ass. If people in other countries can get the job done for less it will make the products cheaper for the whole economy.. maybe not the greatest of news for myself but good for the economy as a whole. Living in the US is still a huge advantage. Don't be a player hater and use the goverment to screw everyone to pretect your self interest. Tariffs are a bad idea, they get in the way of free markets. No good!!!!

  126. Econ 101 by spRed · · Score: 1

    If we set a global wage for industry X (here software) by using tarrifs to up all the prices of goods so they reflect the global wage it will have several shitty side effects. What you are suggesting is that if the US pays $10 an hour for workings making X, and India pays workers $1, and both take 10 hours to make X, set the tarrif so the Indian version costs $100, just like the US version. Some people advocate this for another reason -- to raise wages in the third world.

    So now someone in the US cannot buy the cheaper version of a product. Some people will buy the $100 Indian version, some people the $100 US version. The US makers of X don't have to compete with India on price, so there are still jobs.

    What about the people that would buy X if it cost less than $100? It would help their business $50, so they would be willing to spend $49 for it. But they can't buy one because of the tariffs.

    So the people who would buy X at less than $100 get screwed. And the Indians who would be employed making cheaper Xs get screwed because they aren't allowed to sell cheaper Xs. The US workers aren't much better off, they are now sharing the market with the Indians.

    So you get collateral damage to US consumers, and Indian programmers. For the benefit of a few workers who are now garunteed a job for life by the government's tarriffs. As other posters have pointed out, this is what happened recently with US steel. US companies that use steel went belly up because the price of steel was set artificially high through tarriffs.

    Do all the tax payers a favor and go straight to welfare. You'll take fewer people down with you. Or do them a bigger favor and learn a different skill. You might not like the job as much, but the idea that you are garunteed a high paying job you like is silly.

    This same idea also goes by the names 'living wage' and 'ENVY'

    --
    .sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
    1. Re:Econ 101 by Virtucon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tariffs won't solve it agreed, however we're now expected to lower our standard of living. So, I guess what your saying is find another "Service Industry" job that takes into account that Masters you got in CS. Hummm. I guess it'll come to the point that plumbers and AC repairmen will be the high paying tech careers of the future.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:Econ 101 by spRed · · Score: 1

      I guess I have one point, said two ways
      1 - You aren't garunteed the job you want at the wage you like.
      2 - It is your job to learn a skill other people are willing to pay you for.

      That said I think software engineers in the US will be safe for a long time to come. There is still a general shortage in the US (it doesn't feel like it, but there is a reason you can get $75k a year with a bechelor's degree). US software companies will always have easier access to capital than Indian companies. Full disclosure, I'm a software engineer. Things were peachy in '98 so today seems difficult, but in reality it is just no longer silly.

      --
      .sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
  127. Canada's health care but not minimum wage by taylorcp · · Score: 1

    There's one thing that seems to be forgotten in the minimum wage idea of the original post -- all Canadian workers (even those earning minimum wage) have wages that are wages plus full medical benefits (yay, nationalized medicine!).Of course a company would want to move jobs to Canada they don't have to pay medical benefits. Perhaps to increase jobs Washington should think not about taxing imports, but nationalizing health care.

  128. Remember the WTO by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

    With the WTO as it is, sovereign nations no longer have the exclusive ability to control their own tariffs. Though the U.S. might want to levy a tariff on software exports, we can propose the tariff to the WTO, but there's no guarantee that we'd be granted one.

    BTM

    --
    That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
  129. A true euro-trash liberal speaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tariffs. Import duties. Import Taxes. Unfair trade. Wahhhhhhhhhh!

    You can't find a job, so you want to impose on your sector the same problems that France, Germany, and other euro countries have in their overall economy?

    You're probably too young to remember, but the Russians had to wait hours to mail a letter, buy a pound of beef (if it could be found), or buy other goods and services.

    Remember those fabled rude french waiters? The tip is built into the bill, so they don't have to worry about getting stiffed if they give you bad service. Pretty much the same deal with most other service businesses in the euro countries.

    It takes many months to fire someone in french and german style economies. Six months, and very expensive is the norm, as a minimum. You have protected industries such as artists, that have unemployment funds lasting years.

    You can't compete? Go back to school. Or leave the country. Your solution to impose tariffs puts the US at a disadvantage to compete globally. The US is not selling goods and services to just US residents. It must compete globally. Your solution in your mind benefits you, but cripples the rest of the US.

    The french and german governments, through legislation, force companies to give generous vacations and benefits. Months of vacation time. Super generous family leave. Super generous medical leave. So great that the countries close down for several weeks during the holidays. And so onerous on business that they are afraid to hire. They keep staffing at minimums because they can't fire or lay off anyone when they need to. Got a job there? You are pretty much set. A company finally forced to lay you off? Good luck finding another job.

    Want to get into the health care debate? Universal health care in europe and canada. In the US, you can get a mammogram or catscan in a few days or immediately if necessary. Try getting that in Canada or Europe. Actually, you'll wait months. And you'll be lucky if that bump is not benign or hasn't spread by the time you take the test.

    But, we're not talking about health care here. We'll leave that to another slashdot article with the subsequent 10,000 comments. But the inability to compete is what is relevant. That's why the european countries' economies have been in the toilet for so long. Heard of the euro? The european union? Guess why they invented that? So that they could be "forced" to layoff workers to bring their countries' economies in line with the requirements to enter the european union. So that they could be "forced" to get rid of some of the protectionist health benefits and trade tariffs/taxes, similar to the ones you are proposing.

    The tech bubble burst, and took the rest of the economy with it. Our asshole fed chairman and fed governors, who have refused to lower interest rates in time, were warning about "irrational exuberance" years ago. No one listened. So the economy tanked, and layoffs came. Guess what? Think the companies layed off their best and brightest? Not. The companies had to reduce the workforce. So they cut the slackers. Got laid off? You got laid off because in the companies' eyes, you are a slacker, and a liability to the company. If you weren't a liability, they would have kept you. It's that simple, and that basic.

    Can't get a job? Time to learn a new skill set. Or add some degrees. Still can't find a job? Time to look in the mirror. There's your problem. Survival of the fittest. If you really want a job, and have the skills, you'll figure out a way to land the job you want. Still can't do it? Time to start your own business. Can't do that? Then run home to mama and go get your fuckin' shine box.

    That's all the US needs. Another fuckin tax.

    dumbass.

  130. It never works by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

    The part that you don't see is that lower software prices are actually good for the rest of the U.S. economy. Sure it means that it is harder to get a job programming here in the States, and it also means that you can't charge as much as you would like, but that's good news for the small business down the stree that needs some custom programming done. All of a sudden even Mom and Pop organizations can afford custom software.

    In the long run when the economy expands in this manner it is good for everyone.

    Now take the contrary example. Let's imagine that we imposed heavy tariffs on "imported" software. Well, that might save some programming jobs here in the states, but it guarantees that American companies will pay a premium for software. Meanwhile our competitors in Mexico, Canada, Europe, India, China, and wherever else are able to buy software at lower prices. Possibly considerably lower prices. Now all sorts of businesses are having trouble competing. This is precisely what happened when we slapped tariffs on sugar and steel.

    One of the primary reasons that our standard of living is so higher than the rest of the world is that we are an open market.

  131. Does the US actually have a competitive advantage? by Quinthar · · Score: 1

    The theory behind free markets is that the most efficient producer wins. Over time, the system as a whole wins, because it's optimally efficient. What I'm curious is: in a free market, would the US win more or less than others? Does the US have any defensible competitive advantage for producing software, or indeed anything?

    On one hand, some might argue that our safety and envionmental laws limit our competitiveness, and that less regulated countries will thus dominate the markets. But on the other hand, it could be argued that our very dominance comes as a result of these very same regulations.

    The same could be said about economic disparity: while it's not great in the US, its orders of magnitude worse in China and India. Thus the problems we face in the US will only be magnified in the others. Ultimately this might affect their stability and security, which may hinder international investment.

    Finally, the US has evolved its societal infrastructure over the course of literally hundreds of years without substantial interruption -- security, clean water, reliable power, and (some) political representation have been the norm in the US for generations. The destabilizing events of the modern world affect everyone, but affect the US less than most.

    So in the end, I suspect that the US will ultimately benefit more from free trade than by protectionist measures, but not because we're better coders or inventors. Rather, I think the product of the nation's entire history gives us a competitive advantage that isn't going away soon.

    Howver, I really don't know. Any thoughts?

  132. Why should others subsidize YOU? by DavidinAla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First, why should consumers in the United States pay more to "protect" the job of someone in this country who charges more for his work than someone is willing to do it for overseas? Why should the vast majority pay more to put extra money into your pocket?

    Second, following this logic to its natural conclusion, this will end up destroying almost ALL international trade. The Europeans already pay too much for food simply because many of the countries have systems that "protect" farmers in those countries. Using your logic, consumers of all products should subsidize less efficient (or more expensive) producers of ANY product. (U.S. consumers also pay too much for many products, both because of production limits and tax subsidies.)

    Third, this logic will lead to reduced incentives to innovate and cut costs, which LOWERS standards of living everywhere -- as consumers pay more and get less.

    Fourth, on a pragmatic level, have you even considered that there are plenty of products where the U.S. company is the low-cost producer who would be hurt by this system being enacted in other industries by OTHER countries?

    Fifth, what moral right do you have -- or does anyone have -- to tell two individuals (or companies) that they can't enter into consensual trade that is to the benefit of both parties?

    What you propose is wrong from the standpoint of individual rights AND pragmatic economics. There is NO reasonable argument in favor of it unless you're an inefficient producer who is demanding that he be subsidized by his neighbors.

    David

  133. That's not all.. by CausticWindow · · Score: 1

    The sad truth is that every time you call Dell tech support, you are now most probably supporting terrorists.

    Don't believe me? Read this article.

    --
    How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
  134. Government controls? by gralem · · Score: 1

    What are you guys talking about? Remember this key to ecomonics: TARIFFS ARE ALWAYS BAD. Govertments cannot "make things fairer economically" or "level any playing field" . Tariffs will kill all jobs in the foreign countries and not save a single job in the country it hopes to help. If overseas software is artificially inflated to cost more in the US, it still cost the same in the foreign country to make it. The software engineers over there are not going to make any more money off it. And fewer copies of the software will be purchased by americans. And just because the foreign software costs as much as the US software, it makes no difference in the purchasing decision.

    People are not going to say "Oh, this software from Japan now costs as much as this software from the US. But the Japan software does more that I want it to do. Therefore, I will be patriotic and economically fair and purchase the less useful US software to ensure that my fellow US employee has a job, just like the government wants."

    The *ONLY* way to level the playing field is for the government to not interfere. What should happen is the US company to say "we are losing market share. Let's make a better product to distinguish ourselves from the international competition." Or--even better--"we are losing market share. Let's do something revolutionary and completely new--something that does not have cheap foreign competition."

    It's called market advantage. You do what you do best at a price that is right for you and the market. Who cares if there are 1 million programmers in India making $1/hour. (not a reasonable amount--but it doesn't matter for this discussion). But charging $1/hour does not necessarily equate to the best programmers. But if the market for programmers really drops to $1/hour, then you must charge $1 for your programming. No one in the US will do it for $1/hour, so they will HAVE to change jobs to something else. If they are smart, they will do something revolutionary and new and make a LOT MORE MONEY. If they are dumb, they will lobby the government to make their life "fairer". Which we all know is impossible to do--especially for the government to do.

    ---gralem

  135. American tariffs on Canadian lumber example. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read not too long ago an article (can't find it anymore) about the US tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber. It was interesting because it stated that some Canadian companies learned to live with it by becoming much more efficient. Now they again have lower prices than American lumber companies, even with the tariffs. While American lumber companies sleep and continue to use their old technology, Canadian lumber companies become more and more competitive, particularly OUTSIDE of the US. And of course they make more money than ever. At the same time it develops other markets for the new lumber mill technology.

    So tariffs are a bad idea in the long run.

  136. Software is no different; wrong problem. by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Software is no different from other products. It's not the lack of tariffs on software that's wrong; it's the tariffs imposed on other products.

    By imposing tariffs on products made in poorer countries, you are essentially forcing them to lower their prices even more (to stay competitive). Result? USA workers lose (because tariffs are never enough to really offset the lower initial cost), foreign workers lose (because tariffs are never low enough to let them really raise their standard of living), US state wins. In a country with good welfare / unemployment funds / etc., this could be a good thing. In the US system it's not. The money ends up being spent on obscure government and defence projects, and the programmers remain unemployed and broke.

    Capitalism can be a reasonably fair system if all markets are open. Tariffs screw everything up, for everyone. If there are no tariffs, the tendency is for all markets to become level. A poorer country may have an initial advantage (lower wages), but as it becomes richer, its workers will want higher wages, until it has reached the same level as richer, more developed countries, which means workers in those richer countries become an economically viable option again.

    And everyone lives happily ever after. As it is, you have a lot of unemployment at home, a lot of people that hardly make enough to eat abroad, and a cowboy that spends hundreds of bilions of dollars in toys that go "boom" on other people's homes.

    RMN
    ~~~

  137. Tariffs by nerdin · · Score: 1

    Sadly you have to think both in

    a) Final consumer
    b) Corporate earnings.

    America has a long history of moving operations to sweatshops abroad as soon as American labor becomes too expansive. There are examples enough to make this clear (Mexican maquiladoras for electronic parts/appliances, Central American and Asian apparel industry) where minimum wages are 1/4 to 1/10 of an American wage. There are even some high speciality services both in Mexico and Asian countries where you can get high quality health care for a fraction of the American price.

    Don't even dream of "High Quality Education" as a mean to keep labor at home: overseas workers are at least as qualified Americans: a good hacker is a good hacker anywhere.
    America is simply too expensive. America has been hiding a high inflation rate derived from continuously increasing earnings in wages and salaries by keeping reasonable prices on goods -and achieving this by moving manufacturing and now services abroad, and getting more and more Free Trade agreements with any country who has cheap and reasonably qualified labor. So forget about any probable tariff to mostly anything... and please, please, how do you apply tariffs on a service? Will you close all telecommuting roads? Will you place Customs on Internet hubs? Yeah, right...

    It seems sad/funny to me that in the end Free Enterprise behaves a lot as communism: new jobs moving to poor countries will increase life quality of those abroad while impovershing formerly "wealthy" Americans, -seen with poor country eyes- and all in the name of better corporate earnings. The only imaginable remedy is to be a corporate czar somehow (Wow, same as Communist Party leaders, yeeeehaw)... other possible thing to happen is to force other countries to have equivalent wages on professional areas (I can't imagine how, tho, high local taxes in poor countries, maybe?)

    This is a long time trend where I can't see any reasonable end for America. You simply CAN'T compete with non-american wages. As a corporation you CAN'T afford a balance sheet with a big payroll when you can get it cheaper, because stockholders will ask for your head... so no way!

    To me, being abroad now, this is an opportunity for a decent life, and really, really it saddens me to think of my American colleagues having the same hard time most of my local colleagues have had for a long while now.

  138. Curry is a scourge on America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope Sun loses the descriminitation suit filed against them. Fucking curry munchers.

  139. computer program training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're so concerned about your job, then why did you major in something that can be easily be replicated by a developing country such as India?

    Also, as a shareholder of a global company, don't you want your company to source talent globally? Especially if your competitors are?

    Think before you speak...

  140. Competence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think the #1 reason United States hands out visas to foreign programmers is that it lacks enough of its own competent programmers. Same goes for Computer Scientists, who are by a big majority foreign when it comes to Ph.D. levels.

    This is not gibberish -- these are well-researched facts, check them out yourself by picking any random well-known college and checking out their stats in CS departments.

    I say, do not impose import tarriffs (and thus cripple your IT sector).

    I do not believe that everyone is replacable in IT industry. Programmers are the workforce and the work-capital (thinking-coding machines, if you will) of all of the IT companies. Some foreign countries make better thinking-coding machines or make more of at least as good thinking-coding machines as US of A --- the salary they require is a secondary concern.

