Slashdot Mirror


Down and Out in White-Collar America

XorNand writes "Fortune has a pretty sobering article on the employment situation for white-collar workers. By many accounts, we've never had it harder--the slump in the 80's primarily hit blue-collar workers. While bleak, things might be inching towards the light; as my econ professor says, jobs are the last thing to recover after a recession."

854 comments

  1. White collars by CptChipJew · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a good thing my shirts have green collars.

    "But in the past two or three years companies have turned to India and the Philippines for much more sophisticated tasks: financial analysis, software design, tax preparation, even the creation of PowerPoint presentations."

    Apparently Fortune isn't hiring software people either.

    --
    Vonal Declosion
    1. Re:White collars by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 4, Funny

      Overseas outsourcing of the creation of power point presentations.

      You know, I've always been disgusted that modern business people are incapable of conceptualizing thought without resorting to power point slides, but this piece of knowledge just places me on a whole new plateau of disdain and revulsion toward basically every human being in this country who wears a suit.

      I guess it must be the combination of absurd dependence on power point to think and communicate combined with the sheer soul-whithering miserliness to actually outsource the development of slideshows to overseas labor.

      It fills me with an urge to defile a golf course.

    2. Re:White collars by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      even the creation of PowerPoint presentations?

      Some people are just idiots.

    3. Re:White collars by putaro · · Score: 1

      It may not be quite as brain-damaged as it sounds. When I did large presentations for Apple I would do the content for the slides and a rough cut at the graphics and then turn them over to a graphics artist. They turn out looking a lot better but the graphics art part is pretty rote, it's just something you don't let engineers do :-).

    4. Re:White collars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Question: What would you substitute for Powerpoint?

    5. Re:White collars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about good old fashioned just damn talking? Face it, whenever anyone is giving a PowerPoint presentation they only end up reading what is on the slide anyway!

      You do not need PowerPoint.

    6. Re:White collars by Cloud+9 · · Score: 4, Funny
      It fills me with an urge to defile a golf course.

      Don't fight it, it's fun.

      --
      Karma: Dyn-o-mite!(mostly affected by Jimmy Walker reading your comments)
    7. Re:White collars by blibbleblobble · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I guess it must be the combination of absurd dependence on power point to think and communicate combined with the sheer soul-whithering miserliness to actually outsource the development of slideshows to overseas labor."

      It's probably quite encouraging for those people who had to listen to the "we're making huge cuts and outsourcing to india for big profits" managerial speeches to learn that people have finally grasped the obvious conclusion:

      Senior managers are the dumbest of all jobs -- why not outsource them to India?

    8. Re:White collars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Yeah, cause talking through the data will work. I can imagine it now:

      "Ok, this chair represents the potential sales. These ashtrays represent the cost of manufacturing"

      What a maroon........

    9. Re:White collars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Question: What would you substitute for Powerpoint?

      Macromedia Flash MX

      It's not for only websites. Flash MX is a powerful vector tool to create presentations unlike any other. It can be exported to the medium of your choice (try that with PPT! You'd be lucky to get it working on non-IE browsers). Embedded video, fully dynamic content, etc.

      I would rather see Flash gaining widespread usability in presentations than having "web developers" poison our browsers with shitty intros. Then again, Macromedia did a bad job promoting Flash as such. Here's an example of it in action

      Keynote is gaining widespread acceptance in companies. It's files are based on XML and doesn't really get annoying like PPT. With PowerPoint, you don't get much satisfaction. It's like fucking for the sole reason of concieving. With Keynote it's more like fucking for pleasure and getting results at the same time.

      And lets not forget about Impress, which is included with OpenOffice.org

      Just as good as PPT, although it needs another year or so before completely closing the gap.

      For more of presentation software, check DMOZ.

      Remember, friends don't let friends create PPT files.
    10. Re:White collars by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know, I've always been disgusted that modern business people are incapable of conceptualizing thought without resorting to power point slides, but this piece of knowledge just places me on a whole new plateau of disdain and revulsion toward basically every human being in this country who wears a suit.

      I always enjoyed the way George Lucas handled this problem. On his main location, the Skywalker Ranch, only the creative people work - designers, writers, prop artisans etc. His companies need the "suits", like all the others, but the "suits" are located in another valley, so they are not seen unless really needed. The creative guys have the Skywalker Ranch all for themselves (and walk in t-shirts and sneakers).

    11. Re:White collars by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You haven't been victimized by enough powerpoint presentations to get the point.

      I've observed that 90% of any powerpoint presentation consists of 3 lines of text bulletpointing what the speaker is about to say6 anyway with 'helpful' diagrams such as 1s and 0s with an arrow pointing to an icon of a computer.

      They manage to convey no useful information on their own, and at the same time only act to distract the speaker with keyboards and mice that were damaged in travel and overhead video projectors that don't work with their resolution.

      Anyone who can't manage to remember 3 points while the speaker talks about them should be composted and fed to the office plants (effectively doubling their IQ contribution to the company).

      The whole lot could be better replaced with 10 cents worth of paper, sticky tape, and a magic marker or even (GASP!) a whiteboard.

    12. Re:White collars by abhisarda · · Score: 1

      It fills me with an urge to defile a golf course.

      The golf course needs all the nutrients you can supply it.
    13. Re:White collars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in which valley are the people who did PM and AotCs?

    14. Re:White collars by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Hello Stinky. Welcome Friend! :)

    15. Re:White collars by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 1

      I always mod PowerPoint presentations to '-5 no real information content'. :)

    16. Re:White collars by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's files are based on XML and doesn't really get annoying like PPT. With PowerPoint, you don't get much satisfaction. It's like fucking for the sole reason of concieving. With Keynote it's more like fucking for pleasure and getting results at the same time.

      Goddammit - see what I mean?! That is what I call marketing. I want keynote now after reading that, and he didn't use one power point slide. All he used was one well placed simile. (That's right, kids, a figure of SPEECH).

      Although it would have made a pretty funny slide--
      "Ok, as you can see, this rabbit is fucking for pleasure."

    17. Re:White collars by mike_oldlib_com · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just a little Irony...I was sitting with our onshore reps from India and discussing a project that was to be offshored to Manila that another company was doing - and cheaper than India by half.

      With a straight face, mind you, the Indian consultant looked at me and said..."But you won't get the same quality"

    18. Re:White collars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Golf: a walk in nature ruined by a little white ball.

    19. Re:White collars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slides can be a good way to organize thoughts. With that said, it's just as easy to make a freaking transparency, or just write on a whiteboard.

    20. Re:White collars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People put real actual data in PowerPoint presentations? Not in any of the hundreds of slideshows I've been forced to sit through they havn't. Shit, most suits wouldn't even know how to take the data from their spreadsheey and organise it anyway!

    21. Re:White collars by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      You know, I've always been disgusted that modern business people are incapable of conceptualizing thought without resorting to power point slides

      The problem is that people understand data in different ways. If you have to go on record as making a decision about something you truly don't understand, what do you do? You make the presenter break down the information to simplify it for you.

      As much as they are over-used, it's a hell of a lot easier than making someone read a 40-page paper or teaching them to read a schematic diagram.

    22. Re:White collars by dtake · · Score: 1
      Powerpoint presentation != presentation with slides

      A Powerpoint presentation is a presentation made by a PHB or wannabe-PHB for PHBs. They are usually made with the assistance of one of Powerpoint's "wizards". These "wizards" suggest topics, colors schemes, and fonts, and Powerpoint itself makes it easy to add multi-level bullet points. The end result is to reduce any presentation to a mind-numbing exercise with the same overall structure as every other Powerpoint presentation, with dozens of sentence fragment bullet points interspersed with nonsensical charts and graphs.

      A good example of a typical Powerpoint presentation is Peter Norvig's Gettysburg Powerpoint presentation

      The reliance on bullet points to convey information can be particularly disruptive when presenting data. Take for example an image from a complex scientific experiment with several relevant points. In the non-Powerpoint approach the speaker simply displays the image and talks through it. In the Powerpoint approach the speaker displays a Powerpoint slide with the bullet points, and flips back and forth between the Powerpoint slide and the image, reading the bullet point, explaining it using the image, back to the next bullet point, explaining it on the image, etc. The funniest part is when the PHB asks a question, he wants the speaker to go back to the Powerpoint slide, not the data image.

    23. Re:White collars by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      mod parent up informative and funny.

      if anybody has any experience with the tech workers in india you will get the point.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    24. Re:White collars by rutledjw · · Score: 1
      Wait, I'm suprised I haven't heard this yet:

      Define irony - being replaced (outsourced) using the same methods used to replace blue-collar workers starting 10 years previous.

      IT jobs are leading the way, fine. But so are the management, legal, business, etc. positions. So these guys are being replaced by the same process they used to get rid of other jobs.

      Ironic. Or is that poetic?

      Pretty soon, we'll start replacing talking-head CEOs like the Kenneth Lays of the world with real CEOs that don't come form this good-ol-boy background...

      --

      Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
    25. Re:White collars by istartedi · · Score: 1

      defile a golf course

      Isn't that redundant? :*)

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    26. Re:White collars by Ty · · Score: 1

      They were outsourced to save money, of course.

    27. Re:White collars by hbog · · Score: 1

      " mod parent up informative and funny.

      if anybody has any experience with the tech workers in india you will get the point."

      And mod my parent up if you like to generalize!

    28. Re:White collars by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      im sorry i should really post several million reply's regarding india and their citizens.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    29. Re:White collars by hplasm · · Score: 1

      Knifepoint.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    30. Re:White collars by hplasm · · Score: 1
      And in which valley are the people who did PM and AotCs?

      The valley of the Dolls?

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  2. *cough* 30's? *cough* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Right now ain't nothing.

    Go read about what happened in the Great Depression. I don't see many coders struggling to eat...

    1. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by MikeFM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obviously, you don't know many dot bomb coders. I've known several that have struggled to eat, pay rent, and other basics. Especially those that are fresh out of school and didn't get any of the riches from the boom. The fucking IT market was flooded by schools pushing through no talent, no interest folks that just wanted the big paychecks. Now it's a real bitch to prove you actually know what you're doing. Several years of job experience? Means nothing now. People with several years of job experience and a couple degrees are lucky to keep decent jobs. If you live outside major cities your doubly screwed. Nobody is paying to relocate fresh hires these days and most won't even give you an interview if you're out of area. A lot of coders are being forced to compete for jobs flipping burgers in order to stay fed themselves. Did you ever try to apply for a job at Burger King when the 18yo manager hiring you can't even pronounce the qualifications on your resume? Uhh huh. I'll teach those smart asses the meaning of overqualified!

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    2. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by malia8888 · · Score: 4, Informative
      I worked early in my life as a "headhunter" for corporate America. This gave me a rather different view of applicants for jobs than they have of themselves.

      For example, from the Fortune article: Klinck earned more than $200,000 a year at MetLife, managed more than 1,000 people, and knows languages and programs ranging from Fortran to PeopleSoft, but cold-calling for jobs has been--well, cold.

      I hope that Mr. Klinck reads my post and finds it useful. Klinck's problem or anyone at his high level in the employment food chain is that there are very few companies who could afford him. The "Catch-22" is that even if he says he will take a salary cut in half--$100,000--companies won't believe he will live happily on this relative pittance. He is screwed in corporate America.

      Unless he is very lucky and lands a MetLife clone job, his best bet is to hire himself. Mr. Klinck has very little choice other than to become self-employed. He is the only person/company who can afford to hire him.

      --
      Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
    3. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by Da+VinMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just out of curiosity: Isn't it possible for people like Mr. Klinck to keep salary considerations off the table? If he states something like âoeSalary requirements: Negotiableâ or âoeFlexibleâ or something like that, wouldn't that be a good clue for a future employer that he may very well be happy with the $50K or whatever they have budgeted for the position?

      I think this whole "over-qualified" thing is a bit ridiculous when people clearly are willing to take on positions for which they might seem over-qualified. I frankly don't understand what "over-qualified" means. If someone is willing to take on the position and the corresponding salary, then I think the company ought to congratulate themselves on filling the position with someone that has considerable experience. Additionally, that person will probably feel a measure of gratitude for the break and offer back to the company a measure of service and insight to which the company would not otherwise have access.

      What am I missing here?

      --
      Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
    4. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by ChaoticChaos · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can get relocation right now! I have 18+ years of experience in IT and one company wanted to offer me $8k for relocation. Seriously.

      I just accepted a job for a company in another state (where I actually wanted to go!) but they didn't offer relo. Better job though. This company was small. The other one was big. I loathe big companies.

      If you're wondering, I've been looking for about a year and a half. For the lat 15 months, things have been deader than King Tut. No more. I'm hearing from people again and getting hits on my resume. ...and just accepted the offer from the small company!

      Things are turning around people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    5. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by jmo_jon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What am I missing here?

      You're missing that an over-qualified person typicaly would start looking for a better position quicker than a person who's 'just' qualified. Hireing someone costs money, you need to teach the person how your company works and therefor you want to keep your employers for a long time.

      Like with fliping burgers, if you had an engineer and a teenager applying of course the teenager. (S)he is more likely to stay.

    6. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any able--bodied types can do what I did during the recession in '81 and enlist. The military can use you, and if you are physically lazy, just join the Air Force!
      You can also milk the Guard and Reserve for college money and be a professional student for a few years.

    7. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also milk the Guard and Reserve for college money and be a professional student for a few years.

      Yeah, and have it backfire on you when your unelected President forces the military into a trumped-up war and you suddenly find yourself in harm's way with people who apparently can't read a map correctly.

    8. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 2, Informative
      Congratulations!

      I'm pretty sure that I know what you've been going through. I had been out since my last company went under, 16 months ago. I have almost 20 years Engineering experience and didn't get more than tiny nibbles for over a year. Suddenly several things came up in the space of the last 2 months and I start a new job tomorrow. Whew!

      I really wonder whether things are turning around (and hope they are), or that it just takes that long (on average) right now. I know several people for whom it has taken 12 to 18 months.

      I'm going the opposite direction from you - very small company to very large company. I've worked for small, medium and large companies in the past and found that each has its pluses and minuses. Right now, employment is my priority and I'm glad to have a job and the company looks pretty damned good, to boot.

      Anyway, good luck in your new job!

      --
      Sigs are bad for your health.
    9. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever tried looking for a job out of computers? People are always building new buildings and there's always going to be a need for drywalling or construction. A dirty job but someone's gotta do it.

      I doubt cyborgs are going to replace that anytime soon...

    10. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and this is why you tailor your resume for every job you apply for.

      REmove expierience that doesnt leave holes that can be seen. LIE and make yourself less expierienced.

      Oh and you do NOT have to tell them you made $120,000 at your last job and they legally cant find that out.

      It's do eat dog out there, do ANYTHING you can to get the job. and yes, anyone that uses the "over qualified" is a gigantic asshole.

    11. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Corporate thinking is:

      The person barely meeting the requirements will be willing to work for less.

      The person barely meeting the requirements will work his ass off to keep his job.

      The person barely meeting the requirements can be blamed, abused, and fired, should the need for a scapegoat arise.

      A qualified person might point out that the requirements violate what's technically, legally, or physically possible. Bosses don't like people "without vision".

      So bosses prefer to hire someone who needs three days for a simple problem, then two more while testing reveals a dozen bugs, over someone who remembers a good solution from his days at university, and writes it down in an afternoon. Never mind that it costs more in the end; it gives the boss more underlings, so he must be important.

      And if it finally costs way too much, there's outsourcing to India.

    12. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Then your left with a gaping hole in your resume. What have you been doing for the last 10 years since you stopped working at Chucky Cheese? I guess you could make up other crappy jobs but then if they call to confirm any of them your ass is fired.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    13. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I agree. If I take a job then I'll stick with it unless there is something horribly wrong about the job. If I had other options I wanted to look into I wouldn't take that job to begin with. In a recession you take what you can get. Don't management types know this? Doh. Shit, some of the places I've lived recently the only job still making decent money is the pizza delivery guy. But no way they are willing to hire me for that. As if I lack the ability to pick something up and drop it off. Argh. I always wanted to work in a pizza place anyway.. I love pizza! :)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    14. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by MikeFM · · Score: 2, Informative

      I guess I meant that getting relo is much MUCH harder now than it was a couple years ago. It used to be that even shit jobs like entry level web developer they'd offer relo, a new car, etc. Now you can have several years of experience and be lucky to get a response much less a relo offer.

      When I first got laid off a couple years ago I was foolish enough to turn down offers that would have required I move away from my family despite them offering relo etc. Now I'd probably take the same jobs without the relocation help. I've had a couple of short-term jobs in the meantime but nothing tht lasted very long or paid very well. Not enough to climb back out of debt.

      I keep waiting for the turn around. I hope you're right that it's coming. I don't have 18 years of experience but I do have enough that I should be able to find something decent! :)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    15. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Catch-22" is that even if he says he will take a salary cut in half--$100,000--companies won't believe he will live happily on this relative pittance.

      As if any company ever gave a damn if their employees were happy or not.

      If this is really a concern for companies, they can put in his employement contract that he can't quit for, say, six months (although they can still fire him). This time period will effectively "wipe out" his prior, higher salary and force him to negotiate with any other potential employer from where his salary is now. Which is the best any employer can hope for without actually chaining the workers to the desks (which I'm sure will be permitted under Patriot Act III).

    16. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by Old+Uncle+Bill · · Score: 1

      Put down the same jobs and lie about what you did there. Lie about anything you have to if you want that job. Fact of the matter is, if you think you will be happy there and can do the work, lie your ass off. You think they're not lying to you? Employers are like everyone else in the world, they're trying to screw you to improve their place in this world.

      --
      Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
    17. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I won't argue with that but I don't really like to lie (especially to make myself look worse). If you really need the money then you do what you have to but otherwise tell the truth. Everyone has the right to do what is needed to provide themselves with food and shelter (but not new sports cars). Lie, cheat, steal, kill.. anything to survive. :)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    18. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* by mr_e_cat · · Score: 0

      $200k is a fuckload of money. There aren't many jobs out there which pay that much. So he's unlikely to find one. The guy has to "think outside the box" to overcome the overqualified prejudice and also to make himself attactive to employers.

  3. US National Debt by Michael's+a+Jerk! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    American economy has been hit hard. Enron, etc, and september 11 couldn't have come at a worse time. Not trying to be flamebait, but the usual 'let's start a war or 2 to fix up the economy' hasn't worked :-(

    According to the Debt clock, each Citizen's share of this debt is $22,684.87.

    he National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.47 billion per day since September 30, 2002!

    The Fix? I don't know. Welcome to Globaliziation.

    --

    I'm not Seth.

    1. Re:US National Debt by SpaceCadetTrav · · Score: 3, Informative
      'let's start a war or 2 to fix up the economy' hasn't worked

      What's the basis of your conclusion? Do you expect an entire economy to make a U-turn in a few months? What would qualify as a "fixing" the economy in your mind?

    2. Re:US National Debt by Michael's+a+Jerk! · · Score: 1

      What would qualify as a "fixing" the economy in your mind?

      I will believe things are looking better when...

      1) The Dollar gains ground

      2) The Budget has a Surplus

      3) Companies realize that Outsourcing, whilst pleasing shareholders, ticks everyone else off.

      --

      I'm not Seth.

    3. Re:US National Debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please mod this shithead down. His stated aim is to be modded up by pasting a lame link in the first few minutes after a new story's posted.

    4. Re:US National Debt by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "What's the basis of your conclusion? Do you expect an entire economy to make a U-turn in a few months? What would qualify as a "fixing" the economy in your mind?"

      Well, one thing that leads credibility to his statement is that war/defence spending doesn't comprise nearly as much of the U.S. GDP as it used to. If I'm remembering stats that I heard on NPR properly, during WWII, the war spending portion of GDP was something like 22%. Granted, it was spending that went nowhere in a sense, since there was no return on the 'investment' that war bought, but it stimulated market aspects back into production that found something to do after the war ended. It didn't hurt that tensions between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. escalated as well, generating R&D, assembly, testing, and materials jobs to build the infrastructure that carried us into the fifties and sixties. Once the government didn't have one single active enemy to be able to propaganda the country into paying to "fight" against, matters toward defence didn't get what they had.

      Contrast that to the modern state, where GDP impact of a war is more like 4%, which can almost be written off as statistical noise, and you end up with a war not helping the economy as a whole. We don't build hundreds of planes a day for our "police actions", we don't crank out the carpet bombs, the tanks, the rifles. We have most of the war materiel stockpiled already, with personnel already trained in its use, and actively being paid already. We move them to the area affected, pay them more for combat duty, go through more ammunition, and put a little more wear and tear on the big items like tanks and planes, but we don't ramp up production. Things remain nice and stable. The fact that no additional money appears to be necessary to pay for the rest of the expenses from the Iraq invasion should be proof enough for that.

      I personally am glad that our "problem" is mild enough that we don't even have 7% unemployment. 5% is considered regular, healthy unemployment, and if this is the worst that it gets, we're going to be just fine. I'm glad that we shouldn't need another multi-million casualty war in order to feed people.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:US National Debt by volkris · · Score: 1

      Ha!

      NONE of those things indicate ANYTHING good about the state of the economy.

    6. Re:US National Debt by grimani · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are completely wrong.

      A gaining dollar is not good for the economy - it hurts exports.

      This is because for American companies operating overseas, the weaker the dollar, the more dollars they can exchange for their foreign profits.

      Because of the above, our companies are more competitive because they can set lower local prices overseas (in, say, yen) while still making the same amount of dollars.

      In other words, a weak dollar helps our exports, a strong dollar does the opposite.

      In fact, a major concern right now is that if a weak dollar hurts the exports of other countries, they will try to devalue their own currencies.

      Of course, currency values are all relative, so if Japan devalues the yen, and we still want a weak dollar, we have to devalue further, prompting them to do the same...and so on.

      Things then spiral downward.

    7. Re:US National Debt by Frymaster · · Score: 4, Insightful
      'let's start a war or 2 to fix up the economy' hasn't worked

      of course not.

      the traditional theory is that war is a stimulus for the economy because it is an instant export generator. materiel (bombs, ammo etc) is manufactured domestically and then exported to (ie, dropped on) a foreign country. george orwell outlines this economic theory quite nicely in 1984, and that's how it was back in '48.

      however, the war against iraq and most modern interstate wars involving a developed nation are different for several reasons:

      1. they are shorter. unlike world war 2 which lasted between 8 years (if you were japanese or chinese) and 4 years (if you were american), modern wars are measured in weeks. there is no time to ramp up domestic production. peacetime surpluses of materiel are expended so there is no productivity boost during the war itself.
      2. modern weapons don't lend themselves to effective wartime production. during ww2, planes, tanks, guns were all simple to mass produce and were consumed en masse for the war effort. modern weaponry (planes for instance) require a long time to design and manufacture. they are best developed during non-war periods and then held on hand to be consumed during a conflict. replacement production during wartime is not really an option.
      3. production is no longer exclusively or predominantly domestic. for better or worse (i suspect worse) oecd economies are globalized. foreign instability caused by war or threat of war has a greater impact on the domestic economy than during the isolationist 40's. look how badly wall street behaved during the lead up the iraq invasion.
      the bottom line is, that war's traditional role of providing a fine way to just throw away production on a foreign "market" is obsolete. if the united states wants to develop a government-funded make work project, they should investigate something more productive... highways again maybe. or a second panama canal?
    8. Re:US National Debt by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are not remembering correctly. During WWII we were spending in excess of 60% of our GDP on the military. For all intents and purposes, it was all we did. The only onther production that really existed was that which was necessary to keep the nation necessary. All industries that could be were converted to the war effort.

      Now today, our spending on military is about 3.2% of our GDP. As you say, trivial. What is more interesting is teh comparatvie numbers. In overall spending, as in dollars, we are, by far, the biggest spender. However in terms of % of GDP we are rather low.

    9. Re:US National Debt by 73939133 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      he National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.47 billion per day since September 30, 2002! The Fix? I don't know. Welcome to Globaliziation.

      How exactly is globalization responsible for Americans living beyond their means? Furthermore, the US has been the strongest proponent of globalization; most other nations, in particular developing nations, didn't and don't want it.

      Whatever the economic and political woes of America are, they are home-made; nobody else has made decisions for America.

    10. Re:US National Debt by ArsonPanda · · Score: 1

      no, it won't.

      --

      --I don't want the world, I just want your half.
    11. Re:US National Debt by TWX · · Score: 1

      "You are not remembering correctly. During WWII we were spending in excess of 60% of our GDP on the military. For all intents and purposes, it was all we did."

      Which only goes to reinforce the point much, much further than I had realised...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    12. Re:US National Debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.nationalpriorities.org

      Try the Interactive Tax Chart.

    13. Re:US National Debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats crazy. How could you blow up Muslims with a canal? No, it'll never work I'm afraid.

    14. Re:US National Debt by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      Contrast that to the modern state, where GDP impact of a war is more like 4%, which can almost be written off as statistical noise

      Statistical noise ?, we are still talking about billions of dollars here. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if 4% of today's GDP is more than 22% of 1945's GDP (even after adjusting for inflation).

      Could this money have not been better spent ?

    15. Re:US National Debt by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Nice that the war effort is ~4% or what ever the figure is, but the real problem is the constantly compounding yearly defict. WWII lasted 5 years. In 1980, the interest on the defict was less than 1% of the budget. Now, we are at > 18% and growing very quickly now. The 80-90 period saw a defict growth that has never been seen. The 90's was about trying to stop the bleeding. Now, the current admin defict is putting the worse of reagan's to shame (300 vs 243). After WWII, our presidents paid down the debts.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    16. Re:US National Debt by Kythe · · Score: 1

      How about a public works project (like rural electrification) to bring last-mile high speed internet (fiber?) to every home in America?

      --

      Kythe
    17. Re:US National Debt by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Statistical noise ?, we are still talking about billions of dollars here. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if 4% of today's GDP is more than 22% of 1945's GDP (even after adjusting for inflation).

      Yes, statistical noise. You can't look at the number of dollars spent as any sort of barometer because the US has a much larger economy and a lot more people now. Measuring it as a % of GDP really is the most rational way to measure.

      Could this money have not been better spent ?

      Friend, all government spending is primarily money down the rathole. This rathole happens to drive a noteworthy portion of US technological research, so you tell me. You have a different rathole in mind?

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    18. Re:US National Debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. Before going bankrupt, the US will first bankrupt every other country in the world.

    19. Re:US National Debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I personally am glad that our "problem" is mild enough that we don't even have 7% unemployment. 5% is considered regular, healthy unemployment, and if this is the worst that it gets, we're going to be just fine.

      Those 5% probably feel a lot better now that you made it clear their situation is "healthy" and I'm sure the 2% that would lose their jobs if things got bad appreciate your concern.

    20. Re:US National Debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does the US export (besides jobs)? And the countries the US mostly exports to have fixed exchange rates against the dollar, so a broad weaker dollar is irrelevant for exports. If anything the US should have a stronger dollar like in the past. Most countries foreign reserves are in dollars and most physical commodities are priced in dollars (ie. oil). With that being the case the US ,in effect, can influence global monetary policy by adjusting the dollar's rate for its own benefit. A weaker dollar causes those foreign reserves to lose value, this causes countries to diversify (ie. have some euros as a foreign reserve).

    21. Re:US National Debt by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      but the usual 'let's start a war or 2 to fix up the economy' hasn't worked
      War can never work, unless you pillage and sack the enemy. You build bombs, you use them. Somebody got a job, right? But somebody had to pay for the bomb. So instead of paying some guy to build wealth for you, you pay him to build something that you're going to throw away (blow up).