    The reason United States hands out green-cards or work permits to highly-educated foreigners is the same reason it outsources some of it IT work -- the companies at home are not competent enough.

    This is the same reason other countries do the same.

    U.S. IT companies outsource their work because they need people who will do it better for less money. These people are very well educated, capable of grabbing mucho $$$ contracts; the reason they offer their solutions cheaper is because they know they will build them with less people in less time than your average United States IT companies that rely on soulless code-droids.

    Another interesting fact is that the car industry managed to get import limitations (in imposed per-country quantity-limitations rather than tarriffs) and it resulted in thriving domestic market of inferior cars that would be swiftly overrun by Euroasian manufacturers if it weren't for these import-limitations. The reason for the superiority of the average foreign automotive products is not (only) that Euroasian cars might cost less (which they really don't), it is that they have in many cases more advanced production and/or car technology and smarter people in their engineering departments.

    Many US programmers grew up in high-school angst, being singled out as 'geeks' and further bullied into accepting that view of themselves and perpetuating it further. Most of Slashdot qualifies.

    This not only makes them susceptible to glorifying their skill-set that is really not that good; it's only good compared to their middle-of-nowhere college/high-school average, but also compels them to guard their sacr3d sk1LLs by attacking anyone who doesn't fit their favorite no-life-dork role-model. Thus, faced with people who are not only MORE COMPETENT and BETTER EDUCATED, but in fact DO HAVE A LIFE, some of these US "IT professionals" [read: soulless code-droids] feel pitted against the wall and lash out in pre-1990s xenophobic propaganda.

    You can not easily get someone to program well for you for $1/hour -- if you do, then the government has invested much more than that into education and other things for that person.

  141. the other way around ? by y4h0oo · · Score: 1

    Would this tax work the other way around ? If a country outside the US has a higher labor cost, should they get tax deducted ?
    I ask this because we pay a whole lot more tax in the country I live in.


    PS : I'm French [ducks and takes covers]

    --
    I'll change my sig when I have the time...
  142. Good point by artemis67 · · Score: 1

    Good point; trying to tax an intangible will simply create a black market that the government will have no control over but will frivilously spend billions trying to police.

    After all, once a piece of software is written and transferred via the internet to its final destination, who can say where it originated? It's completely untraceable.

    Besides that, the most obvious problem to me is how to tax something like that. By the number of lines of code, or by the number of bytes? Well, how would the government know how much of that code may have originated in the US, how much of it was foreign-made but already taxed, and how much was left to be taxed? This would be particularly troublesome for programs where great blocks of code need to be rewritten. Again, this tax would be completely dependent on the honor system, and most companies would only pay a token amount to give the illusion of compliance.

    The only way for the government to get an accurate measure of software written overseas would be to set up some kind of software auditing system, with tens of thousands of software accountants whose job is to monitor software development in corporations and determine the amount of tax owed; unfortunately, the US government has no jurisdiction to enforce such things outside of the US.

    Finally, a software tax would only give the advantage to overseas companies, because they don't have to pay the tax. The effect is that software companies in Germany, India, et al, would grow at a much faster rate than US companies. Do we want to be competitive with the rest of the world, or do we want to protect salaries?

    I hate to say it, but it's better for the market to simply work things out on its own. Already we are seeing that outsourcing overseas may not be the cost savings that it's cracked up to be; there's really no substitute for having someone who's local and accountable who's working on your project if you want it done right and on time.

  143. I don't get it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the rule of capitalism, whatever makes money goes? If outsourcing helps in rofit, it should be OK. I remember when IBM & Coca Cola was asked to close shop in India to protect local industry from on-slaught of cheaper things which local industry could not compete with, US and IMF had protested the 'protectionism'. Now as economy goes down here, we abandon the priciples we grew rich on and follow short term gains of protectionism. Given the rate at which it is going, the protectionism against everything foreign is bordering on socialism and soon find USSR's policy favourable for 'good of locals'

  144. Temporary Movement of Natural Persons by TheSync · · Score: 1
    The Temporary Movement of Natural People could bring greater gains than all trade liberalization.

    While there has been an upsurge in bilateral and global agreements on trade in goods, the liberalisation of services and labour markets have proceeded much more slowly. Nearly twenty years ago Hamilton and Whalley (1984) suggested that the liberalisation of world labour markets could double world income and imply proportionately even larger gains for the developing countries. Thus allowing labour to move between countries would seem to be an important tool for growth and development. Far from seeking to exploit such opportunities, however, the developed world became less open to both migration and to temporary labour flows. Recently, however, the temporary movement of workers has moved back onto the agenda. It was recognised as one of four modes of delivering services abroad by the Uruguay Round's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), where it became known as 'Mode 4' liberalisation - the Temporary Movement of Natural Persons (TMNP). ...
    We estimate that by increasing developed economies' quotas on inward movements of both skilled and unskilled labour by just 3% of their labour forces, world welfare would rise by $US156billion - about 0.6% of world income. This figure is half as large again as the gains expected from the liberalisation of all remaining goods trade restrictions ($US104billion). In general, developing countries gain most from the increase in quotas, with higher gains from the increase in quotas on unskilled labour than on skilled labour. Developed economies generally experience falling wages, but their returns to capital and overall welfare increase in most cases.
  145. Grim Horizon for Graduates by seanmcelroy · · Score: 2, Interesting


    I really wish something would be done to this effect. As a senior graduating in May with my undergrad in MIS, many of us are looking at a Catch-22 job market where entry level programming positions are being moved off-shore, and other available corporate positions require that work experience as a prerequisite.

    It's definitely not fair IMNSHO that minimum wage laws that aim to maintain a quality of living in this country make beggers out of degreed job-seekers and shift lost wages to other countries.

    --
    Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. -Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
    1. Re:Grim Horizon for Graduates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Would you like a great way to gain some experience and help free software at the same time? Try donating some time to open source software. It will give you some real world experience and help move forward OSS.

      If you still can't get hired, try thinking of areas where software could fix a problem. Talk to non-techie friends and ask them about their problems. Write some custom apps - maybe a database solution for your friend with the auto parts store, or a palm pilot app for your sales friends. You may find yourself doing better than the guys who managed to get corporate jobs.

    2. Re:Grim Horizon for Graduates by DavidinAla · · Score: 1

      You're not guaranteed a job or a living just because you get a degree. If you're not happy with the pay in the field that you're entering, you have no one but yourself to blame for that. Change fields or do something to make yourself more valuable in your field. It's not up to an employer to find a way to pay you what you want. It's up to you to be valuable enough that someone will want to pay what you want to make. David

  146. What does /. think? by jasno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We think you're a protectionist idiot who needs to go study economics.

    No, don't just take the jobs oversees, take the companies that use foreign labor overseas as well. Look, there's no solution to the 'problem' of foreign labor. Adapt, overcome, and continue to innovate and you'll be fine.

    If programming really is so easy that anyone can do it, why should you get a premium for being an American?

    --

    http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    1. Re:What does /. think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because rent is $1200 a month, two boxes of crackers costs $9 at the grocery store, and a roast beef sandwich is $7.

  147. FUCK MICHAEL MOORE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Self Righteous Misguided Little Fat Prick

  148. Sweat Shop??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BTW, lot of people here seem to be assuming Indian IT to be a sweat shop back yards. Wonder why? Sad to see prople at /. are just like other cultural deficit people believing in 'typecasts'. Any of you ever been to an IT copany in India?

    1. Re:Sweat Shop??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry for the typo ... that's company

  149. Oh, fer crissakes!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about this for a second. If the US puts tariffs on software imports, then so will other countries. Then Microsoft software becomes that much less appealing to the 96% of the world that matters, and they lose money. So they stop buying senators and congressmen. Hundreds of congressional aides, etc. are thrown out of work. The economy collapses (well, even further). All so your little job doesn't go running to Canada.

  150. como? by kinghype · · Score: 1

    Is it not superbly ironic that a technologist is questioning whether we should impose a tax that would inhibit the movement of jobs over seas so our own human capital would be used less efficiently? Technology has brought about the questioner's dilemma. Moving jobs over seas is an economical technology, imposing a tax prohibiting this movement is technological hindrance. The questioner would be best suited if he changes with the times, and employees himself as someone who moves projects to cheaper, foreign countries, rather than one who sits idly and inquisitively by wondering how to stop the inevitable: technological evolution and his, rightful, unemployment.

  151. Silly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This'd just cause another trade war with Europe, think how much we could bring in taxing all that american (ok mainly microsoft) software in Europe in return, only then you could impose tarrifs on steel or bananas in return, just starting this whole silly cycle again...

  152. test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    test slashdot seems to be down

  153. Selfish Bastard by klahnako · · Score: 1

    Let me get this right. You loose your job because your too expensive, annd now you want to find legal/political solutions to your problem?

    Face reality, the economy sucks. Stop being a selfish bastard.

  154. what an uniteresting article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does Slashdot think?

    I don't care about US.

  155. Right. We need all our industries destroyed! by zymano · · Score: 0
    Asian countries always dump steel at below cost. Why do they do that?

    To fuck the industry and make them go out of business so they will later raise prices.

    You can work around capitalism and succeed.

  156. Re: I'm a Canadian! :) by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 1

    They're just jealous that we have universal medical coverage for less per capita than they spend for partial medical coverage because of HMOs,

    I live in Ontario and it's been four months since I have been diagnosed with cancer, and if I am lucky I may get in for surgery in April. And you're bragging about this joke healthcare system Canada has? Most industrialized countries have better healthcare than Canada. Canadian Medicare pays for the basics and that's it. If my employer didn't provide private medical insurance I would have had to pay thousands in the last 18 months. In the states my treatment would have been long finished, even in a public hospital.

    and everything else that makes us different.
    Let's see...the tv show that is #1 in the states is #1 in Canada. The movie that is #1 in the states is usually #1 in Canada. The album that is #1 in the states is usually #1 in Canada....shall I go on? Seems to me we are Americans!

    What's next, bragging about how Canadians (mostly British troops and Indians) beat Americans in a battle over a hundred years ago?

  157. Not again?!? by ambar1073 · · Score: 1

    This article is a great example of why white-trash computer geeks should NOT be deciding our country's economic policy. Some of you need to get econ degrees or MBAs and understand the basics of comparative advantage and why cheap foreign software is good for everyone involved.

  158. Goose, meet gander... by darnok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > Why doesn't the US tax the import of software?

    Because if they did, then other countries might do a similar thing and start taxing the import of software from the US. As the US is the largest producer of commercial software, and is in an economic hole, this would hurt the US more than it would any other country.

    It might have worked a few years ago, before there were viable options to Windows and (low- to mid-range) Solaris and HP systems, but now Linux and BSD make it viable to run companies without US-produced commercial software.

  159. shift the problem around by Wansu · · Score: 2, Insightful


    ... how would this change the climate of US IT jobs leaving for other parts of the world if we did tax software imports?

    If that's the only change made, then those companies would open IT shops here and staff them with imported workers on H1B visas. If the desired outcome is to employ more native born US citizens, imposing a tariff isn't sufficient by itself.

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
    1. Re:shift the problem around by axxackall · · Score: 1
      Today it is virtually impossible to get H1B even when you are already in US and just lost a job. INS was very clear after recession begun - "we've got enough of our own citizens who cannot find the job". After 9/11 they have just stopped all (almost) work on H1B applications.

      So, for mid-size projects it's more likely that the code development will be outsourced, but final QA (and perhaps finalizing the code, like english spell checking, just kidding) will be done domestically in a small office. No tariff to be applied to this schema, no H1B is required, Indian (or Chineese, or Russian) govt has got its money from salary taxes (and use it to keep better than in US high-education), US govt sucks - as it's supposed to do due to its unlimited stupidity.

      BTW, President Putin said another day explicitely: "let's use taxes from outsourced to Russia projects for keeping our high-education on the level when such outsourcing is desired even when the price is the same", meaning perhaps that the quality of russian programmers for the same price is much higher that the one of US counterparts.

      --

      Less is more !
  160. The world is changing by Jordy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Having worked at companies that have outsourced from everything from local companies to German companies, I've found that outsourcing really does have its limits.

    If you run a company that only needs small easily defined utilities to automate tasks and don't need them done immediately, outsourcing works very well.

    However, if you run a company that needs to turn on a dime to enter new markets, exploit existing ones, handle complex B2B integration issues or have vague software requirements, outsourcing falls flat. Even if you are dealing with a company 20 miles away, the simple fact that the programmers there don't understand your business leads to design mistakes and missing features that a dedicated well trained programmer that spends his time thinking how to improve your business should have caught.

    As businesses face stiffer competition in the world market and the complexity of the software systems they run increases, I believe they will find it harder and harder not to justify hiring local talent they can train to understand their business.

    If anything, I believe the US needs to do two things to help slow the departure of development jobs:

    First, we need to better educate programmers to make them more rounded. The better they understand the complexities of specific industries, the better they can anticipate the needs of their employeers. A developer should be positioned in a company to understand how it can improve, not be a monkey that hammers out what the business side of the company thinks it wants.

    Second, we need to sell the benefits of hiring in-house programmers over outsourcing. Marketing is really something developers aren't particularly good at, but has to change.

    Now this won't stop the migration of jobs to foreign countries, but it will assure that it is relegated only to simple grunt work keeping the highest paying skilled work at home.

    --
    The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
    1. Re:The world is changing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "First, we need to better educate programmers to make them more rounded."

      I say that many programmers are quite "rounded" already - Some are too rounded for their own good.

  161. Globalism should be done properly by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

    AntiHanzoSan I'm not against competition, I'm not against globalism, I'm against how its being done.

    Currently we dont have a Global Economy, because people in other countries dont get the same wages, You shouldnt be able to have seperate currencies yet still have a Global Economy, because when you convert the Yen to the Dollar, our money somehow is more expensive than their money, making their version of the dollar "BETTER" than ours, pricing our people out due to some kinda glitch in the system.

    So I get priced out as a programmer because my dollar is inflated? Thats Bullshit, look, if we could convert the Chinese, the Japanese, and we are the USA, all converted to the Euro, no one would have a problem with Globalism, we would all make the same exact wages and the competition would be based on actual merit.

    Instead, the competition is based on stuff we have no control over, its not even about merit, its about where you live, if you live in China you have a job, if you live in the USA you dont. So the solution? We should pick a fucking dollar/euro/yen and everyone use it.

    We should set up a global minimum wage for EVERYONE, and then finally labor will cost the same in EVERY country. A programmer who makes $30,000 inn the USA would make $30,000 anywhere else in the world and then we will finally be able to compete without being forced to leave our home countries.

    I'm all for competition, I'm convinced that the USA has enough of a headstart that I'll be just fine if we finally made things fair. But I dont agree with an unfair competition where I have to leave the USA because the jobs are being given to China, and from China to India, and from India to Africa, I mean what the hell, everyone will have jobs but us, why? Because we are the most expensive, so unless you are a Doctor, Lawyer or Teacher, be prepared to be without work.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Globalism should be done properly by dlbowm · · Score: 1

      EXACTLY! Thank you for finally pointing this out. It's fine to compete on merit, but when the incompatible economic and monetary systems don't mesh, it isn't competetion. It's completely outside your control and is unfair. That is when the gov't steps in to protect their own frickin' country.

      Globalism can not work for the people (of course it'll work for the suits, at least the elite ones) until the monetary system itself is global. Otherwise it's just national suicide.

    2. Re:Globalism should be done properly by Anti-HanzoSan · · Score: 0

      Currently we dont have a Global Economy, because people in other countries dont get the same wages, You shouldnt be able to have seperate currencies yet still have a Global Economy, because when you convert the Yen to the Dollar, our money somehow is more expensive than their money, making their version of the dollar "BETTER" than ours, pricing our people out due to some kinda glitch in the system.