      War destroys capital, and destroying capital can't "fix" an economies.

      The only ways the Iraq war could have helped the US economy were

      1. If the alternative would have been even costlier (e.g. Saddam was about to nuke USA)
      2. We pillage Iraq's resources (e.g. we take their oil as spoils of war)
      And neither of those appear to be the case.
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    22. Re:US National Debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. Especially since the 5% figure which is thrown around is who is eligible to collect unemployment compensation. I've seen some good arguements that the actual figure of people not working is closer to 8%.

    23. Re:US National Debt by mandalayx · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see a rail system, personally...

    24. Re:US National Debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, as sad as it sounds, a few billion dollars IS noise. It's rounding error in federal budgets. Pocket change. No one would notice a few billion missing.

    25. Re:US National Debt by Drakonian · · Score: 1
      There are two sides to the coin. A weak dollar is bad for consumers and importers but good for exporters. And vice versa. As someone else noted, the US is a huge importer.

      Here in Canada, our dollar is gaining rapidly on the US dollar. My company is worried because our goods cost a lot more in our biggest export market (the US). However I am thrilled, because a new 970 based Mac will cost a lot less.

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    26. Re:US National Debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was not under the impression that we had started a war to fix the economy. I thought we had waged war because of (dubious to many) claims of national security.

      The only thing the war that ended well was to do was possibly alleviate market volatility, that flip flopping of whether or not the US would take action or not and maybe put an end to even further flip flopping from nervous investors.

      To that end, the war DID do both, just not to the extent, but did not lay it to rest, like many hoped.

    27. Re:US National Debt by snarfer · · Score: 1

      And just so there is no mistake - the money that is going out to the tax cuts is the money that is supposed to pay off the Social Security of the "baby boomers" who start retiring in about 8 years.

    28. Re:US National Debt by snarfer · · Score: 1

      Or a public works project to make buildings energy efficient. Employ everyone, and you get the benefit of a more efficient economy. Less dependence on oil imports, lower energy prices, better for the environment.

    29. Re:US National Debt by barzok · · Score: 1

      You forgot #4: we're working off surplus supplies in many cases. Rather than "ramping up" production of all the stuff needed to bomb the crap out of some country, we're pulling it out of storage to make sure it's used before it expires.

    30. Re:US National Debt by sn00ker · · Score: 1
      In overall spending, as in dollars, we are, by far, the biggest spender. However in terms of % of GDP we are rather low.
      Are you sure? I was pretty sure that the US had the highest level of defence spending, as a percentage of GDP, in the world.

      --
      "God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
    31. Re:US National Debt by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am sure. For conformation check the CIA World Factbook, available on www.cia.gov. You may be confusing % of GDP with total dollar amount. In the case of dollars the US is the biggest spender by a good margin. However, the US also has a strong economy meaning that the spending in terms of GDP is not very high.

    32. Re:US National Debt by Vulture_ · · Score: 1

      And really fucking bad for W and his oil cronies.

      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

    33. Re:US National Debt by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      The fix is simple: we need to drastically reduce the size of government. The fact that the US government is in debt in the first place is, at the root, an indication that government has grown too big and now causes more problems than it solves. Big government just doesn't work -- if it did, they wouldn't be in debt.

    34. Re:US National Debt by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      Actually, no less an authority than Sun Tzu stated thousands of years ago that war was always damaging to an economy, prolonged wars even more so. This notion of a war being 'good' for an economy is a modern one, and one that has been shown to be fallacious at best.

  4. In my university... by r6144 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm an EE major, and the teacher keeps saying, "If you graduated two year earlier, companies would literally fight for every one of you... But now...".

    1. Re:In my university... by jon+doh! · · Score: 1

      yeah, but at the same time, after those two years about half of you would've been laid off anyway.

    2. Re:In my university... by TrackDaddy · · Score: 1
      For what it is worth, if that was w/in the last 5 to 10 years, your teacher was buying into a myth. Maybe I'll get modded up so more people can find this link, maybe not. But this is one of the most informative documents I have ever read concerning IT, programmers, and overseas outsourcing. And unlike the drivel that comes from the popular press, this document seems to cover the fact pretty well.

      http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html

      --
      Run! There's a lobster loose!
  5. Welcome to the Global Economy. by flacco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh sure, eveything was fine when it was manufacturing jobs that were exported to other countries. Now that white-collar/no-collar jobs like software development are being exported, suddenly it's alarming.

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    1. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by aergern · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes..and quite a few of those blue collar workers, some of them my friends morgaged their homes and went back to school to get degrees so that they wouldn't have to go through that again. Guess what ..every industry that goes really strong in the U.S. seems to eventually get shipped overseas.

      I read an article on CNN's website about 19 of 50 states have outsourced their call centres to India. So if an unemployed person calls about their check they are talking to someone in India. Sorry buddy but I don't like that use of tax dollars when someone here could do that job. But I guess since they do it at $200 a month instead of $2000 a month ..it's ok. It saves money. They don't lower taxes because of it..they just shove the savings into another pork barrel.

      I was never quite happy with U.S. companies be able to send blue collar jobs out of country and this doesn't set well with me either.

      --
      Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
    2. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by MikeFM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is that blue colar folks can take some night school classes and bump their skills up to white collar. What happens when there aren't enough white collar jobs? Then those blue collar folks are shit out of luck along with a lot of the white colalr folks because there is no place to go. You can't have every American as middle management. How do you make the leap from flipping burgers to managing 10,000 employees in India without anything available in the middle? The way things are going only the lowest shit jobs and the highest rolling in the dough jobs are going to be left in this country. You could raise the taxes for the wealthy to support the lower classes but then they'll just move their assets out of the country to. Then what happens to the US? Nothing good.

      Remember all those sci fi books where machines, ultra-cheap foreign labor, and the affordablity of shipping stuff around turned the USA into a flat broke smoking hole in the ground? Welcome to the future. Maybe if I get some bitchin swords I can deliver pizza.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    3. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by forii · · Score: 1
      Then what happens to the US? Nothing good.

      No, you know what happens? Goods become cheaper and better. I don't have to pay through the nose because some guy thinks he should get $40/hour just to enter numbers into some data base or make a powerpoint presentation. Things become more affordable, more people can afford them, and everyone's quality of life goes up. THAT is what happens.

    4. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by Osty · · Score: 1

      No, you know what happens? Goods become cheaper and better. I don't have to pay through the nose because some guy thinks he should get $40/hour just to enter numbers into some data base or make a powerpoint presentation. Things become more affordable, more people can afford them, and everyone's quality of life goes up. THAT is what happens.

      Even if prices are cut in half or less, how do you plan to pay for those goods with no money? Stuff may get cheaper, but if there aren't any jobs for you, or the jobs you can get pay so much less, then you're not going to be able to afford an appreciably larger amount of stuff. And we all know that it's Stuff that increases the quality of living.


      Also, I'm willing to bet that while some products may be cheaper, other costs will not change. How do you decrease your rent or utility bills by farming out the labor to other countries? If I make $50K/year, pay $800/mo for rent, and can buy shoes for $100, I'm better off than if I make $20K/year, pay $800/mo for rent, and can buy shoes for $20.

    5. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by flacco · · Score: 4, Funny
      No, you know what happens? Goods become cheaper and better. I don't have to pay through the nose because some guy thinks he should get $40/hour just to enter numbers into some data base or make a powerpoint presentation. Things become more affordable, more people can afford them, and everyone's quality of life goes up. THAT is what happens.

      Yeah, I've noticed how affordable those Athlete-endorsed sneakers are now that they pay foreign labor sub-subsistence wages to make their product. They're down to - what - $175 now?

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    6. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by forii · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yeah, I've noticed how affordable those Athlete-endorsed sneakers are now that they pay foreign labor sub-subsistence wages to make their product. They're down to - what - $175 now?


      I wouldn't know, I don't pay for athlete's names on my shoes, I usually just get them at Costco for $20/pair or something. And these are brand-name shoes (I will pay for a brand name, there's usually some correlation with quality there). So yes, I do think that shoes are pretty cheap.

    7. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I have to say is I hope it lasts about 3 or 4 more years. I have a nice steady contracting job for the next 5 years and I'll be wanting to move into a new house in about 3-4 years so I want those interest rates to stay low!!! Please economy, stay in the shitter for a bit longer. I need a good long term interest rate on a home or I'll be stuck with my current low rate in a condo that I want to move out of! I've only been here a year and a half though so if I sell now I'll lose too much. Sorry to the unemployed guys, but shit happens. That's what you all get for rushing out to the coasts, driving up housing and land costs and generally killing the price of living. Companies couldn't afford to do business there anymore and the bubble burst.

    8. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Look at the clothes in places like Dillars, Famous Barr,.... If you do happend to find something made in America. You will see foreign stuff right next to it for almost exactly the same price.
      Are you really better off because you can buy the foreign shirt for a buck or two less. No, not really. Just like with stocks, you have to think long term. You are not better off (unless your one of the bastards using cheap foreign labor and selling it for almost the same price as stuff made here).
      The only ones are the $##(&(& making and selling the goods made in cheapo foreign lands. You pay almost exactly the same price. So like the poster above said. You are out of a job, but paying the same price for everything.

    9. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1

      This is just another dumb move by stupid employers. Dilbert's boss outsourcing things he doesn't understand to people who don't know English and have no running water. Riiiiiight.

      How can people in India honestly compete with us? I got a few Indian call centers before on the phone, it was really annoying trying to talk to them in English when they didn't know what I was saying either. All that did was annoy me and cost that company some money with no results.

      The problem isn't outsourcing to India the problem is the dummies we have here at home who don't know how to run a company without running it into the ground.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
    10. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by sniggly · · Score: 1
      And what happens to private initiative and ingenuity? Companies arent responsible for employing people, companies are often started to make people financially independent (from other companies).

      Then those blue collar folks are shit out of luck along with a lot of the white colalr folks because there is no place to go.

      Sounds more like soviet russia to me. In the US people are personally responsible for their fate. That's a tremendous responsibility and maybe the founding fathers were too forward looking to think that humanity was ready for anything that radical.

      --
      Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
    11. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by isorox · · Score: 1

      I agree with government - they shouldn't be aloud to import anything unless they have to. It's better to spend twice as much for a local product because the money stays in the economy. Fortunatly some councils here in the UK are doing that. They are moving to linux - meaning less money is going to Redmond, and more is going into the IT support market, or being saved completly.

      Private firms can do whatever they want, however I believe they should have to say when they have offshore call centers etc. In supermarekts they label lamb as "New Zealand Lamb", I might decide to spend more and get welsh lamb, because it keeps it in the economy.

    12. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Things become more affordable, more people can afford them, and everyone's quality of life goes up. THAT is what happens.

      Unless the cost goes down to free, you'll be SOL as well because your job (and income) will be overseas as well.

    13. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      hey don't lower taxes because of it..they just shove the savings into another pork barrel.

      Dude. What do you think a "pork barrel" is? It's a wasteful scam to reduce (apparent) unemployment! "A government project or appropriation that yields jobs or other benefits to a specific locale and patronage opportunities to its political representative." It's just like paying an American to do something far above the market rate. They are both wastes of taxpayer money.

    14. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      If you lose your job and can't find another one because it's been sent to India how are you going to buy these cheaper and better things? Sure cheaper and better is great but if you have no money it's not going to help you much. If people don't have jobs then more people can't afford things and the quality of life most certainly doesn't go up.

      Have you seen those automated checkouts at grocery and retail stores? Those are great for convience and no doubt lower prices since they don't have to pay an employee.. but if all blue/white collar jobs are gone and the lowly shit jobs are gone.. how many of us are going to be able to buy from these stores?

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    15. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      There is little room for private initiative when all small businesses are squished by huge global companies that can undercut prices at every step. It'd be great if we could all own our own businesses and do what we liked and make a decent living from it but have you tried it? It doesn't work so well. Anytime you start to make money the business comes into the sites of some global company that floods the market with it's advertising dollars and low prices. Sure a few small businesses can survive but not enough to feed everyone that has been unemployed by those big companies. It's expensive to start your own company. Most unemployed folks can't afford to do it again and again for the small profits they can earn before they are forced out of business.

      It's fine to be responsibile for our own fates but individuals can't fight corporations and win. Not in this country. To much money is passing into the pockets of politicians to give corporations more power than citizens. That and the shortsighted buying habits of most Americans is the root of the problem. People will again and again buy the cheaper product even if they know it was made in India instead of down the street. A bargain today is worth unemployment tomorrow.

      Let people start buying from each other instead of Walmarts. Kill stupid corporate bought extensions to copyright, the DMCA, and all sorts of other shit that empowers corporations. Then sure we can use our own ingenuity to get ahead. Unfortunately I can't see that happening unless we have a complete economic collapse.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    16. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by forii · · Score: 1

      Um, the prices are the same because they have to compete. Cheap imports create downwards pricing pressure, and that is what benefits everyone.

    17. Re:Welcome to the Global Economy. by Dthoma · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is, this is so obvious that even the cartoonist of Dilbert predicted what you describe happening in his book "The Dilbert Future" about seven or eight years ago.

      --

      Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Ties into an earlier Posting... by SerpentMage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My wife who like me is a GenX'r is now a manager in charge of hiring programmers, etc.

    Well when the topic of GenX's who cannot get work came up in SlashDot I talked this over with my wife. She yeah she hires young programmers. I asked how come? She said that they learn quicker and are more flexible.

    I looked at her with amazement and said HUH? Are you bs'ing me? I said you are just as bad as those other managers. Promptly I pointed out that I can learn very quickly, etc, etc. She said, but fine that is you, but not me. I have problems learning these days in contrast to previous years. And GenX's demand too much.

    What I learned from this is as follows:

    1) Managers suck! They look at their own perspective and think the rest of world must be like that.

    2) People like to validate sterotypes. ONLY young people can learn new technologies and are flexible.

    3) GenX's are screwed!

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    1. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Divorce the bitch. Get a younger one. That will change her tune.

    2. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by ruprechtjones · · Score: 1

      I've ran into this quite a bit lately. I am a 32-year old designer, now competing with 22-year olds for gigs. It is tough, 75% of the companies that I am soliciting want quick, specific work done, and don't require an art director for 75/hour. They'd rather grab a junior designer for 30/hour that doesn't think much, just powers through Photoshop and gets the job done, no questions asked. This is killing me, especially when I see a better solution to the overall problem that we're working on, and I want to offer my advice, but I have to remember that I was hired for 30/hour and I'm not required to think about my temporary boss's probs and how to solve them. Arggh. And I cannot get hired to upper-echelon management right off the bat, so I'm playing this game I hate. I'm lucky to get work, but I keep my mouth shut and take the lower wages for now. Foot in the door, and all that.

      --
      Kip Hawley is an idiot.
    3. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by bad_fx · · Score: 1
      My wife who like me is a GenX'r is now a manager....
      ...
      1) Managers suck!....
      ...
      3) GenX's are screwed!

      Dude, you sure like insulting yourself and your wife. :P
    4. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by Vellmont · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe it's time to get a new wife. Sounds pretty callous to me, but then I'm an unemployed GenXer ;).

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by krumms · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What I learned from this is as follows:

      1) Managers suck! They look at their own perspective and think the rest of world must be like that.

      2) People like to validate sterotypes. ONLY young people can learn new technologies and are flexible.

      3) GenX's are screwed!

      I like to think of myself as a pretty fast learner - I'm 19, doing the rounds at uni, and have taught myself a bunch of different programming languages ranging from PHP and Python to C/C++ and Java.

      However, I fail to see the logic behind the idea that 'young people learn faster'. A person's ability to learn is not a function of their age.

      I know for a fact, through all the personal research I've done into things related to software engineering, that in order to do the job properly a little more care (read: 'time') has to be taken to plan things out in advance. The inexperienced software engineer, otoh, will run into the problem and solve it with little thought - often resulting in a monolithic, incohesive mess that's impossible to extend should the need ever arise.

      I know for a fact that most students my age don't give a fuck about good software engineering practices - 'software engineering principles' to them is just another unit to study up to the exam and then forget about. So they'll get out of uni and will no doubt get a job somewhere developing software, and most of them will do a shit job. But they're fast, and if they're fast, they make the managers look good in the short term. If the managers are made to look good, then they're going to keep doing what they're doing.

      So I think it's not that managers 'look from their own perspective', but that they seek professional recognition from their bosses. And in order to stay 'competitive', so to speak, with other hirers-and-firers, they work towards what's best for them - not what's best for the company.

      And besides, your wife has no argument. What the fuck sort of a reason is 'they can learn quicker'? So what? Seasoned developers have less to learn anyway!

      I have problems learning these days in contrast to previous years. And GenX's demand too much.

      Don't take this the wrong way, but your wife's a fucking idiot. Last I checked, you get what you pay for - and at the moment I'd bet she's paying for green, poorly trained, ill experienced code monkeys.

      Here's hoping somebody comes across the shitty code written by all the people she's hired, and raises the alarm.

    6. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know, it is not safe saying your wife sucks as a Manager on slashdot. What if she is reading ?

    7. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by krumms · · Score: 1

      lmfao!

    8. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      You have pinpointed the fundenmental problem. I was in the same boat as you. Result? I partially shifted careers. I do not do programming anymore, but I write technical books. Granted the money is not what it used to be. But the upside is that once I get going the royalities should start adding up.

      Luckily I have always written, but these days people are asking me to write it pays...

      But it does suck, let me tell you. Went from wanted by ooodles of companies to "Who are you?"

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    9. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      Actually I did say to her that it was pretty callous. Then my comment was, "Hey what the hell is that kind of attitude. You are just propagating sterotype that should never have existed in the first place".

      But getting a new wife? NAAAA...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    10. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by dalutong · · Score: 1

      I hope everything works out between you two.


      Or else this will give a whole new meaning to the Slashdot Effect.



      --

      What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
    11. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      However, I fail to see the logic behind the idea that 'young people learn faster'. A person's ability to learn is not a function of their age.

      Actually yes, it is. It's probably not physiological, but rather has to do with environment. I still consider myself to be a kid at 27 yet I have no time or patience to learn any new programming languages unless I actally take a course in it. There's just too many demands between a full time job, a wife, and eventually kids that you begin to realize there are more important things to life than being someone's drone. At 19 you probably haven't realized that yet... I sure didn't. Life is not work and work is not life. It's a necessity to bring in income so that you can have a life, but I try never to have it impact my life when I can avoid it. I don't work any time over 40 hours in a week since I'd be required to get prior approval for overtime. If it's 10am on a Friday and I've put in extra hours during the week to have 40 hours, I go home.

    12. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's the whole problem, not the workers. The pointy haired bosses don't know what the *&^^%* they are doing. There aren't enough jobs because there aren't enough intelligent people actually running these companies. Look at Enron - these guys had money coming out the wazoo and they couldn't even run the company legally. What a bunch of idiots! Techies need to become the company owners and managers and push the pointy haired out of business. It isn't hard to compete with incompetent fools. Let them hire Russians or Indians and be surprised when it doesn't work. Then intelligent companies can have the best workers, those right here in America. The McDonaldisation of America doesn't work. You can't McDondize everything. How about importing doctors from India too. Put those snotty physicians who think they should make all that money out on the street. See how intelligent that argument is?

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
    13. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by giblfiz · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't know if she will learn faster, but she's bound to be more flexsable.

    14. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Programming is NOT about knowing as many programming languages as possible.

      Programming is NOT about writing as many lines of code as possible in a day.

      Young programmers will typically write two to three times more lines of code than needed for the task at hand. They will make around five times more mistakes per line of code. Do the math. (If you can't, get a different job.)

      Nevertheless young programmers will not catch error situations. They will merrily assume that all system calls work all the time. If pressed hard enough, they will admit to not knowing what to do if the call fails. Well, even if you can't prevent your program from crashing and burning, a line in a trace file giving a clue would be nice. (You should see their eyes light up when you point this out.)

      Young programmers have not yet found out that their software will behave differently on their own PC, on the test team's machines, and on the customer's machines. They do not program for robustness.

      Young programmers insist on doing everything themselves. There might be a standard function, there might be an algorithm, there might be a tool - after all, someone else has usually had your problem before you at least 99% of the time. Experienced programmers will look for existing solutions before they start solving a problem that they do not need to solve.

      Experienced programmers will intuitively avoid risks. They will not code what does not have to be coded. They will not modify what works well.

      If there is an inexplicable problem (ideally earlier), experienced programmers will check if the library or toolkit they are using might have a documented bug. If not, they will write a couple of test cases and then submit a bug report. (This saved a project that used a buggy SNMP library for 18 months.)

      Programming IS about knowing your own limits, and programming around them, just as you would program around hardware limits. When you have learned not to write "if (a = 1)" in C but "if (1 == a)", you will next learn that you are now capable of much more creative mistakes.

      Programming IS about knowing how to deal with the fact that you make mistakes. I met a guy who denied having written a bug in a six-liner in the face of a test case. I fear he'll run amok one day if he does not adjust.

      Programming IS about finding the structures in the problem space and translating them into code structures, then documenting them in a way that YOU understand them when you have been away from the project for six months.

      Programming IS about team building. Learn to get on with your colleagues who may or may not be more gifted or more experienced.

      Programming is about process. Experienced programmers have learned how to avoid being a nuisance for (e.g.) the test team. They may not know the programming language of the week, but when they deliver it'll be tested (including unusual cases), and the things that matter will be documented and/or commented. "int i = 3; /* Initialize i to 3. */" ring a bell?

      In two years, look at the code you have written yesterday. It will make you want to puke. (If it doesn't, you have not learned enough, and you should prepare to quit.) And then you will appreciate that experience counts.

      The problem is, management and customers EXPECT software to be shitty. They have grown used to it. And KLOC per day is the only productivity number they are interested in. As long as the pile of shit, ahm, the product is out the door not too long after it was due, all is well for them. So starting to code early, ideally before any specifications exist, is logical, even essential to them. Management can no longer imagine any other way of producing software. It has reached the point where programmers are not given time to learn the tools that were introduced to improve productivity.

      What's more, if you think you know many programming languages, you will probably not know them well, and get caught by simple but basic things or small differences between the languages.

      For example, there was this cow-orker who insisted on padding his integer constants with leading zeroes "because they look better if they're all the same length". Then he was transferred to this Java project...

    15. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      4) Your wife is having an affair with the guys she hires. ;-)

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    16. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by TrackDaddy · · Score: 1
      All I can say is "read it and weep"...

      http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html

      --
      Run! There's a lobster loose!
    17. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ha!

    18. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You apparantly have not heard how skewed marital separation and divorce laws are in the US. She will probably be happier, getting a nice monthly "stipend."

    19. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A person's ability to learn is not a function of their age."

      On a case by case basis, which is how people SHOULD be evaluated, you are correct.

      However, scientifically in broad, population en masse, terms, you are wrong. Learning goes down. A lot of professional schools expend a lot of effort into teaching their studies about adult learning, and by adult, they don't mean age. They mean time, ability, and mental capacity. The ability to learn has not changed, but HOW you learn certainly does change (and, for me, it has, although I learn a lot more than I did than when I was younger).

    20. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by krumms · · Score: 1

      Programming is NOT about knowing as many programming languages as possible.

      Programming is NOT about writing as many lines of code as possible in a day.

      Nor did I once say that it was.

      Programming IS about knowing your own limits, and programming around them, just as you would program around hardware limits. When you have learned not to write "if (a = 1)" in C but "if (1 == a)", you will next learn that you are now capable of much more creative mistakes.

      I think I first read about this in McConnell's Code Complete. It's a good idea, as are most bits of advice in that book. Thank you for your little rant on what programming 'IS'. Moving on ...

      The problem is, management and customers EXPECT software to be shitty. They have grown used to it. And KLOC per day is the only productivity number they are interested in.

      Now this I agree with. Metrics, metrics, metrics. This is something I wouldn't know, but how many developers themselves keep a proper track of metrics other than KLOC? The 'bugs per line of code' metric I feel would prove invaluable here -> so if a manager complains about the speed of your work, you can point him/her toward the facts. That said, I'd be willing to bet he/she wouldn't even read it.

      What's more, if you think you know many programming languages, you will probably not know them well, and get caught by simple but basic things or small differences between the languages.

      Thanks for the little personal attack. Fact: I can confidently say that I have a firm enough grip on three of the languages I know (PHP, Java and C++) to the point where I know I won't get caught up in any 'small differences' between the languages.

      As for the rest of your post, for most part I agree. Next time, however, you'd probably best to shove your grazing little remarks up your own ass.

    21. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by CoolGuySteve · · Score: 1

      I know what you mean, I'm a Computer Science undergrad and I've had this experience in group projects. I always try to make the program as scalable as possible with lots of places for hooks and modular components. Most of the partners I've had (well, the ones who are competent in programming at least) write brutal code that uses a lot of clever one-line tricks and is impossible to read or modify by anyone else.

      But at least it's done fast. That is, until there's a bug in that line that does everything and is either obscure or 200 characters long.

      It seems like there's a kind of mental masturbation involved to write the most concise and elaborate piece of code possible when people should be striving to write the most scalable code possible.

      The curriculum is ok, they do focus on heavy use of objects from the beginning but they never really say why or demonstrate why not.

    22. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by forii · · Score: 1
      I like to think of myself as a pretty fast learner - I'm 19...A person's ability to learn is not a function of their age.


      Ah yes... spoken like someone who's 19 and thinks that they're immortal.

    23. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by krumms · · Score: 1

      heavy use of objects from the beginning but they never really say why or demonstrate why not.

      Let me guess: Java?

      I've read about the new generations of programmers being at an advantage when it comes to learning OOP because they don't have to 'unlearn' the old procedural style. 'Great,' think the lecturers, 'Now we can throw big words like "polymorphism" and "inheritance" into the mix without explaining what the hell you'd use it for - that ought to screw them up come exam time!'. And then there's those lecturers who do stress what you can use such things for, but who stress it too much: inheritance over aggregation and all that shit. Well, it's not that they stress inheritance BEFORE aggregation, but that they spend so much time explaining what inheritance/polymorphism/other-big-programmy-word IS, that obvious uses of aggregation - where it would be simpler and/or cleaner to use over inheritance - are just ... I don't know ... forgotten, I guess.

      Anyway, exam for me today - better get some sleep. Thanks for all the interesting posts, and thanks for sharing the opinion of another undergrad, CGS.

    24. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by krumms · · Score: 1

      :) Clever. I was actually alluding to a 40-something year-old friend of mine who manages to ace most of his exams and assignments - he never finished high school and has spent the last twenty years of his life on a boat. Then he comes into university and starts kicking ass as far as picking things up goes. Go figure.

    25. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by forii · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't deny that people can be successful as they get older, but that's also because older people have more experience to compensate. Just for instance, and I'm not saying this is necessarily true about your friend, when you're 19 there are a lot more distractions from school, like girls (or boys), drinking, girls (or boys) again, partying, etc. A 40-something year old is probably better at avoiding these distractions and focusing on studying. That's where the experience comes in, when they realize that they are no longer able to stay out all night, cram through the books in the morning and still retain it all. So even if there is a little bit of loss of mental quickness it can be made up in other ways.