      Well, if you want to look at it that way, we don't even have a National Economy, let alone a global one. A programmer will get paid more in New York City than he will in Aliance, Nebraska because there's little demand for programmers in Aliance. The value of all jobs is partly contingent on their location. I'm highly paid for where I live in my part of the country. But I doubt I could even live in Boston on what I make, my house would cost 4 times what I paid for it here. But then, the same job in Boston pays a lot more than it does where I live. You're ignoring the other variables.

      So I get priced out as a programmer because my dollar is inflated? Thats Bullshit, look, if we could convert the Chinese, the Japanese, and we are the USA, all converted to the Euro, no one would have a problem with Globalism, we would all make the same exact wages and the competition would be based on actual merit.

      Not true - New York, Utah and South Carolina and California all use the same currency. Look where companies like Novell, RedHat and Caldera started up. It wasn't in Boston or New York. Guess why?

      I'll give you another example - Nevada is the fastest growing state in terms of population. Between 1990 and 2000 the population increased 80%. Salaries are actually lower on the average than the rest of the country. But it's also cheaper to live there and start a business because there's very little taxation and regulation. So businesses locate there because it's cheap to operate there. More businesses means more jobs, so people are migrating there to find work.

      Instead, the competition is based on stuff we have no control over, its not even about merit, its about where you live, if you live in China you have a job, if you live in the USA you dont. So the solution? We should pick a fucking dollar/euro/yen and everyone use it.

      It will always be about where you live. If you're a seafood wholesaler, you'll be better off in Boston than Des Moines. Why? Because there's no ocean near Des Moines. Even if your the best fisherman in the world, it's not going to do you any bloody good in Des Moines. So, yes, in some cases location has more to do with competing effectively than ability.

      But that has nothing to do with the type of currency used.

      We should set up a global minimum wage for EVERYONE, and then finally labor will cost the same in EVERY country. A programmer who makes $30,000 inn the USA would make $30,000 anywhere else in the world and then we will finally be able to compete without being forced to leave our home countries.

      That's impossible. Check out the cost of living in Costa Rica. You can live quite nicely there for less than the US minimum wage. If you brought up the minimum wage to US standards, it would drive up the price of labor, which would drive up the price of everything else. The minimum wage in the US is a princely sum in Costa Rica. Most Costa Rican businesses couldn't afford to pay it. All you'd do is cause inflation, and put a whole lot of people out of work and out of business while you were doing it.

    3. Re:Globalism should be done properly by HanzoSan · · Score: 2, Insightful



      We do have a national economy, your dollar is worth the same in New York as it is in Florida.

      "
      Not true - New York, Utah and South Carolina and California all use the same currency. Look where companies like Novell, RedHat and Caldera started up. It wasn't in Boston or New York. Guess why? "

      Thats not the point, in New York you make money in dollars, in California you make money in dollars, everywhere you go your dollars are worth the same, the cost of living might vary but your money is worth the same for a REASON, it keeps things fair. No one would get hired in Boston if the money here was twice as expensive as the money down south, it doesnt matter what the job was or the situation, you could be a fisherman in Boston, but if your fish costs x10 as much money because your stupid dollar is more expensive, whos going to buy it? People will buy fish thats cheaper, meaning everywhere but from you, even if you produce most of the fish.

      " It will always be about where you live. If you're a seafood wholesaler, you'll be better off in Boston than Des Moines. Why? Because there's no ocean near Des Moines. Even if your the best fisherman in the world, it's not going to do you any bloody good in Des Moines."

      This doesnt apply to software, a fisherman is a trade, its like being a cole miner orfarmer, sure its harder to be a farmer in the inner city, but this has nothing to do with it, fact is anything you produce from any farm anywhere is from the same $ dollar system. Yes China will have the software development advantage because theres more Chinese, but if we are both the same price, it wont matter, people who live in the USA will buy mostly USA and people who live in Japan will buy mostly Japan.

      Just like people in Boston usually buy from local companies in Boston. Sure some big global companies will sell stuff in China, but with a global dollar at least its fair, the Chinese will get paid a fair wage, I could go to China and make the same wage there and pay for my family in the USA.

      Just like in the USA I can work in Boston and pay for a house in Texas.

      " That's impossible. Check out the cost of living in Costa Rica. You can live quite nicely there for less than the US minimum wage. If you brought up the minimum wage to US standards, it would drive up the price of labor, which would drive up the price of everything else. The minimum wage in the US is a princely sum in Costa Rica. Most Costa Rican businesses couldn't afford to pay it. "

      First if they use the same dollar system as me, why couldnt they afford to pay it? Americans in the USA who buy software made in Costa Rica would make the people who make software there rich, improving the whole economy, other businesses would form to allow these people to spend their money. Whats your point? In Maine, Idaho and other places the cost of living is kinda low, should these places never start businesses because somehow the businesses there cannot pay minimum wage? Bullshit, Businesses in these states sell to people in other states, making these states richer, thats how it works, you export your product, you make money, your economy improves, and you can pay minimum wage.

      $5 is $5 everywhere regardless of the cost of living, $5 an hour here in Boston is $5 an hour in Texas, the money is the same, if you cannot live off the $5 an hour in Boston you move or you get another job, if you can live off $5 an hour in Texas and live rich but you cant live off $5 an hour in Boston, this is an issue of the states cost of living, not an issue of the currency, the global econnomy, etc.

      When you have China, India, etc however not getting the same minimum wage because Microsoft you somehow believe cannot afford to pay them the same they pay us, thats absolutely Bullshit when you think about it, if they could pay us Minimum wage here in the USA they can pay everyone else.

      It makes sense when you tell me people who start small businesses in China cannot pay minimum wage, perhaps not easily, but if th

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    4. Re:Globalism should be done properly by Beliskner · · Score: 1
      The price of labor should not be as cheap as possible, it should be as fair as possible, period, so things we dont really need would suddenly be more expensive, so what? I currently have to pay $200 for sneakers which cost about $2 to make, just so some rich greedy CEO at Nike can make a few hundred million extra dollars.
      Then go to a flea market in an old US town and buy $5 unbranded sneakers. This money will go straight to the sweatshop. The fact is Americans want Nike for $500 because Michael Jordan wears them. It's not your place to comment on how Nike distributes or raises that money. I know McDonalds is crap, but then why does my stomach rumble whe I see one of their beautiful juicy Big Macs on TV mmmmmm? If China becomes one big sweatshop and Chinese employment rises to almost 100% then the Chinese economy will be stronger than the American economy after 100 years of redistribution. The Chinese will choose better and better sweatshops to work for, and then the best workers will go for perks like "Free jade vase when you join our company". Then the Chinese will be richer than the Americans.
      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    5. Re:Globalism should be done properly by humblecoder · · Score: 1

      There is a serious flaw in your argument. Here in the U.S., we have a single currency (dollars) and a national min wage, but it is STILL cheaper to live in North Dakota than it is in New York City. I'm sure that companies in ND can pay wages that are a lot lower than a company in NYC. Why is this? After all, according to you, this shouldn't happen since both places use the same currency and the same min wage.

      Here's another thing to think about. If ND is that much cheaper for a company to operate in, then why haven't more companies moved to ND, and why are so many companies still based in NYC. Tax credits? Maybe but it had better be a REALLY BIG tax credit to make up the different. Perhaps the the realtor's mantra of "location, location, location" is really true. NYC has more potential employees, better infrastructure, proximity to a major economic center, and being in NYC carries a certain cache in some industries.

      As far as jobs going overseas goes, if the U.S. tech industry is go "gloom and doom", why do the best and the brightest from India, China, and other countries come to the U.S. (on H1-B visas) to work here? If the situation is so rosy in India, then why come here to work. You never hear of American workers deciding to emigrate to India or China by the thousands. Even adjusting for cost of living, living in the U.S. offers a better quality of life.

      Also, right now one of the reasons that it appears so much cheaper to hire an Indian programmer in India is because off-shore development really hasn't reached a critical mass. As more and more companies jump on the bandwagon, the demand for Indian programmers will increase, pushing up their cost. As this happens, the advantage of offshore programming will disappear. Also, programming isn't like stitching Nike's together. You can't just hire any farmer, stick them in a factory, and expect them to be productive. It requires a certain level of skill, education, and experience. To develop such a skill, a country needs to make a sizable investment in developing its educational system and infrastructure. The ones who do get educated in IT are the exception and not the rule. If a "third world" country were to develop the infrastructure necessary to churn out IT employees, this would have the effect of pushing up the standard of living, and reduce the wage difference between their workers and ours.

      Anyway, economics isn't a static thing. It is a dynamic system where everything is inter-related, and it must be studied as such. Unfortunately, it seems like most people assume that one change or trend will continue indefinitely. You would think that Slashdot people would understand how to analyze dynamic systems, but I guess that only applies to digital ones! :-)

    6. Re:Globalism should be done properly by HanzoSan · · Score: 1


      " There is a serious flaw in your argument. Here in the U.S., we have a single currency (dollars) and a national min wage, but it is STILL cheaper to live in North Dakota than it is in New York City. I'm sure that companies in ND can pay wages that are a lot lower than a company in NYC. Why is this? After all, according to you, this shouldn't happen since both places use the same currency and the same min wage."

      What does the cost of living have to do with your wage? That has nothing to do with it. Sure its cheaper to live in North Dakota, theres more land there, the land is cheaper, and so on. This has absolutely nothing to do with your wage though, If I hire you as a company located in New York, you'll get a New York wage even if you live and work in North Dakota, letting you keep the extra money.

      Just like if you work in New York you can buy land in cheaper areas. What the Global companies are doing, is robbing the workers, instead of the Indians and Chinese keeping that extra money, that money goes to the CEO.


      "Here's another thing to think about. If ND is that much cheaper for a company to operate in, then why haven't more companies moved to ND, and why are so many companies still based in NYC. Tax credits? Maybe but it had better be a REALLY BIG tax credit to make up the different. Perhaps the the realtor's mantra of "location, location, location" is really true. NYC has more potential employees, better infrastructure, proximity to a major economic center, and being in NYC carries a certain cache in some industries.
      "


      Theres more people in New York City, population and infastructure. New York is a built up city, you cannot compare it to a place which is mostly grass and trees and wonder why companies dont want to be there.


      As far as jobs going overseas goes, if the U.S. tech industry is go "gloom and doom", why do the best and the brightest from India, China, and other countries come to the U.S. (on H1-B visas) to work here? If the situation is so rosy in India, then why come here to work. You never hear of American workers deciding to emigrate to India or China by the thousands. Even adjusting for cost of living, living in the U.S. offers a better quality of life.
      They come here to work because for now we are the best country, but not for long, eventually they will have all the jobs and we will be the third world, and thats when we will all be going to India and China to find work. The quality of life is better in Tokyo Japan than in the USA, funny we arent all running to Tokyo, you know why? Tokyos economy is terrible just like ours.

      Also, right now one of the reasons that it appears so much cheaper to hire an Indian programmer in India is because off-shore development really hasn't reached a critical mass. As more and more companies jump on the bandwagon, the demand for Indian programmers will increase, pushing up their cost

      Thats assuming theres not an endless supply of Indian programmers, look theres a billion Indians, theres around 300 million Americans, so tell me how in the hell do you think programmers will somehow be in demand again? But even if a billion Indian programmers were hired, you have another Billion Chinese and Africans to hire before hiring the Europeans and Americans.

      Anyway, economics isn't a static thing. It is a dynamic system where everything is inter-related, and it must be studied as such. Unfortunately, it seems like most people assume that one change or trend will continue indefinitely. You would think that Slashdot people would understand how to analyze dynamic systems, but I guess that only applies to digital ones! :-)
      I never said it will be like this forever, but currently our economic downturn benefits people in India. The economy is unstable because the people in India are being used as cheap labor, if you make their labor cost the same as our labor via a Global currency, thats when things will change for the better, thats when things

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    7. Re:Globalism should be done properly by humblecoder · · Score: 1

      HanzoSan:

      Your logic makes absolutely NO SENSE!!!


      What does the cost of living have to do with your wage? That has nothing to do with it. Sure its cheaper to live in North Dakota, theres more land there, the land is cheaper, and so on. This has absolutely nothing to do with your wage though, If I hire you as a company located in New York, you'll get a New York wage even if you live and work in North Dakota, letting you keep the extra money.


      Cost of living has EVERYTHING to do with wage. If the cost of living in an area is low, then a company can pay workers in that area in lower wage. And your last statement make absolutely no sense. Just because a company is a "New York" company doesn't mean they have to pay a person in ND a NY wage. Just like a US company isn't going to pay a programmer in Indian a US wage. I may be mistaken, but isn't this exactly what you have been screaming about? If a company in place X has to pay a person in place Y as if they were in X as you say, then what's your beef. According to YOU this is exactly the problem that you are trying to solve with your Global Currency and Min Wage nonsense.


      Theres more people in New York City, population and infastructure. New York is a built up city, you cannot compare it to a place which is mostly grass and trees and wonder why companies dont want to be there.


      Now you are refuting your own argument. This is exactly why programming jobs won't go overseas in the numbers that you claim they will. Even though wages are higher in the US, there are advantages to basing operations in the US - you even mention a few!! There is a reason why these countries are called "third world". They have minimal infrastructure (frequent brown outs and limited telcom capabilities), their economies are unstable (think double and triple digit inflation), their political systems are unstable and rife with corruption (even by US standards!), they don't have a strong educational system, their medical care is low by western standards, etc, etc, etc. And you forget probably the most important ingredient to a skilled work force, a strong middle class!

      The catch of course is that once a country develops these things, its standard of living increases, but so does the average wage.


      Thats assuming theres not an endless supply of Indian programmers, look theres a billion Indians, theres around 300 million Americans, so tell me how in the hell do you think programmers will somehow be in demand again? But even if a billion Indian programmers were hired, you have another Billion Chinese and Africans to hire before hiring the Europeans and Americans.


      Yes but how many of those billion Indians have the education, skills, and training to be programmers? And how many of those Indians are already here in the US earning US wages? If there are so many Indian/Chinese/African programmers chomping at the bit to take American jobs, then where were they back in the late 90's when anybody with a brain could get hired as a web programmer?


      Thats fair, its not fair however if my Salary in changes because I move to Idaho, or Florida, a Salary should not be dynamic based on where you live.


      Why isn't it fair? To me a fair wage is the market wage. In simpler terms, it's fair I'm making about the same as the guy next to me for doing the same job. I've lived in both rural in urban areas and the fact is that wages are lower in rural areas. If this fair to me? I mean, I was probably making less than my collegues in NYC. However, I DID think it was fair because my bills were lower. If anything, I was probably coming out a little bit ahead. Also I had a nice quality of life (close to nature, no traffic, no crowds). Also, if you forced companies to pay the same wage, no matter what the area, then all of the jobs in the low cost of living areas would probably disappear. After all, why should a company locate its operations in a place with all the disadvantages of a rural area (no infrastructure etc) without any of the advantages (lower cost of labor)?

    8. Re:Globalism should be done properly by humblecoder · · Score: 1


      Thats not the point, in New York you make money in dollars, in California you make money in dollars, everywhere you go your dollars are worth the same, the cost of living might vary but your money is worth the same for a REASON, it keeps things fair.


      Here's the flaw in your argument, HanzoSan:

      Even though every state in the US uses dollars, dollars AREN'T worth the same everywhere. Let me say that again so it sinks in:

      DOLLARS AREN"T WORTH THE SAME EVERYWHERE!

      Here's a basic ecomonics lesson for you. What is dollar? Basically a dollar is just a fancy piece of paper with some pretty pictures on it. If you were stranded on a desert island with a dollar, what can you do with it? You can burn it for fire (if you had a match) and maybe you can wipe your backside with it, but it really isn't that helpful. Why is a dollar so valuable then? Because you can trade them for things that are truly useful, like food or shelter or clothing, etc, etc. To summarize:

      A dollar's value comes from the fact you can trade it for useful things.

      I hope you are still with me. Let's say you have a pocket full of dollars. Let's say you are driving through Topeka Kansas, and you need gas. You pull over to a gas station and you trade the 10 dollars in your pocket for 8 gallons of gas. Now let's say you drive on to Denver Colorado when you find that your tank is again empty. You trade another 10 dollars for gas, but at the station in Denver, gas is more expensive. Hence, you get only 6 gallons of gas. Let's summarize again:

      In Topeka, $10 = 8 gallons of gas.
      In Denver, $10 = 6 gallons of gas.

      Now let's return to your original comment: "Everywhere you go, dollars are worth the same..." Wait one second, if you are right, then why was my $10 only worth 6 gallons of gas in Denver? Contrary to your belief:

      Dollars aren't worth the same everywhere!

      $10 in Topeka in my example are worth 8 gallons of gas, but it is only worth 6 gallons in Denver. Because dollars seem to be worth more in Topeka, then they must be more valuable there. Same currency but different value. Because a dollar can be traded for more things in Topeka, it is said to have a lower cost of living than Denver. This is because it takes fewer dollars to buy the same amount of tangible goods.

      Let's summarize the above lessons:

      1. Dollars are pieces of paper with neat pictures.

      2. Dollars have value because you can trade them for useful things.

      3. In some areas you can trade the same dollars for different quantities of useful things.

      4. Because of 3, dollars must have different values depending upon where you are.

      5. Areas where you get more tangible things for your dollars is said to have a lower cost of living.

      I don't know why I am spending all this time on this. Perhaps you are just a troll in which case, you got me! Even if still haven't seen the glaring flaws in your own arguments, some lurker won't succumb to your illogical rhetoric.

      Cheers!

    9. Re:Globalism should be done properly by HanzoSan · · Score: 1


      Cost of living has EVERYTHING to do with wage. If the cost of living in an area is low, then a company can pay workers in that area in lower wage.
      Wage has nothing to do with cost of living, A doctor, lawyer or computer programmer may live in the projects or cheap apartment in brooklyn. Should their wage be based on where they live? So if you live in a ghetto you get the "ghetto wage" and if you live in Beverly Hills you get the "Beverly Hills Wage"? Hell no. Your wage should not be based on your cost of living, it should be based on how much you are worth. Your worth has nothing to do wit how much it costs for you to live, your worth is decided based on how much you are in demand and how much companies are willing to pay for your services. Thats the whole point of the American Dream, everyone can move up and get a raise, maybe you are thinking of communism.

      Now you are refuting your own argument. This is exactly why programming jobs won't go overseas in the numbers that you claim they will. Even though wages are higher in the US, there are advantages to basing operations in the US - you even mention a few!! There is a reason why these countries are called "third world". They have minimal infrastructure (frequent brown outs and limited telcom capabilities), their economies are unstable (think double and triple digit inflation), their political systems are unstable and rife with corruption (even by US standards!), they don't have a strong educational system, their medical care is low by western standards, etc, etc, etc. And you forget probably the most important ingredient to a skilled work force, a strong middle class!
      I think you are wrong, first of all they dont need infastructure for programmers, they just need a bunch of computers and an internet connection, maybe an office. The third world may be poor but they a computer is all you need, its not likee you need all the stuff we have in silicon valley to be a programmer. IF what you said was true, there would be no programmers out of silicon valley and redmond because thats where all the infastructure is, funny but theres programmers all over the USA.


      Why isn't it fair? To me a fair wage is the market wage. In simpler terms, it's fair I'm making about the same as the guy next to me for doing the same job. I've lived in both rural in urban areas and the fact is that wages are lower in rural areas. If this fair to me? I mean, I was probably making less than my collegues in NYC. However, I DID think it was fair because my bills were lower. If anything, I was probably coming out a little bit ahead. Also I had a nice quality of life (close to nature, no traffic, no crowds). Also, if you forced companies to pay the same wage, no matter what the area, then all of the jobs in the low cost of living areas would probably disappear. After all, why should a company locate its operations in a place with all the disadvantages of a rural area (no infrastructure etc) without any of the advantages (lower cost of labor)?

      Fair wage is the wage you are worth, the market wage should be based on what the workers will accept, and what they demand, not what the companies want to pay. If workers arent in demand they have to accept less, and thats fair, but considering them acceptingn less means I'm out of a job, we should all have a global minimum wage or else the jobs leave the USA which is unfair. I wouldnt mind the programming jobs being cheap, but if I dont even have the option of being a programmer anymore, thats not fair.

      Yes but how many of those billion Indians have the education, skills, and training to be programmers? And how many of those Indians are already here in the US earning US wages? If there are so many Indian/Chinese/African programmers chomping at the bit to take American jobs, then where were they back in the late 90's when anybody with a brain could get hired as a web programmer?


      As many as needed, its cheaper for Microsoft to train Indians tha

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    10. Re:Globalism should be done properly by humblecoder · · Score: 1


      Your wage should not be based on your cost of living, it should be based on how much you are worth.


      Maybe this is true in your dream world, but in the real world, your wage is based upon supply and demand. I may be "worth" X, but if there is nobody out there who will pay me X, then I'm not going to get it. The FACT is that the market wage in lower cost of living areas is lower than it is in higher cost of living areas. I mean, compare the average salary for a programmer in Boston (high cost of living) vs. Des Moines (low cost of living). People in lower cost of living areas tend to demand less, because they don't need as much to live on.


      I think you are wrong, first of all they dont need infastructure for programmers, they just need a bunch of computers and an internet connection, maybe an office.


      You sound like somebody who has never actually BEEN to a third world country. What good is a computer if you don't have a reliable electrical grid? How do you get Internet access if you don't have a reliable phone system? And you can forget broadband... Also, they don't have the education system necessary to train a large number of IT professionals. The majority of people are more worried about doing what it takes to survive from day to day. Those that do get educated enough to be trained as programmers are in the minority. One nice thing about living in the West is that, for the most part, everyone has access to a decent education (whether they take advantage of it or not is another thing). In the third world, they just don't have the resources to give everyone a decent education.

      I used to work with a guy from a country that is supposedly going to compete with us for IT jobs. He said that because the country can't educate everyone, only the best and the brightest get a decent education. On a side note, rather than staying in his home country, he emigrated to the US. He said that a large number of educated people in his country end up leaving because the quality of life is so much better here. That means that there are fewer and fewer people who can be trained as programmers, and fewer and fewer people for all these "offshore contracts".

    11. Re:Globalism should be done properly by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      Cost of living has nothing to do with the worth of your dollar. Buy stuff online and have it shipped to you to avoid state taxes.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    12. Re:Globalism should be done properly by HanzoSan · · Score: 1


      Maybe this is true in your dream world, but in the real world, your wage is based upon supply and demand. I may be "worth" X, but if there is nobody out there who will pay me X, then I'm not going to get it. The FACT is that the market wage in lower cost of living areas is lower than it is in higher cost of living areas. I mean, compare the average salary for a programmer in Boston (high cost of living) vs. Des Moines (low cost of living). People in lower cost of living areas tend to demand less, because they don't need as much to live on.


      Ok you can say this, but its not true, Microsoft has more than enough money to pay everyone a fair wage. You say there might be no one willing to pay X? Ok so less companies would be making software, so what? I'd rather each job pay a person enough to survive, than have more jobs but have to work 2-3 jobs to survive. What good is a mc donalds job if you cannot survive on it? Useless to me.

      Now, a programming job is a different situation, theres no shortage of programming labor, and there never will be, so I dont see the software industry having much of a future, Microsoft may not pay their programmers a fair wage if Microsoft were JUST a software company, but because Microsoft expands, they make money in other areas.

      Think of the gaming industry, these programmers make millions of dollars in salary, not because they are worth it to the market, theres plenty of programmers who can make games, the reason they make so much is because making a game requires culture.

      You cannot hire India programmers to write an American game and expect it to be done properly, you cannot hire American programmers to write a Japanese Anime RPG and expect it to be done properly, so the gaming industry has a smaller labor force but games like Tony Hawk produce massive amounts of money. This money goes down to the programmers, this is why John Carmack and other programmer people became so rich.

      Now, if you make the game industry like the computer industry, well every programmer would be making about $5 an hour, there would be no rich programmers in Japan or the USA because we'd just hire cheap labor in India, so you see in certain industries like the game or movie industry the workers set the price, and in certain industries the consumers set the price, but then you have some industries like Microsofts who set the price for the entire industry so low that they force everyone else to hire cheap labor.

      How do you compete with IE? Well you cant unless you go open source or hire slave labor in India.

      How do you compete with Microsoft Word? Well you cant, so you see because Microsoft made the whole industry less valueable with their monopoly and offering everything for free, software companies cannot charge as much and thus the price of software goes down even if the demand is high!

      So this is not supply and demand, this is certain monopolies manipulating the whole game and rigging it to destroy other smaller companies like Netscape. So the result? The small companies who were losing money in the competition were FORCED to hire people in India just to stay in business, because companies like Microsoft destroy the value of software by offering everything for free.

      Microsoft packs in all this software with Windows, this is sorta like say if in the gaming Industry, Sony decided to pack in 50 games with their console so no one has to buy console games anymore, well now what do people like EA do? Well they fire all their expensive workers and they begin to make cheap games and sell them for $10 each, and this keeps them in the market.

      Its very difficult to compete with free, and Microsoft is about to be priced out in the same way by linux.

      You sound like somebody who has never actually BEEN to a third world country. What good is a computer if you don't have a reliable electrical grid? How do you get Internet access if you don't have a reliable phone system? And you can forget broadband... Also, they don't have the ed

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  162. Level Playing Field by Zefla · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, the USA is supposed to be in favour of the free market, competition, a level international playing field, and so on. Tariffs go against that. On the other hand, US farm subsidies also go against that, and put efficient farmers in other countries, like Australia, at a disadvantage. The US doesn't practise what it preaches.

    Regards.

    --
    Wondering where the hell I have been.
  163. Protection = bad thing by OverRated · · Score: 1

    The Protect Domestic Employment argument has historically been one of the strongest arguments for protection. The argument is that if protection levels were not in place/reduced, the level of unemployment would rise.

    But it also argues, in it's strongest form, that increases in protection would promote higher employment in the U.S.

    A few points of qualification are needed:

    - There can be no denying that if protection levels were reduced in the U.S. there would be in the short run an increase in the level of unemployment...there can be no denying that much of this would be structural unemployment. So in the short term, the tendency is to increase protection to maintain jobs.

    - However, in the long run, no tariffs have the potential to create more jobs. Protection divers resources into relatively inefficient industries and away from relatively efficient uses. This misallocation of resources will reduce the rate of economic growth.

    So, continued protection will, in the long run, reduce the rate at which jobs can be created.

  164. What about non-software companies ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about taxing e.g. Nike for making 6 year-old children make their shoes in south-east asia ? Would you agree for that too ?

  165. Nonsense on stilts by tagishsimon · · Score: 1

    What does Slashdot think?"

    That you cannot consider the subject merely in the context of US IT jobs, but rather, you need to see your single-issue tarriff in the overall context of US-World trade.

    The US can, or course, impose a tarriff. However the cost of so-doing will be whatever penalty is levied by the World Trade Organisation. That penalty will be in terms of explicit permissions given to other nations to impose retaliatory tarrifs on US imports.

    The US is a member of the WTO for self-interested reasons (as are all members, presumably). It has to accept the obligations of membership as well as the benefits.

    An illustration of the immediate effect of the unilateral imposition of tarriffs is yesterday's ruling indicating that the US will be severely penalised for imposing tarriffs on certain sorts of steel imports. (The US is appealing...)

    Another was the recent WTO award to Europe of the right to impose $4 billion worth of trade sanctions against the US for giving tax breaks to American exporters through foreign sales corporations.

    Meanwhilse the historical perspective (and reasonably orthodox economic market theory) is that protectionism is not a good thing; specifically, that it generally fails to protect whatever it was that needed to be protected; that it adds costs & disbenefits to all sorts of other things; and that it impedes global trade, which itself is a bad thing, since trade is normally profitable.

    Ultimately, I see your question as being not so much about the narrow issue of jobs in the IT sector, but rather whether it would or would not be in the US national interest to adopt an isolationist trade policy. The orthodoxy is that it would be peverse in the extreme for it to do so; and by that yardstick, it would be peverse in the extreme to sanction tarrifs to protect one industry sector - even our own sector.

    And whilst it does remain in the US national interest to take part in the WTO, then it must anticipate the possibility that specific sectors - IT jobs, for instance - will from time to time be affected adversely.

    Of course, there is wide scope for debate; not least, about what will be the makeup of regions, states, supranational bodies, and how will trade work, in the future. Many of the scenarios painted are not particularly pleasant. Your question - and apparent supposition that the idea of protecting US IT jobs by the imposition of tarriffs is even worth considering is, perhaps, a harbinger of the sort of unenlightened self-interest postulated as being one of the drivers for the future.

  166. Import tariffs will have no effect whatsoever. by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

    Most software that is written is not produced for sale, but rather as internal systems used within a business -- most programmers are doing applications work for corporations and/or government entities, NOT writing the next MS Word. Therefore, outsourcing will continue whether you charge tariffs or not, because software like this will be conveniently exempt from the tariffs. The tariff question will just be a big noisy show to distract us all from whatever weirdness Congress is up to, and the IT industry will die anyway.

    --
    Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
  167. What have we become? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wounds me to see just how much the rest of the world hates us.

    We don't hate you, why do you insist on hating us?

    The majority of American's are AGAINST the War on Iraq, we just live under a corporate oligarchy.

    We can't help it, we don't even vote for our leaders anymore - they just fix Florida and game over, man.

    I still call it Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL).

    I am ashamed to be an American.

    Posting this via lynx because that all the Slashdot man will give me.

  168. Who benefits? by speakup · · Score: 1

    Does the tariff benefit the worker or the consumer of the products/services? A protectionist tariff may have short term benefits but it hurts in the long run. The key is to be more valuable as a developer than your offshore competition justify the extra expense. Sadly, that's not easy for most software developed these days.

  169. Welcome to the free market system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Econonomic theory tells us that in a free market economy those with the lowest costs win.


    Taxation is not the answer. Trying to rig the market does not work.


    The way to win is to play within the rules of economics. Either lower the cost or diffrentiate the product significantly so that cost is not a factor.


    I think that what we are seeing in the software industry is not so much foreign companies trying to use their low cost development facilities to take over the US market but rather US companies looking for an edge against each other.


    You just can't mess with economics. It's powerful stuff. Don't push against the river, carve a paddle and move to a better place.

  170. Why isn't an acre of land the same price ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think why you don't have a cattle ranch in midtown NY or an office block in the middle of mountains in Montana.

    There will always be differentials in cost of labour in the same way that there will be differentials in other costs.

    Using land - why is it that an acre of land could cost 1000 times as much in one part of the US verses another for maybe very similar scenic views ?.

    What you are saying when you want to tax other countries because they work on a lower (in US dollar terms) cost base is that you also want to harmonise land prices across the US too. You want to make it illegal to charge more per acre for similar land or to have differential taxes so that the result is the same.

    I don't think you really want to do that between US states so why do you see it as nessessary to harmonise cost bases between countries ?

    New Zealand is able to produce butter cheaper - without subsidies - then a hill farmer in say the US East coast or say Wales. A Thai programmmer is able to produce code cheaper than an Indian and an Indian will produce cheaper code than a US coder.

    Alternatively, in pure lines of code someone writing Assembler will have lower "productivity" than someone writing in Perl. DO you tax the use of high-level languages because they produce more lines of code equivelent than lower level languagues ?.

    When you work out what you are measuring and how you want to measure than and have an answer as to why the land prices vary in various parts of the world then come back with your ideas on harmonising costs using taxes.

  171. Economics? by AnotherScratchMonkey · · Score: 1
    Somebody send this guy to economics school. It's unbelievable how many fallacies were in that post.

    Money is a good, just like programming. It just happens to be a convenient good for barter. The fact that different currencies have different values per unit is irrelevant. That's what exchange rates are for. Or can't your programming environment handle fractions?

    And it's not about your rights. It's about the consumer's rights. She gets to choose who to buy from, and you have no right to deny her that choice, or to force her to buy from you. To do so is to be no better than a mobster running a protection racket.