      Now as far as sheer brain power, where just being "brilliant" is important, it's interesting to look at the field of Mathematics. Most mathematicians reach their peak in their 20s, or even earlier, and then fade after that: GÃdel published his incompleteness theorem at age 25, Descartes did most of his math work before he was 30, Newton invented calculus when he was 25. OF course there are exceptions, like Gauss and Euler, but there are very very few that remain productive (in a pure innovative sense) all the way through their lives.

    26. Re:Ties into an earlier Posting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any company that doesn't have a range of experienced programmers and young programmers is hosed. There is code that a young programmer can never get right and there is code that isn't worth the sr. programmers time to write.

      As with life, a balance is necessary. Only hiring young programmers is a quick way to get unmaintainable/buggy code. They just do not have the experience and amazingly they will get the experience only through their own mistakes. Which unfortunately, is now in the company code base.

  8. Don't forget about the president! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't forget about the president's impact on the economy.

    It's been a long time since we've had such an idiot in the whitehouse: not elected, taking away your rights, giving disproportanate tax cuts to his wealthy friends, ignoring corporate execs who have cost the economy billions, fighting questionable wars.

    He's making us into servants.

    1. Re:Don't forget about the president! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very true sir ! hope the guys are cleaned up in the coming elections

    2. Re:Don't forget about the president! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and all the Libertarians who voted for him scratching their heads and wondering how he got elected, and then writing essays on their websites using words like "clintonistas"

    3. Re:Don't forget about the president! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      God you're such a dumb-ass. You really have bought the liberal story hook, line, and sinker haven't you? Here's a clue: take five minutes to read up on how Federal spending works. Done? You will have found that the President doesn't spend money, the House of Representatives does. Sure the President can submit his wish list (aka his budget) but it doesn't really mean much at all.

      If you want to continue to think the President is responsible for the economy, consider that something as large as the economy doesn't turn on a dime. It takes years for a policy change to really take effect. Consider the possibility that Clinton enjoyed the benefits of policies enacted by Republican presidents and now Bush is suffering from the policies of a Democratic president.

      However, the people who really affect the economy are the consumers.

      Btw: this President was elected using the same rules everyone ran under and was fairly elected. Get over it. Those corporporate executives flourished while Clinton was in office. If you want to talk about taking away rights, study the War on Drugs under Clinton. To finish on questionable wars: let's talk about the War Clinton started in Yugoslavia to distract us from Monica.

      Remember: for every difficult question (such as how to diagnose and fix the economy) there is a quick answer that is wrong (such as blame an individual or political party). In reality there isn't a nickle's worth of difference between the GOP and Dems and I could have easily argued in the other direction.

    4. Re:Don't forget about the president! by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yes.

      Bush's first chief economic advisor, Lawrence Linsay, came from Enron. So did the U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick. Bush's energy policy was based on discussions between Cheney and Enron's Ken Lay.

      One of the most important jobs of the President is to appoint good people. On the economic side, Bush's appointments have been terrible. Bush can find good people - his chief political advisor, Karl Rove, the man who got him elected, is brilliant. But his economic team is all crony capitalists. Third-rate crony capitalists, from companies that have tanked. These are the people that insist a tax cut will solve all problems.

      Bush's current economic advisor is Stephen Friedman, formerly head of Goldman Sachs, the investment bankers who took many of the dot-coms public. After five months on the job, he hasn't accomplished much.

    5. Re:Don't forget about the president! by Imperator · · Score: 1

      Servents get paid. The word you're looking for is "slaves".

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
  9. I remember way back when I had a job. by sakusha · · Score: 4, Funny

    Back when I was a young'n, we had these things called JOBS. We had to walk 5 miles through 6 foot snowdrifts just to get to work, then labored until we were exhausted. And we LIKED it!

  10. Will anything be done in developed countries? by AngusH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With the demise of so called 'blue collar' jobs and now the demise of 'white collar' jobs, what, if anything will actually be done in developed western countries like the United States and Europe?

    It seems the only thing that will be left is retail and the public sector. But where will people obtain money to buy things in stores if all other activities occur in less developed/cheaper countries. We can't all work in shops or government, can we? The balance of payments would be totally off-balanced if we did.

    The current arrangement cannot last.
    1. Re:Will anything be done in developed countries? by Ruie · · Score: 1
      Science, for once.

      Sure, people in other countries can do it too, but:

      • you can never have enough of it
      • US won't like being left in the dust
    2. Re:Will anything be done in developed countries? by jakobk · · Score: 1

      Lawyers and other meta-worker parasites.

    3. Re:Will anything be done in developed countries? by panaceaa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not an economist, but this is how I understand it:

      International inbalance in supply and demand is mostly solved through exchange rate fluctuations. When jobs and investment are move out of the US, the American exchange rate is drops. This is because the things Americans make are too expensive compared to equivalents offered by other economies. But as the exchange rate gets lower, things become more affordable to other countries. And as it lowers, at some point the exchange rate will drop to a level where things are as affordable as they used to be. Trading will resume at the same level it used to in US dollars, even though people outside the US will be paying less for the same goods and services. Ignoring worker efficiency improvements, at this point the economy will return to normal.

      However, the great tech boom of the 90s did a lot to improve worker efficiency. Now that corporate revenues are lower, companies are finally starting to implement systems for their cost savings. Software such as Enterprise Resource Management and Customer Relationship Management tools reduce the need for workers, while the Internet allows workers to be moved to more affordable locations. These technologies are causing the recovery to take longer, but at some time the supply and demand will be rebalanced.

    4. Re:Will anything be done in developed countries? by kvonhorn · · Score: 1

      Well, with Bush making noise last year about privatizing up to half of the public sector jobs, I think it's safe to say that most of the jobs left in this country will be in retail and the service industry.

      Where will all the money to spend come from? Tax cuts. The reduced taxes on my unemployment, for example, stimulate the economy by allowing me to buy a month's supply of Top Ramen. I'm not sure how that's going to help create 1.4 million new jobs in the next couple years, but I'm sure that once we're all working again, the true genius of the president will be obvious.

    5. Re:Will anything be done in developed countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'twould be great, but remember, the USA is a country known abroad for it's collection of ignorant, drunk, womanizing, moralless ... you get the picture. And quite often, the stereotypes are not too far from the truth, even the people who think that they are not; are. A possible solution to America's money problems is a massive prostitution and drug markets. Everybody everywhere wants some, and the money's good!

    6. Re:Will anything be done in developed countries? by hknust · · Score: 1

      No. The exchange rate among other factors depends on ALL goods and services traded between countries, the interest rate levels, etc. What you had in mind is the adjustment mechanism in a particular market. If there is a disparity between quantity demanded and supplied, price adjustments will cause a return to equilibrium.

      But you could sum up the article like this:
      Services where mostly non-tradeable goods about 10 years ago. With the help of the Internet, some are now. I still can't have my hamburger assembled in Malaysia and shipped to the US, but I can have a CPA in Bangalore work on my US tax return.

      To the question what will be done in developed countries? As those new jobs in India will create income in India, Indian companies will spend on capital (one of the factors of production) Higher levels of capital will make people more productive and therefore allows them to earn higher wages. Eventually (long term) you'll find that the price of the service does not differ from the price paid in the US. (Very oversimplified) So if you work in position that could be done anywhere, better watch out.

      Shoot, that is me too :-(

    7. Re:Will anything be done in developed countries? by Scarblac · · Score: 1

      With the demise of so called 'blue collar' jobs and now the demise of 'white collar' jobs, what, if anything will actually be done in developed western countries like the United States and Europe?

      Our economies will go down, our money will go down, until at last we're competitive again, albeit at a somewhat lower standard of living. In exchange for which, theirs will be somewhat raised.

      The good thing is, that in theory, the average level of the world should go up, since this sort of thing is more efficient. But globalization is the great equalizer - and we're way on top at the moment.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    8. Re:Will anything be done in developed countries? by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

      I don't know if this answers your question, but the US- India trade balance is still heavily tilted towards the US. That is, the US still exports more than it imports from India.

      IT companies hate the strengthening Indian Rupee, but people like my dad, who earns in Indian Rupees, love it. :-)

    9. Re:Will anything be done in developed countries? by matttastic · · Score: 1

      There's just a slump in the "blue collar" and "white collar" markets - the jobs are still there, just less of them.

    10. Re:Will anything be done in developed countries? by russellh · · Score: 1

      The practice of law. Lawyers. Justice for all. Patriotism. Wal-Mart. 20 ton SUVs. Green, green grass. and... lawyers.

      --
      must... stay... awake...
    11. Re:Will anything be done in developed countries? by Andrewkov · · Score: 1
      With the demise of so called 'blue collar' jobs and now the demise of 'white collar' jobs, what, if anything will actually be done in developed western countries like the United States and Europe?

      The future will be in the service industry .. people will pay to feel good. We can't compete with third world countries in manufacturing.

    12. Re:Will anything be done in developed countries? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Software such as Enterprise Resource Management and Customer Relationship Management tools reduce the need for workers,

      My impression is that these tools are getting mixed reviews. Custom versions of such software has existed long before those buzzwords. The battle is between custom versions and pre-packaged versions (and some in-between models). The pre-packaged ones have been critisized for not bending enough to fit the company using them.

      The jury is still in session on this issue. Regardless, the pre-packaged ones are not a slam-dunk success.

    13. Re:Will anything be done in developed countries? by akuma(x86) · · Score: 1

      There's this thing called innovation. It is the primary driver of the economy. Forget about interest rates, the dollar vs. the euro, trade deficits and national debt... These are important and have measurable effects, but they should be treated as mere distractions.

      To stay on top of things and become a global leader you need to do something that no one else can do because it has never been done before.

      Innovate my friends. Think out of the box. Take a risk. Silicon valley was built on people tinkering in their garages. It's what has kept America on top for so long - and will continue to do so IMHO.

  11. It is a sad trend by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That companies keep outsourcing things to foreign countries. Of course, it saves them money, but at what cost? As they do that, unemployment in the US will only rise. I guess the prospect of higher profit margins outshines the prospect of giving a hard-working American a job.

    Ok, let's say that these things do allow for more investment into other markets. But with the US economy in the shape it is in right now, will these companies want to spend the money on possibly risky ventures into new markets, or just claim the money as profit and make all their execs super rich with fat bonuses.

    Or maybe I'm bitter because I can't find a job.

    --
    There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    1. Re:It is a sad trend by Mistlefoot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just as YOU outsource to foreign countries.

      See where your car is made, your shoes, your computer, tv - the list goes on. But you save money. The problem isn't your country as much as it is you. Pay more, buy local or take your share of the blame.

    2. Re:It is a sad trend by kurosawdust · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm not proposing to know what the solution is, but a big chunk of the problem is that consumers almost never see their purchases as having any effect other than having them end up with X less money and Y more stuff. A choice between two companies' products, one at $1.99 and one at $2.99 doesn't involve consideration of the companies' practices in the mind of the consumer (in fact, extraordinarily few consumers know the policies/histories of _any_ companies whose products they buy). The choice is simply 2.99 > 1.99, therefore I'll go with the 1.99.

      I dont mean to imply that I thoroughly research Wonder Bread's history of its management's dealings with labor before i buy a loaf; i have no clue what the companies who make most of the products i buy do, and (this is the worse problem, IMO) even when i do find out horrible things about companies, they rarely stick in my head long enough to affect purchasing decisions.

      I think the incredible penetration of advertising into the culture and average person's home is partly to blame as well - for every one report of Nike's child-labor dealings a person sees on the news, how many Nike ads does that person see? 10? 100? 1,000?

      Sorry, rambling. Just some thoughts to exercise my hands and burn up good karma :P

    3. Re:It is a sad trend by panaceaa · · Score: 1

      You know how companies are more concerned about their stock price than just about anything? Well, watch the stock market on a day the monthly employment numbers come out. If there's higher unemployment, the markets usually go up. Why? Because companies can give smaller salary increases and they can acquire new employees for a lowered cost (in both salary and search time).

      I haven't paid attention to the employment report's effect on the markets lately, but during the bubble the market would always drop if there was lower unemployment. At that time, it meant it would be even more expensive to get new technology workers... but even now the economics of hiring remain the same.

    4. Re:It is a sad trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Of course, it saves them money, but at what cost? As they do that, unemployment in the US will only rise."

      Why should corporations care?

      It's quite hilarious to read these comments. Large corporations have been exploiting people for many decades. There is nothing new here. But suddenly this is a bad thing since middle-class americans are now beign exploited...

    5. Re:It is a sad trend by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      Or maybe I'm bitter because I can't find a job.

      Should this be blamed on outsourcing to foreign countries, or does it have something to do with the time spent complaining about outsourcing on Slashdot?

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    6. Re:It is a sad trend by Enraged_jawa · · Score: 1

      "thoroughly research Wonder Bread's history of its management's dealings with labor before i buy a loaf;"

      Wonder Bread? You can squeze a loaf of that stuff into a lump the size of a golf ball; it is mostly air whipped into the dough to make it look bigger than the other brands. Make it look bigger and us Americans will buy it.

    7. Re:It is a sad trend by smallpaul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That companies keep outsourcing things to foreign countries. Of course, it saves them money, but at what cost? As they do that, unemployment in the US will only rise. I guess the prospect of higher profit margins outshines the prospect of giving a hard-working American a job.

      So unemployment in America goes up and unemployment in India goes down and that is a problem because...Americans are just entitled to a better standard of living? Or because American businesses are supposed to be nationalistic rather than internationalistic? That doesn't make much sense to me. Westerners are pampered and I don't see anything wrong with spreading some of the juice around to the developing world. We'll all be better off in the long term if we move towards a world where people's opportunities depend upon what they can do and not where they were born.

    8. Re:It is a sad trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "See where your car is made, your shoes, your computer, tv -"

      Car - US (Dodge, before Daimler merger)
      Shoes - US (for sure, except maybe the soles)
      Computer - Taiwan company (for such stuff, that's pretty damn close)
      TV - NetTV and a Zenith

      Most of the stuff I buy I try to buy US. Always will. Problem is, in the global economy and the complexity of today's purchases, stuff comes from all over. My Dodge was assembled in the US, but I'm sure I read somewhere 20% of the parts were imported. Similarly, Toyota and probably other Japanese countries have US manufacturing plants and parts.

      Zenith used to be a US company. Then they got bought out. I no longer have a clue where they are made. NetTV uses Sampo tubes, which I believe is Taiwan based.

      I use Via boards. Probably made in Taiwan, but late last year I learned that a lot of Japanese and some Taiwan companies were outsourcing parts and even complete manufacturer to places like China and Korea. Hell, I don't even know of a US motherboard manufacturer....heck, I don't even know of a US cathode ray tube or LCD maker anymore that I can buy from.

      (Which, oddly enough, is one of the multitide of odd reasons why I'll attempt to build my next car myself--once i figure out the legality and all.)

      It's hard as hell to tell where something is made these days. I have a fair amount of knowledge of some construction work, and there, even the lumber seems to be coming from Canada. Steel or cast iron? A lot of it seems to be coming from Korea.

      I save money because really I save time because I'm clueless where to find near 100% US made products. Even if I wanted to pay more, I would be wanting for products to buy.

    9. Re:It is a sad trend by daveisoverlord · · Score: 1

      We'll all be better off in the long term if we move towards a world where people's opportunities depend upon what they can do and not where they were born.

      I don't think that supports your argument. It looks like the best place to be born these days, if you want a programming job, is India.

      Wouldn't the "what they can do" argument support keeping the jobs in the US? I think there's a larger base of more experienced programmers in the US.

      Why should Indians get those jobs just because of where they're born?

      --
      The perception of reality is more important than reality itself.
    10. Re:It is a sad trend by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      I don't think that supports your argument. It looks like the best place to be born these days, if you want a programming job, is India.

      First, you don't have to be born in India. You can move there without immigration complications. They would love to have rich westerners moving over, bringing their savings. The reverse is not true. Second, if you drop your wage demands to the American minimum wage you will find that you can get jobs too.

      Wouldn't the "what they can do" argument support keeping the jobs in the US? I think there's a larger base of more experienced programmers in the US.

      Yes, but they want more money. If/when programming is a minimum wage job here, Indian programmers will probably be driven out of business because when you put a low price together with proximity to the customer the American programmer wins. But the truth is that most American programmers would rather export their jobs than work at minimum wage (I would!). So be it. They are willing to do the same work for less, they win.

      Why should Indians get those jobs just because of where they're born?

      Indians get the job because they have lesser wage expectations which is partially a function of their lower cost of living and partially a function of their lower expectations in terms of big screen TVs and J2ME cell phones.

  12. Interesting trend... by TWX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've noticed that lots of people who were highly paid during the dotcom boom are not recovering well, despite the existence of jobs, only requiring a little bit of creativity to find them. I wouldn't say that things are in the overinflated state they were, with people being paid $100K for basic system administration, but jobs can be found. I think that the problem is that most of the people who were making the insane dollars they were don't want to take on a $30K-$40K job, even if basic administration or technician work will pay the bills. They can't forget the lavish lifestyles that they lived.

    I was affected by it too, for I managed to get out of field techin' to start doing Quality Assurance Engineering. That job lasted a year. When it ended, I looked for other QA jobs, basic IS admin jobs, and the like, and I ended having to go back to what I knew very well, which was field tech. It's not the most fun, the most glamourous, but it does pay the rent, gets me away from a desk all day, and doesn't leave me sitting at home feeling dejected for myself for being unemployed for months and months.

    If the market picks up, and QA positions become available in the money and stability that I want, I may leave my current job for one. Until that time arrives, I'm going to be happy where I am. It's not perfect, but life isn't fair, and those that get off their asses and try to make something for themselves will be a lot happier than those who give up.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Interesting trend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      existence of jobs, only requiring a little bit of creativity to find them

      Like all the unemployed tech workers around here who are selling plasma to eat?

      There's a little restaurant here in Portland that gets 20 resumes per day from people looking for jobs as waitresses and brtenders. 75% have college degrees on them.

      Four years ago I was doing $125/hr consulting. Now I'm applying for jobs down to $13/hr and getting nothing. Nobody wants to hire someone with $125 ability for a $13 job. The good jobs are gone.

    2. Re:Interesting trend... by MyHair · · Score: 1

      I think that the problem is that most of the people who were making the insane dollars they were don't want to take on a $30K-$40K job, even if basic administration or technician work will pay the bills.

      I was in a similar situation three years ago. In 2000 I had quit two jobs and was looking for something that paid at least $50k and was otherwise palatable for me. I had an interesting and stable job offer, but it was "only for $28k" and I refused it.

      I ran though all my money and doubled my debt before I decided I couldn't hold out anymore and got a retail job.

      A month or so later I finally landed a tech job again at $30k, way less than I had made two jobs ago and way way less than I thought I was worth. But by then my ego was nonexistent and I was thrilled to be back in the industry.

      I later went back to the employer I had been steady with before 2000 because they made it worth my while and were more stable than my $30k job.

      An ego is a very expensive thing to have. I'll have all that debt paid of within a year, and next time I'm out of a job I'll take that $28k tech job instead of turning my nose up at it. If you plan ahead (i.e., don't drive expensive cars or carry CC debt) you can easily pay your bills with $28k or even much less.

    3. Re:Interesting trend... by TWX · · Score: 1

      "An ego is a very expensive thing to have. I'll have all that debt paid of within a year, and next time I'm out of a job I'll take that $28k tech job instead of turning my nose up at it. If you plan ahead (i.e., don't drive expensive cars or carry CC debt) you can easily pay your bills with $28k or even much less."

      Definitely. That's the thing from when I was unemployed that I'm sure saved my butt, I didn't have any credit cards or credit card debt, and I had a reliable vehicle that I paid $2000 for that had low insurance because it was a decade old. Unemployment compensation paid for my rent and utilities, and my parents were willing to stock me with food that required me to learn to cook a little bit. Those four months sucked (including the two months after the WTC attacks especially), but not having significant expenses helped immensely.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:Interesting trend... by puckhead · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I went from an 80 hour 80K dotcom job to a 40 hour 50K operations management job. I spent the 7 months I was out of work getting myself some more business skillz. People who can apply tech knowledge to business problems are still in demand.

      --
      Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
    5. Re:Interesting trend... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      I'm one of those that made 30k a year, and I haven't recovered well at all either. Not everyone out there looking for IT work was a 19 year no college, this startup is great white-collar worker. I joined an established company in my mid 20's with a 4 year degree, in IT. And it's been 18+ months.

    6. Re:Interesting trend... by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      I read all about the qualified people who can't find jobs, but I have not seen it first hand. My employer is actively hiring for senior QA jobs. The resumes that actually land on my desk look good, almost too good. When I interview these people, almost ALL of them haved lied on their resumes. They say they have a Masters degree in CS and are C++ experts, but they don't know what a pointer is or how to find the length of a C string. Their resumes say they know JavaScript, but when I ask them to solve some JavaScript code problems, they admit they can't because they have not used JavaScript in 4 years and must have the docs in front of them to remember the syntax.

      Where are all the qualified people? I assume they are the ones who still have jobs because they are certainly not the people who I am interviewing..

    7. Re:Interesting trend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      duh. Actually look for people, quit using the headhunter morons. They're dumber than those idiots you have interviewed.

    8. Re:Interesting trend... by sega · · Score: 1

      hey, what about all the 'requirements' that companies ask for in position descriptions? A lot of people looking for jobs see crazy things like, Java programmer with 20 years experience and stuff like that?--it's nuts. I've seen some adverts asking for knowlege in have a dozen or more languages(including knowledge of .net and J2EE archictecture) plus networking experience and CCNA+MCSE certs.

      That to me is indicative of HR not doing it's job properly. I realize that this may not be applicable to your situation.(probably not) However, I do honestly believe that the skills asked for are overkill in many cases.

      I think people looking for jobs now just think that the HR people don't have a clue and so they just state that they know this language or that even if they've only dabbled in it for half an hour because lets face it, the things that some position descriptions ask for is rediculas. No person could have all the skills they want?--ok maybe 0.01%

      btw--I'm not really addressing you specifically, rather I'm just commenting on the industry in general.

  13. Solution? Try a different career... by Rinikusu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know it's not glamorous, but think about it...
    All of my computer-industry related friends bemoan the state of the industry, in general. Those of us who have jobs face lower pay, longer hours, and general harassment by management, as management knows if we don't, there's 10 others out there that will. Talk about bum luck.
    However, most of my friends who are skilled "trademen" of some sort are all working. They may not make the big bucks (although most of them still make in the $12-15 range locally, which is a decent sum), they're working. And when there's no work, well, it's time to kick back and relax. Isn't this what life's supposed to be about? (fortunately, there's never been a prolonged period of no-work for them, I can imagine a long spout would trigger the same anxieties we've faced: How are we gonna pay the rent? Food? Utilities? Of course, most of them fall into the "Fuck the rent, I'm getting a tattoo" category, but that's another story). What do they do?
    Plumbers. People still shit and piss and pipes still get clogged.
    HVAC. Gotta have A/C in the summer and heat in the winter around here (your mileage may vary depending upon your locale).
    Welders.
    Construction workers (ever see Office Space?)
    Painters
    Tilesetters
    Manual Laborers.

    Like I said, it's not glamorous, but you may actually find you enjoy doing such work. And it adds to your skillset in general (Ever see those Carlton Sheets ads? Buy property, fix it up yourself, sell for profit. In today's economy, the interest rates are spot on and lots of property is available on the cheap). And it gets you out of the house. Your parents will be proud.

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  14. Bartending by ari_j · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not to give up my secret or anything, but I've figured out how to get through this, for me at least...

    When you were laid off/graduated college to discover no jobs available/etc., where did you go first? Same place I did, I bet. The bar. And you probably spend most of the money you do come up with right there, tipping those bartenders that best help you drink away the economy...

    So I just completed bartending school, and I'm already fighting off job offers. A perfect complement to my CS degree for sure, based on my new economic theory.

    1. Re:Bartending by ruprechtjones · · Score: 1

      You may have something there. I've been condidering this myself. If not for the mediocre cash, at least for the lively conversations throughout the day... On another note, I've landed one of my best clients in the past by meeting him at a bar, both of us sitting side by side getting smashed on cheap greyhounds, trying to forget our jobs. We still talk occasionally.

      --
      Kip Hawley is an idiot.
    2. Re:Bartending by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Would but I don't really have the money and I'm possibly to anti-social to be a good bartender. I would be a pretty good bouncer. (Big, tall, strong, scary looking, mutters weird things.) I've yet to get an interview as a bouncer or security guard yet though. Not sure what other jobs would let me violate my fellow citizens right to party. I don't think I could be a cop, spook, or soldier.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    3. Re:Bartending by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      So I just completed bartending school

      Bartending School ?, your kidding right ?. I work in a bar, actually it's what we in the uk call a "pub" (short for "public house"). It's one of the most demanding types of barwork avaliable, you have regulars who expect you to be happy and willing to converse with them all the time (some of them have glasses with their names on), and on a friday or saturday night the bars are three or four people deep. I'm hardy what you would call a people person and have never done it before but I picked it up pretty quickly (it a lot easier than learning a programming language). If you can't pour a drink into a glass and consider yourself white collar then you deserve to be unemployed.

    4. Re:Bartending by rich_r · · Score: 1

      He may be referring to 'Flair' bartending- sort of thing you'd get at a trendy (read: expensive) nightspot in london, paris et al.

      I didn't think such a thing existed until I read it in a trade rag!

    5. Re:Bartending by scaramush · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's the reason you need to go to school to an American bar and an English pub:

      In an English pub, the majority of drinks served are beer or cider. Once you can pour a pint, you're all set.

      Americans are much more partial to weird funky mixed drinks. At least once a night, you'll get some chump who wants to play "stump the bartender". Long Island Ice Teas, Buttery Nipples, Kamikazes, Sex on the Beach...They name it, you have to be able to mix it. That's the kind of crap you learn in American bartending school

      What this says about the different cultures, I can't even begin to guess. ;)

      --
      "...you can steal my woman, but you ain't done nuthin' smart."
    6. Re:Bartending by ari_j · · Score: 1

      No, I just went to regular bartending school - you learn all the necessary skills and about 80-100 different drinks (depending on how you qualify 'different'), and are then tested on your ability to efficiently (quickly, accurately, and without touching any bottle more than once while making a round) put those skills to work.

      For flair, I was having a discussion with some of the teachers at the school I attended, and if you've seen the movie "Cocktail", the whole idea of it (as well as training for the actors, see this story for more specific info) came from T.G.I. Fridays.

      Having never afforded to hit expensive night clubs in Europe and preferring instead to concentrate my travels on old pieces of rock, I don't know how big flair or even cocktails are over there. But I do know that it'd be fun to be able to confidently throw bottles around without spilling. ;-D

    7. Re:Bartending by snilloc · · Score: 1
      Many American drinks don't last more than about 4 or 5 years. (Not many people order Alabama Slammers anymore, but they might order the close relative, Red Death.) People just throw a bunch of shit together when they're drunk and decide to invent a drink. Then there are standard mixed drinks that have stood the test of time, like Long Island Iced Teas. There's also a trend of perverting a perfectly good mixed drink with something new - Chocolate martinis, apple martinis, etc. Dammit, there are two kinds of martinis, gin and vodka - end of story.

      Sex on the Beach is relatively new, but I think it will be around longer than most trendy drinks. Kamikazes are pretty standard too, though I'm not sure why given how foul they taste.

      The amount of bizarre drinks served in an establishment is proportional to the amount of techno/house music played, and to the number of sorority girls in the place. (College is the breeding ground for bizarre drinks.) But there are certainly plenty of bars where beer is ordered 90% of the time.