    1. Re:Economics? by freestyle-fiend · · Score: 1

      > The fact that different currencies have different
      > values per unit is irrelevant.

      I don't that is what was meant. I think the point was that the cost of living (and the cost of labour) is different in different countries.

      > And it's not about your rights. It's about the
      > consumer's rights.

      Depends what *it* is. The free market isn't about anyone's rights, it's about the creation of wealth. Morality, on the other hand, is about everone's rights. Market freedom is a tool that might be used to promte people's rights. It is not the be-all and end-all of economics. Wealth created by market freedom is not the only important thing to aim for in an ethical production process.

      The distinction (your rights vs consumer's rights) is hardly worth making, because nearly everone is a consumer and most are also workers. I disagree with it, anyway. What matters is the rights of people as people, not the rights of people as consumers, or as workers. If the consumer benefits, but the worker loses out, then perhaps no net benefit has been made.

  172. Nah... How about a "services import" tarriff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about it... if software imports were taxed, All internet communication would be considered "ports" and thus monitorable by authorities!

    Also, I guess international distros would now have a tax? Bye by GPL!

    The alternative-a"services import/export " tariff is the solution.This way it charges the domestic company directly for outsourcing temporary or contract technical labor overseas. We should not tax a physical entities such as software on physical media , it's an open for way too many loopholes.

    This is an issue that I have become increasingly concerned about , and I will be writing to my states members of the U.S. Congress, and I would encourage all of us to do the same.

  173. We've Been Fucked! Get Over IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of us have been fucked out of an industry and we will never have those IT jobs again. Get over it. Yes, I am a bitter underemployed programmer. I got a whole three and a half fucking years out of my CS degree. I now have an evil job where I am chained to a desk and answering phones for pissed off SprintPCS customers. And I still have my student loans to pay off. At least I have an income. The bubble burst and now the economy stinks. It's not the Great Depression. I won't starve or go homeless. Thank God! but still is sucks ass.

  174. Unenforceable by jdoeii · · Score: 1

    Such tarrifs would be extremely difficult to enforce. The tangeable goods cross the border where customs can examine them. Software does not cross the border in a physical form. Thus it's very difficult to attribute the value added at the overseas office. If a US company wants to hide the cost of outsourcing, it would be extremely difficult to catch it. It would result in software companies paying in tarrifs as much as they see fit and government spending more money policing the tax than it's actually worth.

  175. Implementation/Technical Challenges Staggering by shylock0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Regardless of the economic and political implications, the technological difficulties involved with enforcing such a tariff are simply staggering. Software is completely liquid. You can e-mail source code, compile it in a native country, and then sell it. How would you tariff software developed in multiple countries by persons of multiple nationalities? Allowing for that would make it too easy to get around the tariff.

    --
    Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
  176. Say good-bye to your standard of living by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad to see someone bring this up. But I see from most of the comments that people don't get it yet. These jobs are leaving and they are not coming back!! The only good jobs that will stay are those of lawyers and upper managers. The "owners" of America as it were. And you all are stupid enough to let them get away with it.

    Even call centers are being off shored you idiots.

    And of course there is a way to tax at AND enforce it. You think the IRS hasn't figured out how to enforce tax code?! Geez. For example, do you know how they check on mostly cash only business like a dry cleaners? They sit outside dry-cleaners and count customers and do an estimate then walk inside and ask for receipts.
    It would be the same for off-shore code. They could audit the emails from off-shore and estimate how much code was sent. They would require by law some email type record. Its simple because if you get caught you get in enough trouble its not worth it. Or at least that's the way it was 10 years ago. But IRS enforcement isn't what it once was. And that too is a big problem because rich people and much of the middle class is just not paying. And look at the roads and schools we have compared to Europe and Japan. Geez. We are so freaking backwards. Maybe the jobs should leave.

  177. But is it a Product or a Service? by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If a company based in the US hires foreign programmers, are those programmers are performing a service for that company or producing a product?

    If a whole factory is moved or built in another country, there is something to import and transport. With software we have source, binaries, libraries... at what point can we decide they've made something versus done something?

  178. Its the same greedy bastards....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that nearly took down our stock market with all their inflated financials who are the genious behind this move. I recently went thru a course where on of the participants worked for Bell South and he said that his job has shifted from 100% development to 100% project mgmt of a team in India. The India team has 50% more developers and still cost half as much as in the US......so he said (his words mind you) "a quality result is not achieved usually on the first pass but with 50% more people you can make up for it. Hell they will work around the clock and it costs us peanuts."....doesnt that just sound great.......Oh yes forgot to mention the best part was that everyone on his original staff.....Fired.

    For those of you that think that the "rising tide" of globalism will raise the worlds salaries you are sadly mistaken. It will only be true if you OWN the company. Say goodbye to decent living if this trend continues....unless you live in a country where 20k makes you rich.

  179. America the land of by aepervius · · Score: 1

    free mark^H ^H ^H ^H ^H ^H ^H ^H ^H Tarif. And i thougth most American hated socialism (support of the gouvernement to firm/people which could not autosupport itself without a crutch).

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  180. Economy should be free-no tariffs at all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is amazing that US - claimin to be the most
    free country - with free market etc. is protecting it so heavily. This protection is actually a
    form of newcolonialismy - reason why China
    does what they are told too. Right now poor
    people in the 3rd wolrd work for a $1 a day,
    then US imposes $9 tariffs on this and
    pays back these $9 to US farmer. So actually
    the poor 3rd world worker works while
    US farmers got the money. It was called
    slavery 200 years ago ..

  181. Tarriffs, THAT'S the ticket by dutky · · Score: 1
    <sarcasm> <irony> Oh yes, import tarriffs have done a wonderfull job of keeping other sorts of jobs in the U.S., just ask all those busy garment workers in New York, or the textile or steel mill workers in the nerth east. They'll certainly agree that import tarriffs have made all the difference in their lives. </irony> </sarcasm>

    The real problem is, of course, that the cost of living the U.S. is way too high. In other countries you can live comfortably on half or a third of what it costs to live in the U.S. (and if your willing to live in the developing world, you can get by on a tenth or less) Almost everything is cheaper: housing, food, clothes, the only major exception is gasoline.

    The main reason that the U.S. cost of living is insane is that we have never recovered from the inflation of late-seventies/early-eighties: prices went up when comodities surged, but never went down again. Salaries have had to follow suit just to maintain parity.

    And all the while there are talking heads claiming that we are the most productive and efficient work-force in the world. If that's so, why do I pay 10-times as much for a shirt here as I would in Viet Nam? It's the exact same shirt! (check the tags at your local department store, at least half will say Made in Vietname or China) Someone is making out like a bandit on this stuff, and I don't think it's the seamstress' and tailors in Hoi An! (They're not doing so badly, by their own standards, but they're still only seeing about $10 of the $50 I paid for my last jacket)

    It's all a pack of lies: The workmanship on Vietnamese made products is the equal of the same products made in the U.S. and the Vietnamese workers are getting paid less than a dollar and hour. On top of that, the level of education in Vietnam is at least as good as it is in the U.S. (maybe better) so we aren't talking about unskilled labor. Finally, the Vietnamese are no slouches: they do things fast . Obviosly the productivity of the Vietnamese workers is five or six times that of U.S. workers, by any reasonable measure (output/dollar, output/time, etc.).

    Again, it's all becuase the cost of living in Viet Nam is an order of magnitude less than it is in the U.S. and there is no way that the U.S. workforce is ten times faster, or ten times smarter, or ten times more accurate than almost any other workforce in the world. Tarriffs won't change that, they will just ensure that our own cost of living will rise even further, making it even more attractive to send jobs off shore!

    So go right ahead, get them tarriffs imposed. I might as well sell my house and move to Viet Nam (a couple hundred thousand dollars will go a long way there, and the scenery can't be beat!). And, heck, it can't be too much worse than living in Bush's Amerika, at least the government in Hanoi doesn't make any pretense to democracy or freedom.

  182. [OT] slashdot problem? by vvikram · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    i was puzzled to see slashdot have two stories for which no comments were present for quite sometime. one of them i remember was "windows xp patch slowing things down" or some such. anyway after sometime i happened to flush the cache and i come to slashdot again, i dont see those stories. whats up ? i am NOT a subscriber......but then how did i get to see the stories ? or am i making a mistake ? if so please correct me. thanks.

    vv

  183. Tarriffs Can't be done anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There is this orginazation called The World Trade Orginazation (WTO) The United States Congress Passed laws binding the US and all the people and the corporations in it to this World Wide Trade group. If any country feels that the US is not playing nice they take us to court. The judges are all from countries chosen by the group. Basically the ability to enduce tarriffs on foreign goods and services is null and void. Just to note some of the countries who signed the WTO agreement: China (they really love the US) Iraq, Russia, Euro countries, India (very soon to be the next Taiwan) etc. Everybody gets ONE vote. So if you make too many freindly countries angry at you, they win the law suit! Chalk one up to all the attorneys that you helped elect to office in the US. Congress.

  184. Outsourcing work to low wage countries by buss_error · · Score: 1
    Not just programmers, but accountents and others too.

    Many have pointed out that there are lots of ways around the tax, and that enforcing it would be difficult. Simple enforcement idea that will grab the companies inclined to do this by the short and curlies: Evade the tax, get found guilty, lose ALL COPYRIGHTS. There. That ought to do it.

    The first time a working stiff gets laid off because his job moved to elbonia, don't you think he's going to blow the whistle?

    For those that say taxes are wrong, let me ask you this: If taxes are wrong, whose going to pay for the roads, public schools, defending our country, inspecting the food we eat, licensing the doctors we see, and so on and so on.

    When American wages are too high, where are the customers to buy your product going to come from? What's to become of the American workers? Will we all live on welfare?

    I've seen quite a bit of "getting government out of the way of business". Personally, I'd like to see government more in the way. Enron and that ilk should have been watched much closer. The whole power crisis thing in CA was just a scam to profit by billions for the people already rich.

    Same thing with exempting dividend income from taxes. The reasoning is that "the tax has already been paid on that money once!" Hey, quit being stupid. Clue for you; the money earned by the working schmoe has had the tax paid on it once already too.

    Look to see who holds more than 70% of dividend stocks. Hint: Ain't you and I.

    So why SHOULD the rich pay "more than their fair share"?

    Hey, stupid! BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS.

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  185. If you think the rest of the world hates the USA.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my opinion,

    If you think the rest of the world hates the USA now, just try passing this legislation.

    What's the matter, are Americans too fat and lazy to compete in open markets? Ooooooh, free markets are cool....unless the USA can't compete. Then they get ugly.

    This is bad legislation that is beyond the comprehension of the average Yank, and even the average Slashdotter (while you guys were compiling kernels, I was studying economics).

    America has a well deserved repuatation in international trade as a very nasty, bullying behemoth. Don't push us too far; the USA needs the rest of the world more than we need you.

    You want to build some trade walls? YOU WANT TO BUILD SOME MOTHERF**KING TRADE WALLS C**KSUCKERS? Go for it.

    Signed,
    Canada,
    The country with the freshwater, net exporter of oil, huge natural gas reserves, gold, silver, diamonds, uranium, lumber, *COMPETITIVE* wages that the USA evidently can't compete with so they gotta erect wussy tariffs, French women, good beer, cheap land, cheap hydroelectricity.

    And all it takes is a quick amendment to our immigration policy to add, say, a quarter billion of the best and brightest from India and China stationed on our south border with armed to the teeth with AK47s.

  186. Word Processing Consultant? by stephanruby · · Score: 1
    What happens when there is a technological revolution? Let's say a specific segment of your industry consolidates itself and for example; you can't be an high-paid Word Processor Consultant anymore (yes, there used to be such a position). Should the government continue to protect your job for five years? And if so, who will protect your country from competiting countries?

    Protecting jobs wich have become obsolete is tantamount to burning perfectly good houses just to create jobs. It doesn't make a lot of sense and in the end it doesn't raise anyone's standard of living.

    1. Re:Word Processing Consultant? by Saurentine · · Score: 1

      What happens when there is a technological revolution? Let's say a specific segment of your industry consolidates itself and for example; you can't be an high-paid Word Processor Consultant anymore (yes, there used to be such a position). Should the government continue to protect your job for five years? And if so, who will protect your country from competiting countries?

      That isn't an industry or a "field" of expertise. "Word Processor Consultant" is most definitely an individual, highly specific job. (Yes, I remember Word Processor Consultants.)

      Government economic policy stabilizes industries, not individual jobs, so the Word Processor Consultants have moved on to other consulting, other word processing, similar work, or changed careers.

      Protecting individual jobs is almost always stupid. Long term protection of industries is no better.

      Sound economic policy provides stability necessary to sustain economic growth.

  187. Afraid of the WRONG thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it funny how you are all so afraid, but of the wrong thing? I mean you are thinking small, fearing to lose your jobs and such, without realising that if an American company lowers its costs, the higher profits will STILL go to America. That is YOUR country, dumbass!

    And you know what you should be REALLY afraid of? That entire high-tech companies will be founded and operated outside of good old USA. And you should be very, VERY afraid of this, because you are not going to see one cent of the money those companies make.

    Take my case for example. I came in the USA during in the mid 90's on an H1B visa, worked in Silicon Valley in higher and higher positions at some kick-ass companies for some obscene salaries. Then, when the bust came, I didn't look for another job, I didn't apply for unemployment, I didn't whine about how tough it is now.

    Instead I decided to go back to my country. You see, I found out that I don't like America much. I don't like its CocaCola and McDonalds culture, its puritanism, its greed and especially I dislike its fat, ugly feminist women. So I left.

    And back home I discovered that I can hire software engineers for... well... let's say 6K a year at most. And we are talking GOOD engineers, not the indian code-monkeys the outsourcing companies end up with. And I'm here working with them, so I can make sure they meet my quality standards.

    So that's what I did. Our first product will be out in just a few weeks. It comes in market with similar products already present, but it will cost A THIRD of how much the others do. And it will deliver similar functionality at better quality.

    Now how do you compete with that? I have to say the only viable solution is outsourcing, but it is darn hard to make it work...

    Oh, and btw, you should not be afraid of H1B's either. The pay social security taxes but they CANNOT take those money back when they leave. And they cannot get pension from US either. So they end up supporting your failing Social Security system without ever benefiting from it. You should thank them.

  188. Should Programmers Be Protected With Code Tariffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  189. Balancing out by alexkj · · Score: 1

    Remember, if we allow other, "cheaper" countries to compete freely (which we should), then over time their standard of living and costs will rise to our level. However, as long as we impose tariffs on their legitimately cheaper products to keep them out of our markets, we are keeping them in poverty, and allowing them to remain cheep for a longer time. This is exactly what we're doing in the European Union with all the import tariffs placed on third world food products in order to protect the european farmer. Third world farmers can produce eg. sugar better and cheaper than we can, but beacuse of tariffs, they do not get access to our (huge) markets. It's a disgrace, it's unfair and it weakens both them and us.

  190. Just move to India by SegFahlt · · Score: 1

    That's what I did. In about 3-5 years, India is going to have the infrastructure to OWN the software industry. Their resources are comparable only to China(who is also coming on very strong). There is lots of opportunity here for any enterprising young programmer. The only problem is the Rupee-Dollar exchange rate. A person with lots of debt or student loans would never be able to pay them off on India salary. However, there are many Indian software development companies who are itching to get a few good "western" developers over here.

    Other than the spicy food, I'm having a great time over here.

  191. *NO* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. You do not understand - you can't understand. It is you who are the racist and your damned system that must collapse, but you and it are blind. You think that your exploitative capitalist ethic is the way the world ought to work.

    It is ethically impermissable to allow workers, in this case foreign workers, to work at this wage and under these conditions in the employment of corporations over which we (yes, *we*) have economic and political control.

    The system you advocate is fundamentally exploitative, and in this situation, undeniably racist.

    If it means that these foreign workers will not have a job, then that is how it must be. The situation must be rectified, but advocating exploitation is not an ethically permissable way of bringing this about.

    Human beings, workers, have intrinsic value, and a noble spirit.

    For you to say that their best hope is to be exploited all their lives is to spit in their face.

    We must not extend the means of production, extend the exploitation, for when we do we serve as slaves to our capitalist masters.

    We, the workers, noble in spirit, must sieze these means of production, and only then can there be hope of global equality, and realized universal value.

    There is more to life than seeking the most effective way to line the pockets of our capitalist masters?

    We will *not* be lead by you and your type.

    We will *not* be decieved by your propagandizing.

    We, all of us, are too good for that.

  192. Do not do onto others.. by GerardM · · Score: 1

    There are three types of Software; Proprietary, Open Source and custom. When proprietary software's labour gets taxed because of its country of origin, think what would happen to the "Microsoft tax". Countries would be justified to tax Windows/Office out of existence. Open Source, the work is done all over the world and it is next to impossible where this work is done. As there is money exchanged for getting all this work, it can hardly be taxed and is impossible to value. Custom software, when companies are to be taxed for work done outside one country, consider that the work is done for the WHOLE company. Would that mean that a French company has to have different software made for its US subsidiary? Or would you accept that a US company is to write different software for a French subsidiary? All is all a bad idea. PS I work in IT and lost my job too. The recession, the war they said..

  193. Tariffs are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mostly because the money that's collected never gets back to the people who actually deserve it. Instead it goes straight in the coffers of some politician or worse a private company. eg welfare to work.

    The other problem of tariffs is cost of living factors associated with living in different places. In the USA you can get beer & smokes and lots of other luxery items for cheap, eg gas. Here gas costs $.79CDN a liter, thers four of those in your gallon, Beer is $10 a sixpack, and smokes are $10. In Canada all of these things are more expensive, and yes I mean relative to the candaian duck, opps goose, er Loonie, that I get paid.
    You get paid more when you live in silicon valley cause it costs so freaking much to live. What's minimum wage there, it's $5.85CDN in Alberta/Canada, more everywhere else except maybe newfoundland. Could you live on $3.40 US in Silicon Valley?

    Most large companies that can afford to pay top notch dollar are international companies based out of USA, (cough) delaware. So like someone else said, they'll get around the problem anyway

    And for my final feat of mental indirection....

    Can we get off the bashing of other people..

    People are people, some you like some you don't. doesn't matter where there from. It's the big institutions that try to dehumanize us all that really are the problem.

    Alltogether now.
    I like Americans, Russians, Brits, Japanese, Sweds, Afghans, Iranians, Cheqs, Canadians, Fins, Auzzies, Mexicans, Peruvian, Argentinian... and anyone else I left out especially the women.

    But hey,

    I'm Canadian

  194. Tarifs = bad, Make imigration easier instead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems to me that one reason many American companies are going overseas is because they can't just import talented workers as easily using H1Bs anymore.

    I know my boss would be much happier if this was the case, and the company I work for would probably bring more people in from overseas and there would be less temptation to just export jobs wholesale.

    While this would probably mean some of us might be faced with a short term reduction in salary (in order to compete), at least the incoming workers would be subject to minimum wage. On top of that, emigrants might expect to migrate to a higher standard of living than they experienced in their home country.

    Even if some of these people were only here temporarily on a work visa, it would be an improvement over simply having the jobs migrate offshore, and in the long run it would likely improve the economy and be good for all of us.

  195. Can you say "H1B 200x"? by dragisha · · Score: 1

    Once, it was H1B. It was not cheap enough, so operations moved to Russia/India. One can have five times better Russian/Indian IT worker for same money as European/American one, and it is if you "import" him. He works for 1/2 or 1/4 of that money when you employ him in Russia.

    What about domestic IT workers? Who cares. If H1B passed, everything will.

    A non-US resident.

    --
    http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
  196. It works both ways by melonman · · Score: 1

    I can't quite believe I'm reading most of this thread. I thought the US was for opening markets for free trade. I thought us Europeans were the protectionist ones. If we want to scrap GATT and go back to building warring trade blocs, plenty of European governments will be happy to impose punitive tarifs on American software, cars, electronics products and so on. And the countries who export the most are the ones who will lose the most by such a move.

    Ideologically, France, for example, would like nothing more than to ban American software - I saw an article in the Figaro the other week about imposing import levies on foreign computer games. But, at present, the consumers' wish to buy American products carries the day. And you guys want to hand the government a loaded gun pointed at your own heads?!?!

    --
    Virtually serving coffee
  197. Follow my leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Why doesn't the US tax the import of software?"

    Approx 90% of software sold in europe is american.
    Understand that will not hesitate to follow such an example.
    Now, do you really want that ?

  198. Discrimmination by freestyle-fiend · · Score: 1

    Why should software developers be any different?

    If tarrifs of this kind were applied to the import of software, then why not to other goods/services?

    Why should Americans be any different?

    It seems to me that the American minimum wage is the result of a decision that workers ought to be properly paid, and this should apply to workers everwhere. The tarrifs should be equivalent to the amount saved by imposing on the workers a lower standard of living (in material terms) than an American worker at minimum wage. This would remove all incentive to take work out of the US because of the lack of workers' rights in other countries, but it would still be cheaper to use third world labour because of the of the lower cost of living in the third world. This seems fair to me. If non-Americans can do the job just as well, then they should be given the opportunity to correct economic inbalance by earning money from American imports. If Americans want to maintain the economic inbalance, then they should learn to do something that nobody else can. Of course, the real benefit from software development, like any other commercial production, belongs to the financiers, so even when jobs leave the USA, the wealth probably doesn't. The distribution of wealth within the USA needs to be addressed.

    This is a bigger problem for tangible goods that are non-trivial to transport. There is an environmental cost to moving them and there is a strong argument for producing them near where they are used. There should be another tarrif (or existing tarrifs should be increased) to discourage the location of production far from customers. This would discourage the use of cheap foreign labour in some cases, but it does not apply to software (which can be written far away and, if necessary, duplicated near the point of use).

  199. GOOD IDEA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The free software movement has become a cult. No need to be blinded by their lies. You too can be free of religion!

    http://www.geocities.com/tuorf/cult.html

  200. YEAH US GO FOR IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a European I would LOVE to have tariffs on software - especially on M$ products. EUR 1000 per licence would be appropriate.

  201. It is the same situation as physical goods by Conspire · · Score: 1

    I have been running an international trading company for over 10 years. There are serious problems with your proposition for the following reasons:

    1. If the US decided to implement a software tax, every country around the world would follow suit. I don't know the numbers offhand, but this would hurt the US software economy a lot more than help it as the US is probably one of the top software exporters worldwide, if not the largest (Mr Gates' company's exports are probably higher than at least 70% of non US nations exports, perhaps combined). It would provide a huge insentive for foreign countries to develop thier own software, instead of importing, therefore lowering sales of US software overseas.

    2. This would drive more non US computer users to go with open source / free software. While I personally think that would make a better world, but it would not make for a better US software economy, which is what creates US software jobs.

    3. I cannot envision how US Customs (which imposes and enforces import duty), would deal with enforcement of internet distributed software either economically or even semi-effectively for that matter. How are you going to police bits?

    4. This would further thicken the profits in the pirated software business, and or exagerate the price difference between licensed software and pirated software. You might see pirated software as a percent of non US market share, rise in percentage.

    5. WTO agreements that the US has signed and are in place would need to be either ratified to allow for software duties, which means many countries would need to agree. If they could not achieve ratification through the WTO, and went bad on the treaty they have signed, they would risk retaliation from other countries. Retaliation in trade matters usually cross industries, so other nations may retaliate with agriculture, aerospace, steel, textile industries, etc.

    6. The world is slowly (some say quickly), heading toward a duty free zone with virtually no tarrifs on the majority of goods and services. To incentivise the politiburos in Washington to make this an agenda issue would take serious corporate money, nothing else motivates the hill.

    Like everything else in the world, production will move to the cheapest bidder. Do not expect it to change, but do expect it to destroy the US economy within 2 decades. Take it from me, China is the worlds ever growing production platform, killing off the Asian dragons, then Japan, then Euroland and the USA. It is not limited to any industry, it is every industry. The USA cannot run on a trade deficit close to 500 billion dollars per year and rising for many more years. Something will burst, and save your cash because it will be nasty.

    --
    Real men don't need signitures!!!
  202. Why just tarrifs? by mcheu · · Score: 1

    In Canada, the CRTC routinely requires television stations to broadcast a certain percentage of "Canadian Content" which is defined by specific guidelines. If the station doesn't comply or can't prove it, the CRTC can either fine them or not renew their licence.

    Presumably legislation could be put in place that would require a corporation renew their charter with a regulatory agency every once in a while. If the corporation can't prove that they're dealing with at least 50%+ companies in whatever country they're in, the company can't do business in the country anymore until the situation is fixed. A million dollar fine is nothing to a company like Microsoft, but shutting down their US operations for even a day could be very costly.

    Obviously not ideal, as anything that would make lawyers overly happy is not ideal. I'm just saying there are other alternatives besides tarrifs.

  203. /. is thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I don't think so...

  204. Tariffs and outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I would like to wish a happy Saturday to all the Negroes out there.

    You know who you are.

  205. Unions by TwitchCHNO · · Score: 1

    The reason that steel, manufacturing, and many industrial trades are protected by tarrifs is rather simple.

    They have strong unions.

    IT workers don't.

    --
    ___________________________
    I'm not a geek, but I play one on TV.
  206. Protectionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you spell protectionism?

    Protectionism will just lead to trade wars and that will make the global economy worse, lowering the demand for software.

    Suppose we release all the western cows from the meadows and send them on a world trip with a airplay ticket bussiness class. We still can give them 1450 dollars pocket money a cow compared to what we spend on them now.

    There are 53 million cows in the 30 richest countries and we spend 361 billion dollor on protecting them, 1 billion a day. Just to protect the agriculture.

    Who loose? The customers who pay more for there steak as they should and the developing countries who can't compete with subsidised meat.

  207. You tax your imports - we'll tax your exports by infodude · · Score: 1

    If everywhere else (that doesn't already) starts to tax all M$ products....

    --
    -- Only information exists, the rest is just smoke and mirrors.
  208. our govt is paid to promote the GENERAL welfare by cryofan2 · · Score: 1

    ....but as you pointed out, our govt, by promoting globalization, is promoting the welfare of the 3rd world and the "very top of the heap".

    THerefore our elected leaders are guilty of a heinous treason.

    THerefore I suggest that we try them in a recognized court of law, and when they are found guilty, publicly hang them, starting with George Bush.

    Anyone else with me?

    1. Re:our govt is paid to promote the GENERAL welfare by kubrick · · Score: 1

      I'm definitely with you, but mainly for the reasons that David Icke cites.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  209. us customs jurisdiction over every computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make a tariff on imported software, and every computer attached to the internet is a "border" and us customs has jurisdiction over every one. Want to fill out a weekly "import declaration" of every bit of software you download from a server outside the U.S. and pay a duty on it? (and declare to the gov't what you are downloading)? A better way is to tax the company with divisions overseas more than a company that is all here.

  210. your social contract is with your fellow citizens by cryofan2 · · Score: 1

    ....not with the indians!

  211. Taxing the software isn't totally the only way... by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

    Simply taxing the software won't impact the situation that much. From what I've observed, most foreign software is component parts of domestic software. What needs to be done is to tax software that is wholly programmed in other countries, and tax the import of work that is represented by incoming component software.

    What I mean: Lets say Company A manufactures product X. Functionally, product X is the merging of component Y and Z which are both also made by Company A. Component Y is coded in Singapore, and component Z is coded in India, and the two are combined in the states by domestic personnel to make product X. Although there are thresholds in material goods tarifs for which an item can be considered domestic, companies often come in just under the wire of these thresholds.

    Instead what needs to happen is that all development efforts need to be classified as foreign or domestic, and foreign portions need to be taxed. If you hire an Indian consulting firm to help you with a software product, they need to itemize development and non-development costs of their bill. The development portion will be taxed.

    Yes, this allows shady companies to simply say "2% were development efforts and the rest were merely research and advisory fees," when in reality it was 100% development, to avoid the tax, but most companies don't operate under those sort of scruples. Most other types of fees associated with foreign consultation should probably also be taxed, this is all stuff that can be done domestically, and is only sent abroad because of other countries' lower labor laws.

    So tax wholesale software import, and tax wholesale labor import. In fact, this should apply to far more than just software, all imported labor should be taxed.

  212. it should be obvious, but I suppose not... by cryofan2 · · Score: 1

    .....didn't you just read in the posts above that now it takes both husband and wife working.....what effect do you think that has on household income (when both husband and wife work).

    That is the reason for the increase in household income....

    1. Re:it should be obvious, but I suppose not... by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      .....didn't you just read in the posts above that now it takes both husband and wife working.....what effect do you think that has on household income (when both husband and wife work). That is the reason for the increase in household income....

      It would gratify me immensely if people would go off and actually do a little research before replying. If nothing else, it would be more fun.

      If you had, you would have discovered that the median male individual income has increased by about 10%, and the median female income has increased by 90%. I couldn't find median figures together, but US per capita income has gone up 93% since 1968. And all of these numbers are inflation-adjusted, but using CPI, which overstates inflation; actual purchasing power is better still.

      And of course, this is with a substantial increase in population. If trade really were destroying jobs, then we would expect there to be huge unemployment, rather than the huge increases in jobs and the standard of living.

      As to husbands and wives working, I note that this partly because, gosh, both men and women want to work, and there's much less discrimination against women these days. I know very few stay-at-home moms, and every one of them thinks of it as pretty temporary.

      But another important factor is that we have higher expectations. Go look up the number of cars per person in 1968, for example. Or the size of the average home. Or the number of televisions. Most people also feel like they must have about a zillion consumer goods and services, many of which didn't exist or weren't widely available (microwaves, cable tv, computers, mobile phones, personal stereos, car stereos, video games, home gyms, etc, etc, etc).

      So for those who are comparing with the golden ages now seen only on Nick at Nite, perhaps if you try living a similar lifestyle, you'll see how much things have improved.

  213. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    slashdot is dead?

  214. STOP BUSH!!!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BUSH, stop killing civillians!!!!!

    WTF!!! Do you want to prevent us from a war/terrorist attack, just making another war? Are you dumb?

  215. go back to 19th century England, merchantilist!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is Pat Buchanan posting on /.?

  216. competition works FOR YOU not AGAINST YOU by LinuxXPHybrid · · Score: 1

    > As a college student, majoring in CS, one of the bleakest prospects is the fact that I won't have a job in a couple of years when I graduate.

    Maybe it'll (tariff) work for a couple of years, but it is not a great solution in a long run.

    One of reasons is that competition works FOR YOU not AGAINST YOU. Inviting competition is always a good thing. Competition raises the level in which people and companies compete. It is true that not everyone can survive the competition, BUT those who have no competition will be extinguished in a long run because they cannot deliver quality or price, and that just does not work for commercial companies.

    I can sympathize, but if you really want to work in the IT industry (in US for more than a decade), I don't know if you should be supporting the idea.

  217. Protectionism by error0x100 · · Score: 1

    Either you let free trade show its advantages and disadvantages by letting it run free ..

    Herein lies the problem. The US would not be able to compete in a system of free trade. Other countries can produce goods such as software cheaper than the US can, for a number of reasons (e.g. poorer social services, weaker currencies, lower cost of living, foreign programmers are willing to accept a lower quality of life than a US programmer will, etc). The US is simply not the most (cost) efficient environment for developing software, and as the number of quality programmers in countries like India, Russia, China etc increase over time, the situation will only worsen.

    This is just good ol' American capitalism at work: if Joe down the road can make similar quality widgets cheaper than you can, then Joe's widgets should, generally, be allowed to naturally succeed in the marketplace. Foreign countries can produce similar quality software (sometimes better quality) at a lower cost than the US can, and if the "market was allowed to decide on its own", the US would over the long run lose out. Protectionist measures are a possible "solution" to this (from the US's perspective), but they are contrary to the notions of free trade generally advocated within the US.