    8. Re:Bartending by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      So I just completed bartending school, and I'm already fighting off job offers.

      Yeah, like us geeks will make great bartenders.

      Customer: "Man, I just don't know how to deal with men. They keep leaving me. What am I doing wrong?"

      Geek Bartender: "Perhaps your head needs a new operating system. The old one may not be compatible with men."

      Customer: "You are new at this, aren't you?"

    9. Re:Bartending by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and all the drinks we invent will have cool names like a "Pentium", or an "Athlon" if it's a hot drink consisting mostly of Chinese hot mustard.

    10. Re:Bartending by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      Can anyone tell me what this drink is ?,

      a shot of southern comfort, a shot of vodka, shot of lime, all in a half pint glass topped up with soda.

  15. workforce darwinism is good for code by combinatorics · · Score: 0, Troll

    Linux is growing but unfortunately all of those people who got their msce's and then IT jobs 4 years ago are now looking at different career paths. maybe they can use visualbasic to write a job search client?

    --
    Dada ended art.
  16. MOD PARENT +1 INTERESTING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Booya

  17. Moving toward a global economy... by splerdu · · Score: 1

    Sooner or later it was bound to happen. As companies become bigger and bigger they break away from national barriers and are able to take advantage of cheaper, skilled labor from overseas.

    Since asia now holds its own in terms of education and technical ability, I believe we are beginning to see some sweeping changes that will more or less bring more homogenity to wages and living expenses the world over.

  18. Good news for IT network experts though... by Analysis+Paralysis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All the outsourcing examples given share one common requirement - the need for reliable, high-speed Internet connections between central HQ and the workhou^H^H^H^Hsatellite offices. While a lot of network management can be done remotely, there is still a need for a physical presence - even if only to check that the cables haven't come loose...

    1. Re:Good news for IT network experts though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to DOS attack India and make all of those D- E-eah-LL-LLL tech support calls being hauled VoIP skip like a broken record! HACKTIVISM!

    2. Re:Good news for IT network experts though... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      While a lot of network management can be done remotely, there is still a need for a physical presence - even if only to check that the cables haven't come loose...

      Isn't this just a variation of, "Can you hear me now? Good, Can you hear me now? Good, Can you hear me now? Good, Can you hear me now? Good, ....."

  19. my experience by ramzak2k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was laid off four months ago from a software development firm with 170 others working with me. In those four months - i had only 2 interviews (with one leading to an offer very recently) & i consider myself lucky to have had those because many of my collegues are yet to get their first call.

    The four month period was a interesting experience & here are some things i learned/did in that time:
    1. Remind yourself "often" that it is not your fault. Economy is bad and nothing stays that way forever.

    2. Network: I created a simple discussion forum on my server (http://www.toastforums.com/) and asked all my 170 peers to register. It turned out to be very useful in discussing subjects like - how to get our unemployment benefits & severence packages/Over Time pay from our old firm. Many of them started posting job opportunities too as soon as they found themselves in a job.

    3. Actively prepare towards something : How about a certification that those recruiters so much like ? Or simply read tech forums and keep updated on any new thing on your subject that shows up. This gave me an artificial feeling of getting somewhere which was very useful to keep my hopes floating.

    4. Apply to every ridiculous job on the web, even to those recruiters with fake job descriptions. This could seem like a futile effort with many not even drawing a "hi there, i got you email response". But, again - its one of those exercises that help in keeping a healthy hope alive.

    Thats about it.

    --

    Siggy Say, Siggy Do
    1. Re:my experience by ruprechtjones · · Score: 1

      4. Apply to every ridiculous job on the web, even to those recruiters with fake job descriptions. This could seem like a futile effort with many not even drawing a "hi there, i got you email response". But, again - its one of those exercises that help in keeping a healthy hope alive.

      This is the most important thing. I've got jobs off of obscure emails I sent four months ago using this method. It's the shotgun approach, but sometimes, it just works. And who knows, you have nothing to lose by using this technique.

      --
      Kip Hawley is an idiot.
    2. Re:my experience by Analysis+Paralysis · · Score: 1
      Sounds like a good way to get onto some spam lists...."We have a job offer from the son of a former Nigerian dictator who needs some herbal viagra to expand his ...".

      Further, if it's an obvious fake job then the recruiter is probably going to be stiffing both you and any employer. Worst case, the recruiter could be the sort who spams employers with resumes/CVs, and this could result in you losing potential jobs (there are employers who blacklist applicants who are presented by multiple agencies).

    3. Re:my experience by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1

      The one problem I see with Americans and America is the difficulty people have starting their own company or working independantly. You don't HAVE to be handed a job on a silver platter. Also it should be easier than it is to get started, that doesn't promote the economy when someone has to take a long time just doing stupid paperwork so they can begin doing business.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
    4. Re:my experience by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1


      Setting up a sole-proprietorship is pretty simple and fast, at least in Canada.

      I'm sure that lots of people would work independently, if they can find customers. And finding an employeer is finding a customer.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    5. Re:my experience by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      4. Apply to every ridiculous job on the web

      I'm not really sure this is what you meant, but please, for everybody else's sake, apply only to jobs that you're qualified to do. Flooding every real employer with useless resumes only ensures that the people who really are qualified don't get the job, either.

      I understand this is hard to resist. Why should you have to play nice and obey the speed limit when everybody else is breaking the rule? But do try anyway. One reason you don't even get a "we got your resume" response is because they are inundated with thousands of resumes from people who have no hope of getting the job.

  20. Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It can and will last... the Bush/Halliburton junta will see to that.

  21. TEh FUNNEY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod UP!!

  22. He's just gloating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's just saying his wife sucks.

    That kind of think happening to Slashdot readers is rare...

  23. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Bush is finished with America and destroyed the middle class, there won't be anyone who can afford those things and housing prices will fall. Its coming soon -- the collapse of the housing bubble.

  24. Surely this isn't sustainable... by bcg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whilst I'm far from being an economist, isn't this sort of thing completely and utterly unsustainable? I think its fair to say that lots of tech company's workers are pretty much their customers too. So if the majority of tech companies continue to outsource their development contracts in Asia aren't they going to eventually ruin their customer base? I mean they pay pittance to Indian workers who could not afford to be a customer of theirs. Don't believe the bullshit - get a quote from a offshoring firm for the chargeout rate on a developer - a client of ours recently did and it was around $10US per hour for a senior developer. So you can image what the poor sod cutting the code is actually getting paid. Never mind - some bright spark in 10 years time will decide that the next big thing to fix a country's economy will be to repatriate workers and the cycle will continue... Its already happened here in Australia with outsourcing vs permanent employees.

    1. Re:Surely this isn't sustainable... by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1
      I agree with that. If they pay a senior developer $5 an hour how good can he really be anyway? How can a country with such a lack of infrastructure compete with US workers?

      "Sorry, our senior developer cannot work he was washed away by a monsoon. And the power is out because of monsoon season, we'll get back to you in two weeks." And then you'll never hear from them again after you paid them.

      I hired someone outside the country once to do some web work. He was a crook. And there was nothing I could do about it.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
    2. Re:Surely this isn't sustainable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cost of living is much lower offshore - the guy on $5 per hour net can still live like a king. Add perks of buying locally produced hardware cheap, and what do you want?

    3. Re:Surely this isn't sustainable... by michael_cain · · Score: 1
      Whilst I'm far from being an economist, isn't this sort of thing completely and utterly unsustainable?
      It remains to be seen. At least in the US, many manufacturing jobs went overseas but there's still a lot of stuff that gets manufactured here. And new jobs were eventually created. Most of those were non-manufacturing, which was almost a necessity due to increased productivity in that sector. Manufacturing wasn't the first area where increased productivity eliminated jobs-- 100 years ago, half the people working in the US worked in agriculture. IIRC, today it's less than 2%. Now some of the service jobs are being sent overseas, but there will still be a lot of service jobs here. Will the economy create new jobs of some different sort? Almost certainly, although it may take a while. Will there be enough of those jobs? Don't know yet, although the answer in the cases of farming and manufacturing jobs was certainly "Yes."

      I don't think there's ever been a real example of Keynes' "corporate paradox of thrift." That's where all firms attempt to improve their lot by cutting costs at the same time. That decreases the payments to labor, which reduces demand for goods, which lowers revenues and profits, which leads to another round of cost-cutting. The paradox part, of course, is that what is good for one firm turns out to be a disaster when practiced by all firms. I don't think that anything close to "all firms" will be able to send their programming jobs overseas.

      When there's a major disruption in jobs, the transition would appear to be toughest on people in their late 30s or early 40s who have reached their peak earning years and are loaded up with ongoing expenses -- mortgage, small children, etc. There seem to be some social adjustments happening in response to the economic uncertainties. I know several couples where both work, but not because they need both incomes to pay for their life style. They anticipate that each of them will be unemployed from time to time, and they live on one income (and savings) while that one finds another job.

    4. Re:Surely this isn't sustainable... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Foreign outsourcing is very short sighted, imagine this scenerio:

      U.S. tech workers fed up with layoffs, growing hours and shrinking compensation decide to cash in on the outsourcing, so move to Mexico where the cost of living is cheap so that they can work for 1/2 to 1/4 what they make here and have the same quality of life.

      Corperations jump on it. Imagine, pay half as much and no worries about language barriers.

      Nobody left in the U.S. who wants and can afford their product5, so they have to slash prices and export.

      Mexico, riding high on their tech boom sprouts up home grown hitech and IT companies that can be even less expensive since they have essentially 'outsourced' management and real estate to a 'cheaper foreign company' (reletive to U.S. corps).

      U.S. is SOL, Mexico is new high tech mecca.

      Note that the above assumes that the current trend continues unabated. There are a number of ways to modify the scenerio to allow for globalization without decimating the U.S. the question is will long term considerations win the day over next quarter's gains?

      One way would be to adjust the exchange rate so that outsourcing is less attractive. Another would be a U.S. law setting the minimal pay for foreign workers vs. the equivilant U.S. worker to slow the export of jobs while still boosting foreign economies. If set well, foreign economies would actually develop faster than now as foreign workers recieve a reletive windfall to invest into the loocal economy. Those better developed economies will expand the customer base and result in enough increased worldwide demand to support an expanding job market.

      Essentially, the above is a matter of balancing the benefits rather than allowing a few U.S. corps to make a short term killing at an overall cost to the economy and long term viability.

  25. It's not as bad as it all looks... by ites · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Remember that the last boom was largely built on the IT boom, which was itself built on ever-cheaper hardware, which itself was possible because of massive shifts of production from rich to poorer countries.

    Cheaper services, like cheaper PCs, is good for anyone who needs it, and the current outsourcing wave is likely to be very good for the global economy in the long term. It just means we in the service sector have to find other ways of passing our time, getting paid less and working on smaller, local projects.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
    1. Re:It's not as bad as it all looks... by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Sure it's great for the global economy but for us folks that can't live off $150 a year it's something of a problem. How long until the economies of India and similar countries are such that the average worker there is paid what the average worker here has been making? Until things reach that equalization all us Americans are somewhat screwed. I'd be fine with living off $30k/yr but living off $6k/yr as I have the past couple years is really hard. Living off $150/yr is right out of the question. Low prices are great but if you can't even pay your rent they don't do any good. :)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    2. Re:It's not as bad as it all looks... by ites · · Score: 1
      This is true, but it is the problem faced by many people during such times of change. What is good for the global economy is good for everyone, but it can take a long time to become clear. For example, your $6k/yr will go a lot further when you can buy food and household goods and insurance that are much cheaper. Your rent will, eventually, go down as well, as property prices fall to compensate for lower demand.

      (And then there will be a hoard of people complaining that they are bankrupt because they cannot pay off their housing loans.)

      The world is heading towards equalization, and this can only be a good thing. Wealth is not like a cake, to be shared, it is like a fire: spreading it around creates more for everyone.

      --
      Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
    3. Re:It's not as bad as it all looks... by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1

      Pass your time by starting companies to compete with the ones outsourcing their power point presentations to India.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
    4. Re:It's not as bad as it all looks... by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1

      Or you could move to India. I hear it's cheap to live there.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
    5. Re:It's not as bad as it all looks... by ozborn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The last "boom" was largely a boom for the rich, whether they are in the US, Mexico or anywhere else. There may be more billionaires in Mexico today than there was before NAFTA, but Mexican workers aren't doing any better. Most of them still can't afford a PC and Internet access. It's true hardware is cheaper today (and much better which is the result of R&D in rich countries not cheap production) but that doesn't mean it compensates falling inflation adjusted wages among the slashdot crowd (mostly male US workers).

    6. Re:It's not as bad as it all looks... by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is that in the US it's very difficult to live cheap. It's frowned on to grow your own food in many places (like if you live in a rented house/apartment), a lot of locales make it illegal to generate your own electricity, if you don't have a car and telephone finding a better job is pretty much impossible, if you don't have electricity the government will take your children away (no tv! poor abused kids), etc. There is a general attitude here that if you don't have these things there is something wrong with you. During a period of unemployment a while back I couldn't pay my utility bills or rent. Every time I'd try to ask them to hold off until I found a new job they'd act like they couldn't believe that a person wouldn't have credit cards or rich parents to pay the bills with. They kept shutting off the power which made the food I had bought spoil.. and I couldn't cook anything. Then they charged a reconnection fee to hook back up. With that behavior there was no way I could ever catch up with the bill. And day jobs? It's nearly impossible to just go out and find someone that needs help for the day and who will pay you. All the paperwork the government has on employees these days has squashed most such jobs. There is to much red tape to hire a person for a day or two. Just a crazy behavior in general. It's very hard to live at $6k/yr here.