  218. What does slashdot think? by ChrisJones · · Score: 1

    This little corner of slashdot is of the opinion that WTO rules don't allow import duties on products that are produced cheaper overseas. That is part of the free market economy we have created for ourselves with globalisation.
    Don't like it? Tough, shouldn't have been so rampantly greedy in exploiting sweatshops and creating the WTO to make doing so cheaper (ok, you lot aren't directly responsible for it, but many of you are voters in countries that support the WTO, so you have a share of responsibility at least ;)

    --
    Chris "Ng" Jones
    cmsj@tenshu.net
    www.tenshu.net
  219. Why different than other durable goods companys? by panxerox · · Score: 0

    Simple, its a bone to the Unions. IT dosent have unions so they don't get anything when there jobs are outsourced. Hell even customer service positions for Dell are being moved to India.

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
  220. My solution to this problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not simply invade India and China instead of Iraq? I'd bet there are quite many "cheap resources" just waiting to be exploited by us };->

  221. Unexpected bit of clarity here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Some good posts about this tariff stuff. I'll throw in mine also.

    What is the root cause of the outsourcing situation today? I think it's the value system of our country.

    Anything short of mass murder can be forgiven if it helps the economy in the short term. This is the value system of the United States.

    Take away the jobs of millions of people in exchane for outsourcing and substantial harm is done to those people. But since they aren't instantly dead as a result, it falls under the radar of what is socially acceptable for entitities who are big movers of the economy.

    A long term view would see the problems the short term doesn't. While outsourcing may improve the economy short term, long term suffers. Millions of people with less to put back into the system. The difference all bleeds out to the foreign interests who've picked up the jobs. Millions of domestic workers whose efforts are weakened by having to spread themselves thin accross multiple low income jobs. Less physical energy to contribute back to the local system.

    Millions of people who become discouraged from the constant stress of having to struggle. Health problems, mental problems. Patriotism flags and must be supplemented with heavy doses of propoganda to create an artificial sense of unity within the very group who are technically unimportant from the standpoint of the current value system.

    And when regular people organize to protest one thing or another, the message they get can be summarized:

    You aren't a big mover of the economy, go pound sand.

    And the "go pound sand" was not inserted just for dramaitc effect. Have you heard what plans Oregon has for protesters? Our society knows people are unhappy. What steps are being taken to address their problems? To do whatever it takes to shut them up. People protesting isn't good for the economy is it?

    To quote the garbled sounds that last eminated from the Columbia's audio channel before it broke up:

    We've got problems.

  222. Probably more due to export control issues by rwa2 · · Score: 1

    Companies in the US are pretty heavily restricted by export control laws (ITAR / EAR). This means they get into a lot of trouble (big fines / jail time) for "exporting" technology to foreign entities. What constitutes a foreign entity? Lots of people:

    First and foremost are your foreign customers, clients, and even collaborators. If your product/ technology is covered under the EAR (enforced by the Dept of Commerce), you need to schedule about 3-6 months for an export license before engaging in any "technology transfer" (be it merchandise, technical specs, detailed descriptions/pictures, even manuals). In the software industry, I'll leave it up to you to guess what that kind of bureaucratic holdup can mean to your release cycle if you don't get started on it in time. Worse yet, if your technology can be used for military purposes, it may be covered under the ITAR (enforced by the Dept of Defence / State Dept) and may not be exportable at all. This includes things like strong encryption. Ironically, in this time of "heightened" security, it's very difficult for US companies to develop secure, strongly encrypted applications and still sell to a global market without providing some kind of workaround.

    More importantly, "foreign entity" includes foreigners who work for your company, just about anyone on an H1B tech visa, etc. In my company, all of our foreigners have to be confined to an area free of technical information, and they need to be escorted anywhere else where they might be "exposed" to export controlled information. Anything they work on has to be cleared of export controlled information. Makes it kind of hard for them to contribute, since they're usually among our most technically skilled workers.

    Much of the US's strength has traditionally come from brillant foreing immigrants. However, until they get their green card, their contributions to a US company are pretty limited.

    So probably a combination between getting foreign workers and roadblocks against work for/with non-US countries is strongly encouraging companies, both US and otherwise, to do all of their technical development offshore. Again ironically, these export control laws that were supposedly designed to keep cutting-edge technology in the US is now the primary force that's moving technology development outside of US borders (well, second to the availability of cheap, highly skilled, highly educated labor, but these are evidently attached).

  223. If you want to shoot yourself in the foot, do it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American classification of cryptography as a munition did little to limit the distribution of strong crypto around the world. Americans have an arrogant flaw that makes them think that they can control all technological / scientific and economic development through the use of their punitive foriegn policies. They are wrong, they cannot dictate how the world will develop. Their policies can cause a great deal of harm though.

    In this case, setting up tariffs on software would simply result in a higher cost for software in america. That is, if foriegn producers decide it is worth their while to sell in the american markets given the additional administrative overhead that would be created as a result of these protectionist tariffs. The rest of the world would benefit from being able to acquire the same software at lower prices. American competitiveness in world markets would be reduced.

    So once you have finished getting all bloodied and beaten up in Iraq, why don't you go and perform a labotomy on yourselves.

  224. "Made in USA" standard is STRINGENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the FTC website, the "Made In USA" cannot be applied to stuff that's merely assembled in the US. All major components intrinsic to the operation must be MANUFACTURED in the US as well. The example used by the Federal Trade Commission is barbecue grills, IIRC. The grill, the shell, the gas regulator all would need to be manufactured in the US to get the "Made in USA" sticker. Only minor objects such as buttons or knobs could be made outstide the US. Failure to comply with the standards results in a fine. Further, EACH of the competitors that sell similar products can collect damages equal to lost sales (eg. everything you sold as "Made in USA" that wasn't counts as a lost sale to your competition).

    But who knows what enforcement will be like under the Bush Administration.

  225. Don't try to transcend by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    You're a great coder but please leave the very difficult field of economic analysis up to the professionals.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  226. Economics 101... by Digital_Fiend · · Score: 1

    Imports are ultimately paid for by exports, so any restriction of exports ultimately reduces exports. (P. 739 of "Economics Today" by R. Miller)

  227. Re:If you want to shoot yourself in the foot, do i by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

    "In this case, setting up tariffs on software would simply result in a higher cost for software in america."

    Not likely, since software made in the US would cost less. Get it?

    "So once you have finished getting all bloodied and beaten up in Iraq, why don't you go and perform a labotomy on yourselves."

    Ahh... now we see why you are posting. Troll. Get lost.

    Dirk

  228. Artificially low? by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 1

    Then we have longer term studies that show that the US has far stronger job creation than Europe, and in fact the unemployment measurements in Europe are artificially low because of training programs, early retirement, workweeks limited to 35 hours, etc.

    Dude, what's artificial about a shorter workweek? I work 32 hours a week, make a good income out of it, and wouldn't even think about working more hours. And yes, I do consider myself employed.

    --

    ---
    "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    1. Re:Artificially low? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Dude, what's artificial about a shorter workweek?

      It's artificail in that it is imposed by government for the express purpose of trying to increase the rates of employment. If it weren't for this presumably the rate of unemployment would be higher.

      Personally I don't think it works - all it does is reduce worker productivity, pushing marginal workers out of jobs.

    2. Re:Artificially low? by MKalus · · Score: 1
      It's artificail in that it is imposed by government for the express purpose of trying to increase the rates of employment. If it weren't for this presumably the rate of unemployment would be higher.

      Nice try.

      Germany doesn't limit you to 36 hours a week

      Federal regulations limit the workweek to a maximum of 48 hours, but the number of hours of work per week is regulated by contracts that directly or indirectly affect 80 percent of the working population. The average workweek for industrial workers is 36 hours in the western part of the country and approximately 39 hours in the eastern states; rest periods for lunch are accepted practices. Provisions for overtime, holiday, and weekend pay vary depending upon the applicable collective bargaining agreement.


      So this is not a thing that the goverment mandates but something that unions have come up with.

      In fact Germany in a way is a lot "freer" than the US when it comes to job negotiations:

      There is no legislated or administratively determined minimum wage; wages and salaries are set either by collective bargaining agreements between unions and employer federations or by individual contracts. Covering approximately 90 percent of all wage and salary-earners, the collective bargaining agreements set minimum pay rates and are enforceable by law. These minimums provide a decent standard of living for a worker and family.


      The entire text can be found here or in Google Cache.

      Try again Sam.
      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    3. Re:Artificially low? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Germany doesn't limit you to 36 hours a week

      I never said they did. France, however, does.

      http://www.socialistaction.org/news/200006/franc e. html

      In fact Germany in a way is a lot "freer" than the US when it comes to job negotiations

      and you gave the reason here:

      Covering approximately 90 percent of all wage and salary-earners

      It seems to me that in Germany over 90% of workers are covered by collective bargaining agreements - these agreements presumably give workers no ability to negotiate with their employers as individuals.

      That is a LOT less freedom than we have in the US.

    4. Re:Artificially low? by MKalus · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that in Germany over 90% of workers are covered by collective bargaining agreements - these agreements presumably give workers no ability to negotiate with their employers as individuals.

      No, what that does mean is that there is an industry standard, they have to offer you this, but you are free to tell them you work for less or negotiate your own. You can always work for less if you want to but they can't force you to. That's the nice thing about it.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  229. Simplest objection? by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 1

    I haven't heard the simplest objection to taxes yet:
    if you tax software imports, other coutries will tax U.S. exports, thus hindering your export.

    --

    ---
    "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
  230. More on Elbonians by Montgomery+Burns+III · · Score: 1

    FYI, Scott Adams is trying something new : here.
    --

    'ta
  231. Don't try to condescend by linzeal · · Score: 1

    Since you are so brillant about economic policies why don't you give your opinions a go instead of deriding others.

  232. the exact same... by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ..the exact same economic professionals who caused the great depression? The same guys who helped foster the great dotcom boom trillions of dollars congame ripoff? The same guys who are causing the US to go from the worlds largest creditor nation to the worlds largest debtor nation in only 20 years? The same guys who have helped create the largest upsurge in bankruptices in decades? The guys who are causing the US "dollar" to drop in international value on a daily basis almost? The ones who have almost single handedly destroyed vertical manufacturing in this nation, and are now doing it with the entire IT industry, the same industry that was supposed to automagically replace the lost manufacturing jobs? Those guys?

    No thanks, they mostly suck. They are good at stealing money from millions of people on humongous levels. Very, very good at that. They are truly professional analysts at that, and they spend all their time figuring out exciting new ways to do that. On a small scale they are called frauds and bunco artists and get arrested and charged. On a large scale they are called the IMF and Wall Street and the Federal Reserve Bank.

  233. file under further info: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As it stands, the WTO has ruled that the Bush steel tariffs are illegal. http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-st eel27.html Now, I can't say I will ever take the side of the WTO, but it is food for thought.

  234. US Foriegn Policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real issue is not that outsourcing will cost US jobs but that it is encouraging lots of people in other countries to become adept at writing software. This will lead to an increasing proportion of inovative software being created outside the US.

    The government should fund and arm some religious fundamentalists or a potential dictator in the countries producing software cheaper. This should lead to problems with the software, give the US leverage to get the governments to change policy or, in the longer term, give the US an excuse to impose sanctions or invade the country to restore stable government, liberate the people and ensure that US companies get a bigger share of the market in that country.

    Of course I don't believe this and hope the US is learning that free trade and being part of the global community is more profitable for the US in the long run.

  235. Implied Tarriff by Chief+Crazy+Chicken · · Score: 1

    Since the difficult parts of software development, particularly for a business, involve communicating to users, there will be an implicit tarriff involved -- the price will go up in the long run because the software will not do the right thing, and will need to be recoded.

    Unless you are closely tied to the user, and can observe their process and derive the needs for their software from that automation, you won't get the requirements right. The farther removed from this observational process, the more wrong the requirements are. The more the requirements are off, the more it will cost to fix the software. The software will suck.

    Outsourcing at all is one degree of separation. Developers not at the place of business is a degree of separation. Developers that don't speak the same language as the users is at least one degree of separation. This list could easily be expanded, and is meant to give some simple examples, rather than be a comprehensive list.

    My point is that the long-term cost of the software choice will increase. But, and here's the rub, in American business, nobody cares about the long term. The short-term quarterly lower initial price tag is what guides MBAs. So they buy the cheap stuff that will be more of a burden to the next vic in their seat. And their company will never realize that it is indeed paying a tarriff for having outsourced their software.

  236. Problems with management? by SchumpetersGhost · · Score: 1

    I'm not in the IT or programming industry, but I think I'm more savvy than the average user. My fields of interest include technical and information economics. I get the impression that many who are in these industries have issues with management's lack of understanding of what these professionals actually do and can or cannot do. Now extend that to lawmakers, most of whom have much less (or zero) technical understanding than management and unfortunately [have to] depend on lobbyists for their education. Look at recent laws demonstrating this (DMCA for example). Does anyone in the industry really want these technically uneducated people making more bad laws than they have to?

  237. Confusion.. by THEbwana · · Score: 1

    This is incredible.
    - As soon as some lawyer puts out a statement containing technical errors (usually in conjunction with copyright, p2p etc.) the Slashdot crowd berates that lawyer for not having done his/her research on the given technology. This is also the generally accepted way of asking newsgroups for help, when working with something for the first time (basic research first, then bother people on the mailinglists).
    However, as soon as it comes to a topic such as economics, all bets seem to be off. Without even trying to find relevant resources within the area of interest (in this case: international trade and its effects on an economy), people are throwing out their (mostly) useless opinions without even asking themselves if there might be some available relevant information on the subject at hand.

    As I'm now seeing tons of these "protectionism will save us" posts, I have one comment: READ THE FUCKING MANUAL!!
    - international trade is (in most western countries) dealt with as a part of the introduction to economics. Read something like "International Economics" by Salvatore or even "Economics" by Parkin,King before starting to shoot your mouth off about things you obviously do not understand. Taking economy 101 would remove at least 90% of these postings by protectionists - the remaining 10% will never get it. /m

  238. Before you complain... by scubacuda · · Score: 1
    ...about your job moving abroad, think about how your computer/networking/machine-related job is "costing" others a job. Lots of people could be employeed to, say, use an abacus, run tin cans and string, or utilize levers and pullies.

    The /. community seems to get upset when their own job is threatened without any real awareness that in the not-so-distant past, labor groups were concerned about how robots and machines might diminish the number of jobs. Heck, at least your job is going to *another* human!

    (Would you prefer that we create laws that, say, preventing you from self-serve gas pumping? [like they do in Oregon])

  239. The effect of TARIFS on an economy by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

    The following is a segment of an excellent series which ran on PBS last year (and will run again this may) called "The Commanding Heights" which discussed and explained the battle between soviet style central planning in the 20th century and the free market economy and also the promise and perils of the new globalization. There are interviews with economists, politicians, businessmen and others who discuss firsthand their experiences with the various economic principles of macro and micro economics. Despite the emphasis on economics the series is interesting and it is designed to get average people thinking about the market forces which exist in this world and control the fate of nations and people. The following is a segment which discusses TARIFS and their effects upon an economy. As many other people have already said, TARIFS are almost certainly the wrong way to protect the American software and IT industry. Here is the link; the entire series is available via the internet as well for those who are interested.

    Latin American Dependencia

  240. Overseas Outsourcing A Threat To US IT Industry by Locus+Mote · · Score: 1

    I was a website developer for a small (<100 person) IT company in the Detroit area. We created web-based applications for <Giant Motor Corporation> Engineering.

    When I was working in my department at <Giant Motor Corporation>, under the employment of a different contractor at the time, I found out how much money the people of the company-being-discussed were making. I jumped ship and signed up with said high-paying company. Many of the other contractors' employees were doing the same thing.

    When I and a number of my colleagues went to work for the other company, we were surprised to find that the overwhelming majority of the employees were from southern India. We were told that we were to be employed as "managers" and that it was to give the company a nice "American" face. Within two years, we were all let go.

    It seems that the Indian management wanted their Indian employees to learn business practices, ettiquete and culture from their "managers." The people who worked under us are now the US interface for large teams of super-cheap Indian IT employees living in southern India. The department we worked in is now impenetrable by US IT contractors because no one can compete with the super-cheap labor rates of a third-world country. They outbid everyone on every project.

    I later found out from some friends inside <Giant Motor Corporation> that it was company policy to invite this sort of off-shore outsourcing. They encouraged it.

    What is so gosh-darned ironic about this is that a very tight metaphore can be drawn between this situation and the plight of US auto manufacturers and their fickle customers who were turning to Honda and Toyota in the 80s. Back then, the auto industry wept blood over the fact that American consumers were disloyal and buying the products of foreign labor.

    Now, in the new millenium, at least one of those same big three companies is behaving just like those disloyal American auto-consumers of the 80s. They're going for the short-term cost-cutting measure without looking at how it will affect the overall long term economic picture.

    "And what about you?" you ask. I threw in the IT towel and went back to school to become an architect. There's something enormously satisfying about designing things that may very well outlive me, that aren't dependent on whatever shakey operating system is in vogue at the moment, and which no one ever complains about being buggy. Buildings are solid and real and not subject to the same kinds of scope creep that IT projects are. All in all it's a wonderful life.

    So for me, being let-go was a good thing, but for the rest of you, watch your backs. You have no protections.

  241. Re:your social contract is with your fellow citize by benwaggoner · · Score: 1

    Well, I have a variety of social contracts, at different levels, with my family, my community, my industry, my nation, and humanity in general.

    To the extent global society evolves in a way where everyone on the planet feels a social contract with everyone else, this is a good thing. India is an especially important place to see succeed, since it's structurally a pluralistic democracy, with lots of pressures in other directions, and nukes. Letting smart people used to working with Americans get rich and powerful there seems like a very good thing to me.

  242. Labor Theory of Value by tom's+a-cold · · Score: 1

    I suspect that the original article was a troll, but still...

    The whole basis of this proposal is the idea that the price of imported software should be adjusted to compensate for differences in the cost of labor. This is based on the fallacious notion that the value of an item is related to the amount of labor that went into it. It's a good old theory, but since Ricardo and Marx, not one that has been taken all that seriously (though it kind of made sense for agricultural and unskilled factory labor). The value of software is what someone will pay for it, not what it cost you (or what some self-interested bureaucrat says it cost someone else) to make it. You could burn $50M in labor costs and still produce software with a value of zero. I've seen it done. On the other hand, uncompensated labor can produce software that someone's willing to pay good money for (look at any Linux distro).

    Your whole approach is one that appeals most to the software people who are the most likely to be laid off in favor of third-world commodity coders. In other words, the ones who least belong in the business in the first place. The only reliable survival strategy in a globalized business like this is to provide more value than the competition. Firms will pay top dollar for good talent. Even though rates have eroded in the past year, I'm still doing fine, as are those of my peers who are really good at what they do. If you're just another bozo slinging SQL or VB, don't be surprised if someone in Sri Lanka has figured out how easy your job is. And frankly, if they do a better job than you, I'll outsource to them.

    And based on the labor theory of value that you implicitly endorse, you'll still be adding the same value when you move on to Burger King anyway.

    --
    Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
  243. Have Tarrifs Ever Worked . . . by werdna · · Score: 1

    ... apart from a subtle tax on products purchased from abroad?

    While it is controversial whether Smoot-Hawley actually caused or worsened the Great Depression, it is clear that it didn't help -- the Depression deepened, more people lost work, and we as a nation suffered for years.

    If knowledge workers abroad are doing as well for less, then let's face it -- they are kicking our butts. We won't get better or more competitive by taxing them -- we'll just divert the fruits of their good labors to others, and ultimately hurt ourselves. We will invite retaliative taxation on our products, which will decrease demand and therefore reduce jobs here as well.

    Rather than letting governments duke this out with artificial numbers, why not let the market decide? If they can produce smart people working with good tools and equipment for less, we had better either reduce our expectation of our own worth, or get smarter or use better tools. Otherwise, we will simply lose out in the end.

  244. The Best Things in Life Are Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best things in life are free. You can give your proprietary software to the birds and bees, I want OSS. Wooohoohoohoo. That's what I want.

    50% tariff on $0 + $0.

  245. Blagh. by Xner · · Score: 1

    We're waiting, pansy.

    --
    Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
  246. US students abroad told to pretend to be Canadian by RedCard · · Score: 1

    Here's something interesting.
    I think it speaks for itself.

    American students abroad told to pretend to be Canadians

    At least when we leave our home country, we don't have to worry about being shot in the back by some yahoo with an axe to grind.

  247. Name them by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 1
    There's 30 contries that have better healthcare systems than Canada

    Utter bullshit. Name those 30 countries.

    --
    My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    1. Re:Name them by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 1

      Name those 30 countries.

      I'm glad you said that. Here's the rankings in 2000, according to the World Health Organization. Canada in not the #1 spot, or even in the top 5. To find Canda here's a hint:scroll down.

      1 France
      2 Italy
      3 San Marino
      4 Andorra
      5 Malta
      6 Singapore
      7 Spain
      8 Oman
      9 Austria
      10 Japan
      11 Norway
      12 Portugal
      13 Monaco
      14 Greece
      15 Iceland
      16 Luxembourg
      17 Netherlands
      18 United Kingdom
      19 Ireland
      20 Switzerland
      21 Belgium
      22 Colombia
      23 Sweden
      24 Cyprus
      25 Germany
      26 Saudi Arabia
      27 United Arab Emirates
      28 Israel
      29 Morocco
      30 Canada

      If you open your mind to the possibility that Canada is not the center of the universe, and if you don't automatically believe the lies and spindoctoring from members your liberal government, you will realize that not everyone in the world is waving a Canadian flag, not everyone wants to be a Canadian, and that many parts of the world have standards of living as high as Canada. If you do this your "Canada is #1" viewpoint will quickly disappear. Canada is a nice country, I am Canadian, I live here, but there's dozen or two that just as good and even better.

    2. Re:Name them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the WHO's "overall health system performance" statistics. I don't think you actually understand what the figures mean, but I'll note that your beloved US is down at number 37.

      I don't know where you got all the garbage from in your last paragraph - you're jumping to conclusions - but if you think there are two dozen better countries in which to live (though I doubt you've been to any of them), why don't you fuck off there?

    3. Re:Name them by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 1

      but I'll note that your beloved US is down at number 37.

      I noticed the US was #37, but more important is that Canada is #30. Pretty poor performance from a country that is supposed to have the best healthcare system in the world. Even if the WHO's rating system is flawed, you would think that if Canada's healthcare system is so good it would have ranked MUCH higher.


      but if you think there are two dozen better countries in which to live (though I doubt you've been to any of them), why don't you fuck off there?


      Oh so you think Canada is such a complete paradise that it is above criticism? Do you believe that everything is so perfect in Canada that noone has anything to complain about? Are you really that naive?

  248. Take a class in economics. by gadders · · Score: 1

    And then take a class in programming, so that you can beat off-shore programmmers on merit, rather than through tariffs.

  249. Free Market by AnotherScratchMonkey · · Score: 1
    The free market is about avoiding violence in human interaction. Whether one is a consumer or producer, a human should have the right not to be coerced into a transaction she doesn't want to participate in, no matter the reason for the avoidance.

    And this isn't a zero-sum game. In the absence of violence, trades occur only if both parties perceive a benefit. A net loss occurs only in the presence of coercion, or because an agent makes a bad decision (in which case the loss is self-imposed).

  250. Bullshit by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

    Then go to a flea market in an old US town and buy $5 unbranded sneakers. This money will go straight to the sweatshop. The fact is Americans want Nike for $500 because Michael Jordan wears them."

    No, Americans want the best quality shoes, Nike makes better shoes, despite what you may say, You'll never find a pair of shoes more comfortable and more well made than a pair of $500 Nikes, the problem is the same problem with have with Microsoft, people dont WANT to spend $500 on Nikes, they spend $500 on Nike because Nike makes the best basketball/sports shoes and they happen to cost $500.

    Sure marketing has alot to do with it, but I dont see any small shoe companies with anything better than the Nike Air Jordan sneakers, better meaning in terms of how they feel and how well they are made.

    Sure other smaller companies can make good shoes, but Nike buys these companies out.

    "It's not your place to comment on how Nike distributes or raises that money. I know McDonalds is crap, but then why does my stomach rumble whe I see one of their beautiful juicy Big Macs on TV mmmmmm? "

    Who would choose Mc Donalds over a 5 star resturant? No one. Mc Donalds however is on every corner, and its cheap, until theres something better people are forced to eat there. When you are outside somewhere and every corner has a Mc Donalds, you dont go into Mc Donalds because you like their food, you go in because you are hungry and they have food thats in your price range.

    Same with Nikes, People buy what they want, but it is my business to care how they make the food I consume, and how the product I buy is built. Even if I disagree I'm forced to buy a good pair of shoes and a good meal because theres no option, and if Mc Donalds and Nike are well known, and theres nothing else for miles, well thats what I'll buy.

    " If China becomes one big sweatshop and Chinese employment rises to almost 100% then the Chinese economy will be stronger than the American economy after 100 years of redistribution. The Chinese will choose better and better sweatshops to work for, and then the best workers will go for perks like "Free jade vase when you join our company". Then the Chinese will be richer than the Americans."

    This isnt about the chinese getting raises or having jobs, its about the fact they have a different currency than us, therefore the money isnt properly distributed

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Bullshit by Beliskner · · Score: 1
      No, Americans want the best quality shoes,
      Then Capitalism is working, the Americans have too much money to spend on shoes and Nike manufactures them in the cheapest place (with high unemployment and poor people). What's wrong with that? Should Nike be forced to make expensive shoes in Silicon Valley? How many Slashdotters would be willing to work in Silicon Valley making shoes for minimum wage when delivering pizza in Silicon Valley pays $15 per hour more than a C++ 20 years experience man?
      Sure other smaller companies can make good shoes, but Nike buys these companies out.
      Yes, monopoly is bad for prices. It's the job of the Monopolies & Mergers commission which is run by the Government to stop monopolies forming by the big company buying out all its competitors. There are massive fines when this occurs, and the company can be ordered by the Courts to break up because customers (voters) will have to pay artificially high prices. Personally I like Reebok so I think competition is working fine.
      This isnt about the chinese getting raises or having jobs, its about the fact they have a different currency than us, therefore the money isnt properly distributed
      Incorrect. The Foreign Exchange mechanism works fine. China has a floating currency, so as the Chinese economy becomes stronger (which it will) their currency will rise. It's even possible that in a few decades one Yuan = one Dollar, and we will all be trying to immigrate to China

      The rich Chinese are VERY rich. As an example, they own the Hotel Mandarin in Singapore which has golden lifts, goldcoloured carpets, Gold-plated showers and Platinum waterfalls. Their inclusive breakfast is frankfurters, Chinese special fried rice with Jasmine, Eggs, Hash Browns. It is like a dream palace, and it's all Chinese. The Chinese are having the same problems - the businessmen are getting paid a lot more than the normal worker (big rich-poor gap) look at how much money Dung Xiao Ping's friends have made (hundreds of millions of dollars). The United States has the same problem. These businessmen make money in Dollars/Pounds from outsourcing and then CONVERT this money into Yuan to pay their workers. If there was a global minimum wage then the Chinese companies wouldn't get the contract and the Chinese people would all be unemployed farmers. It's up to the Chinese workers to demand good working conditions, but there are 1 billion people competing for your job in China so it's better to not be fussy. But when China becomes rich then, well you have 500 million people competing for your job in the US but you can still expect a very good "market" salary which will pay for your second hand 10-year old Sedan and you can sleep in your car if you're poor.

      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    2. Re:Bullshit by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

      Then Capitalism is working, the Americans have too much money to spend on shoes and Nike manufactures them in the cheapest place (with high unemployment and poor people). What's wrong with that? Should Nike be forced to make expensive shoes in Silicon Valley? How many Slashdotters would be willing to work in Silicon Valley making shoes for minimum wage when delivering pizza in Silicon Valley pays $15 per hour more than a C++ 20 years experience man?

      Nike should be forced to make Shoes at a price the Market decides, not a price Nike decides. Meaning if their shoes sell a ton, then the price should go down. However I do not believe the value of peoples labor should be controlled by anyone but these people and these people do not like working in sweatshops, I'm sorry but no one likes slave labor. If you say people in Silicon Valley over in the USA dont want to do this labor what makes you think people in China want to do it? They dont want to do it either, no one wants to do slave labor, however theres plenty of people here in Ghettos and Trailer Parks who would gladly make shoes for a living, perhaps these people wouldnt be out selling drugs and robbing people if there were jobs for them too, of course theres no jobs for the uneducated poor lower class Americans who make up a significant percentage of the population.

      Yes, monopoly is bad for prices. It's the job of the Monopolies & Mergers commission which is run by the Government to stop monopolies forming by the big company buying out all its competitors. There are massive fines when this occurs, and the company can be ordered by the Courts to break up because customers (voters) will have to pay artificially high prices. Personally I like Reebok so I think competition is working fine.

      Competition is fine as long as its fair. I dont mind that Nike and Reebok compete, but I want the people working for them to make the money they deserve, someone shouldnt work for 12 hours and make less money than you just because of where they were born.


      Incorrect. The Foreign Exchange mechanism works fine. China has a floating currency, so as the Chinese economy becomes stronger (which it will) their currency will rise. It's even possible that in a few decades one Yuan = one Dollar, and we will all be trying to immigrate to China

      If its fine, why are we losing the jobs? Oh I know, because our dollar is too expensive, so whats the solution? Should we change our currency to the Chinese currency? How about the Euro? Or maybe the Indian Currency? Our problem is inflation, our dollar is too expensive to be useful to anyone. So until we have a global currency certain people will be priced out of the market based on location alone, forcing people to move to certain locations. I dont know if you are American or if you love your country but if you do, do you really want to see America die because of "Capitalism"?


      The rich Chinese are VERY rich. As an example, they own the Hotel Mandarin in Singapore which has golden lifts, goldcoloured carpets, Gold-plated showers and Platinum waterfalls. Their inclusive breakfast is frankfurters, Chinese special fried rice with Jasmine, Eggs, Hash Browns. It is like a dream palace, and it's all Chinese. The Chinese are having the same problems - the businessmen are getting paid a lot more than the normal worker (big rich-poor gap) look at how much money Dung Xiao Ping's friends have made (hundreds of millions of dollars). The United States has the same problem. These businessmen make money in Dollars/Pounds from outsourcing and then CONVERT this money into Yuan to pay their workers. If there was a global minimum wage then the Chinese companies wouldn't

      The problem is the Yuan is better than the dollar in every way. The USA needs more jobs, people are having problems finding jobs here. Alot of people like me, college students, will take the Nike or Reebok jobs which you say the average Silicon Valley rich CEO wont take. Look, I need a

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  251. a new tax is one which never will go away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't ever ever give the us government, local government, or state governemtn any idea or support for a new tax.

    The tax will never be elliminated and will hound you and future generations.

    See the 1893 Spanish American War Telephone tax at 3% which still is in effect here some 110 years later. It was proposed and passed to tax the luxury item of a telephone for a short time to pay for the 1893 war.

    That war was damn well paid for by 1910 yet the tax stuck around for another 90+ years and is still dragging onward.

  252. Reprise of Intelligent Comments made by HanzoSan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (sound of crickets chirping)

  253. We did when we were a great country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back when we were a great Republic, we financed our government by taxing forgeign trade. There is nothing wrong with it. I'd rather tax India than tax me. Let's do it and rebuild our republic.

  254. TURN ON COMMENTS IN YOUR JOURNAL by mekkab · · Score: 1

    Tyb- please turn on the comments in your journal entry. The defaul is "No comments"-

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.