      I agree with you in theory but in real life it sucks to be the firewood that fuels your fire of wealth around the globe. I'd like to see the government offering day labor jobs while the economy resettles. I don't want to take welfare or charity but if they needed something done I could sure do it and earn a paycheck. Anything from cleaning up parks to programming computers would be fine. I know they could start some opensource projects right now and affordably pay a lot of coders to develop whatever they might need. :)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    7. Re:It's not as bad as it all looks... by sjames · · Score: 1

      For example, your $6k/yr will go a lot further when you can buy food and household goods and insurance that are much cheaper. Your rent will, eventually, go down as well, as property prices fall to compensate for lower demand.

      I agree in principle, however, our economy has no real flexibility for housing built in (which is why things are a bit screwed up now).

      Everyone needs to libe somewhere and renters know that. The lack of demand required to drop rent by a factor of 10 would mean a large percentage of U.S. citizens are homeless.

      Why do I say it's screwed up now? House payments are typically lower than the rent for the same house (by $100-$200/month). If people were in a position to save up for a down payment, most all would buy rather than rent. The difference between payments and rent adds up in 5-10 years to the down payment.

      This will start to balance in the next 10-20 years as gen-x inherits fully paid off houses from the boomers. A cultural return to the extended family home would hasten the rebalancing by introducing flexibility into housing demand.

  26. H1B visas by b17bmbr · · Score: 1, Insightful

    one of the things congress can do is cut off the H1B visa program. almost every tech company is outsourcing its IT to chinese, indian, and others. these are jobs that will never return and are not part of the economic cycle. of course the public schools need to push technology education far more also. write your representatives!!

    --
    My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    1. Re:H1B visas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the L-1, even worse.

    2. Re:H1B visas by friday2k · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ah well, it only took so long for the first H1-B troll to show up. I will bite then ...

      H1-B: First of all, you are mixing two things in your post. H1-B (temporary workers) and Outsourcing to a foreign country. Let's go one by one: You are competing on a global scale against other, qualified applicants. They are supposed (and yes I am sure there are black sheep who do not follow the rules) to be paid at an equivalent rate and I have to say that this is at least true for the company I work at. At this large IT company people who interview candidates are not allowed to ask them about their legal status (and you'd be in deep shit if you'd do), this is totally in the hand of HR. Money however is handled by the hiring manager who does not know what status the applicant has (H1, Green Card, Citizen). Hence there is pretty little room to hire "for cheap", you just hire the best. Period. And if you cannot compete, well, tough luck.
      Now over to outsourcing. This IMHO is indeed a scary trend that is going to bite back. Some people already mentioned "your employees are your own customers on an economic scale", there are also quality issues. It is hard to follow up with bugs, design issues, etc. The company I work for does most of the design here in the US and very small parts are outsourced. This is ok on a small scale but if this catches on ...

      My $.02

    3. Re:H1B visas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need H1B visas to outsource, moron :D

    4. Re:H1B visas by 73939133 · · Score: 1

      So, let's say the US cuts off the H1B visa program. What will happen? US companies have to hire scarce US workers at higher pay. Will they do that? No way. They'll outsource even more jobs to where those skilled H1B workers come from. The end result? Even more jobs that move overseas and a loss of tax revenues. Do you have any more brilliant ideas?

    5. Re:H1B visas by blix5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm certain that if American companies were to advertise once $50,000 jobs as now being $20,000, you'd still have people rushing to grab up the jobs.
      :P

    6. Re:H1B visas by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Outsourcing is shifting from H-1B to corp-to-corp where the 2nd party is in the foreign country. So H-1B will soon become irrelevant. L-1 may continue to be a problem, but most of the jobs will not be jobs anymore, but outsource contracts to foreign firms who are not obligated by US law for such things privacy, HIPAA, etc.

      There's no point in having public schools push technology education anymore. It's more than self-sustaining now. They are producing far more people seeking work in technology than businesses can take up (or care to, or even respect). If anything, some of those programs need to be shut down.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    7. Re:H1B visas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why wouldn't they just move those jobs overseas and get more qualified people for less money?

    8. Re:H1B visas by Ironpoint · · Score: 1

      Ah, well, it only too so long for the first "If you can't compete globally humans, tough luck" troll

      H1-B: First, outsourcing doesn't have to mean 'to a foreign country" as you put it. Its pretty obvious the poster meant outsourcing to H1-B holders which would be within the US. Nice try though, No points. Second, hiring managers don't have to know an applicants legal status, its obvious who just got off the boat. Finally, you get what you pay for. Period. And the "best" doesn't compete for slave jobs with wages broken down by corruption. MDs in New York make $20k, you think "the best" are fighting to get in there?

    9. Re:H1B visas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because developing close to home has its advantages

    10. Re:H1B visas by Ironpoint · · Score: 1

      "US companies have to hire scarce US workers at higher pay."

      Hey, thats the whole point. Where have you been. There is no scarcity of unemployed US workers. Theres 4 million unemployed people that the government will admit to. In addition new jobless claims are over 400k.

    11. Re:H1B visas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You traitor. You are an Indian working in US and you are against outsourcing?

    12. Re:H1B visas by mikewas · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'd have to agree that the H1B program should be eliminated. It's a training ground for folks who return to their home countries & become the competition.

      In addition, the immigration system needs to be overhauled. We do get get a benefit from the influx of bright people with new ideas, but the present system makes immigrants indentured servents for 5 years.

      In the past, people who could contibute to building this country could come here, stay, and enter the workforce on an equal footing (yes, there are issues such as language). They didn't have to worry that they'd be deported if they left their job. They could contribute to this country to the best of their abilities.

      The only thing that has changed is that we don't need as many strong backs, we need strong minds. The selection process needs to be changed. Letting companies select folks willing to work as indentured servents for 5 years assures that the brightest people, the ones this country needs the most, will not come.

      --

      "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." --Napoleon Bonaparte
    13. Re:H1B visas by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 1

      It's funny you say this, but I'm potentially about to go through the H-1B process myself, as a Brit who has accepted a job offer from the US.

      I've spent some time in the US, and the jobs are there. The problem is, they're either at a rate which is below the dot com era (say, $50k for a programmer.. which you can EASILY live on, but a lot of people are greedy), or they require you have skills beyond those that an education can give you. For example, extreme UNIX admin stuff, people skills, the ability to sell yourself, etc. In my time in the US I met many friendly and extremely 'people confident' programmers and techies. These were the guys who had the jobs.

      If you're the type of super-techie who's great at their job, but can't deal with the marketing people, it's not really surprising you haven't got a job. A self employed life is more for you, and quite rightly so.. besides, you might earn more.

      I think people skills are what separate the employed from the unemployed these days, rather than skills. A lot of companies are now hiring on personality and 'can do' attitude rather than pure skill-set.. This is why I've got my job offer. My technical competence may be lower than others they could employ in the same area of the country (a major metropolitan center), but they like me, and they're willing to take on the hassle of getting me out there just to have me.

    14. Re:H1B visas by TrackDaddy · · Score: 1
      I've posted this a couple of time already, but hey, there is so much misinformation out there, facts sometimes need to be repeated till they sink in. Based on your statements about H1-B employees, it appears you are either misinformed or you are choosing to purposfully misinform others. In either case,I would suggest you and others read the following UC Davis prepared Congressional testimony on H1-B visas and the IT programming sector. It pretty much says that everything in your post is incorrect.

      http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html

      --
      Run! There's a lobster loose!
  27. Anonymity of the internet by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    If you're consulting and not attached to a company, why does anybody have to know how old you are IRL?

    I've worked smart mob style with designers who I've payed through paypal, and I've gotten jobs (not tech ones unfortunately, just writing/journo stuff) from people who are just an email address and a funny line on Instand Mesenger.

    Your website looks pretty mad! You could probably illustrate comics for someone like Neil Gaimon if you got the right lucky breaks.

    Hang in there.

    And don't tell anyone your age!

    (ps. look at my old slashdot posts, and then guess how old I am.)

    1. Re:Anonymity of the internet by ruprechtjones · · Score: 1

      If you're consulting and not attached to a company, why does anybody have to know how old you are IRL?

      I've noticed that it's not so much my age, but my resume. Things will get better soon, but for now I am using an agency where my primary competitors are a year (or less) out of art school. The hiring managers out there are my equals, and it's a tough game of "do what they ask, and don't piss them off by showing them a better solution". This market is as much psychology and human-relations as it is talent, and these are distinctly different things.

      p.s. I'm guessing you're 31 years, 3 months, 23 days old. Am I close?

      --
      Kip Hawley is an idiot.
  28. MOD PARENT OFFTOPIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this comment, as well :-)

  29. Re:but whos to say the recession is over? by volkris · · Score: 1

    It's seriously not a bad thing for the dollar to be slightly down against other currancies. It doesn't really mean the economy is in trouble or not moving in an upwards direction, it only means the rules are slightly tweaked for a bit.

  30. No, it wasn't OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I always have and will continue to buy made in the USA cars; Ford or GM, Cry-slur = crap and I heard they incorporated offshore. If Ford or GM go offshore then I'll make do with used cars.

    1. Re:No, it wasn't OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember that Ford has a large stake in Mazda, and that GM has a large stake in Audi and Isuzu, and so on... so even while you may be buying a car that is built in the US with mostly US labor, the foreign companies you despise are still getting a cut.

    2. Re:No, it wasn't OK by Osty · · Score: 1

      Remember that Ford has a large stake in Mazda

      Also Jaguar and Volvo.


      GM has a large stake in Audi and Isuzu

      Not quite right. Audi is tied closely to Volkswagen (part of the VAG, or Volkswagen Automotive Group, along with Lamborghini, and sharing ties to VW's close sibling Porsche). You may be thinking of Opel (with ties to Lotus) for GM's European influences. They also have close ties to Toyota and Suzuki.


      The car world isn't cut and dried. Most people wouldn't hesitate to call Dodge an American company, yet it's part of Daimler-Chrysler (German-American). Daimler-Chrysler also owns Mercedes Benz. As well, Dodge has close ties to Mitsubishi. Dodge Stealth == Mitsubish 3000GT; also several cars have carried the DSM moniker, for Diamond (Mitsubishi) Star (Dodge/Chrysler) Motors. More, just because a company is American or Japanese or German doesn't mean that's where their cars are built. GM builds lots of cars in Canada. Volkswagen built its new Beetle (which has ended its run) in Mexico. Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus build quite a few American-market cars in America. What, then, should you buy to ensure American jobs? A GM car (American company) built in Canada, or a Honda car (Japanese company) built in Kentucky?


    3. Re:No, it wasn't OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aah, yea. Well put... you actually researched the point I was trying to make ;)

    4. Re:No, it wasn't OK by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

      I hand't heard of the GM/Audi tie-up, sounds odd.

      Anyway, in the real world Ford and GM bought those companies in order to make money, not hand it to them.

    5. Re:No, it wasn't OK by Osty · · Score: 1

      There really isn't much to do in the way of research here. Most of the major manufacturers list their affiliations on their web sites.

      • Ford makes it easy. They list their brands right on the front page. Along with the previously mentioned Volvo, Jaguar, and Mazda, there's the surprise of Aston Martin (think it was a coincidence that the major cars in the last Bond movie were a Ford, a Jaguar, and an Aston Martin?).
      • GM makes you have to look a little more. Aside from the previously mentioned Opel, Isuzu, and Suzuki, GM also has ties to Fiat and Subaru, as well as owning Saab. (Toyota isn't listed, but I mentioned it before because Toyota sells the Cavalier under the Toyota brand in Japan.)
      • Chrysler/Dodge make you work harder. You have to know that they're part of Daimler-Chrysler, and then you'll see that they not only have Chrysler, Dodge, and Mercedes Benz, but also Maybach and Jeep as well as "strategic relationships" with Mitsubishi and Hyundai.
      • Similarly, Volkswagen makes it pretty difficult to find their list of brands, but it can be found. They're pretty small-time, only having Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, and Skoda alongside the Volkswagen moniker.
      • Porsche actually makes you have to learn history before you can get to its complex relationship with other brands. For instance, did you know that Dr. Ferdinand Porsche founded Volkswagen on Hitler's request? Also, before Porsche even formed Volkswagen, he did designs for Mercedes and Daimler. Over the years, Porsche (the company) and Porsche Design (separate company, same family) have consulted for quite a few different firms. As well, ties to Volkswagen have remained strong (the original 356 was based around a Volkswagen engine, as was the 914; lots of parts in all models of cars have been shared with VW; and the most recent model, the Cayenne, shares a base platform with VW's Touareg).

      So how's that for convoluted? And I didn't even touch on the Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infiniti low-end/high-end dichotomy that most Japanese companies have, nor their relationships between and among each other. Crazy, huh?
    6. Re:No, it wasn't OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already decided to buy used cars. Look inside most of your "American" brand cars. Most of them have more foreign parts than a honda or toyota.

    7. Re:No, it wasn't OK by JayAndSilentBob · · Score: 1

      GM makes Saturn, Oldsmobile, and Buick vehicles, too. I work in an automotive factory that supplies the big three with various plastic things. We also make Volvo parts once in a blue moon....

      --


      Love,
      Jay and Silent Bob
    8. Re:No, it wasn't OK by lowmagnet · · Score: 1

      I only buy US-Built cars. GMs are made mostly in Mexico and Canada. I bought, and will *continue* to buy Hondas like mine, which was manufactured just across the border in the foreign land of Ohio. There is also a Volkswagon plant upstate from me. The individual parts may be made elsewhere, but you are buying American more with a Honda or VW than you would be buying a Pontiac (Canada mostly) or many Ford (Mexico)

      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
    9. Re:No, it wasn't OK by Osty · · Score: 1

      GM makes Saturn, Oldsmobile, and Buick vehicles, too.

      And Pontiac, and Cadillac, and GMC, and Hummer, and ...


      I was just trying to point out the relationships that most Americans wouldn't recognize. How many people do you know who would associate Saab with GM? Or Lamborghini with VW? Or Aston Martin with Ford? Everybody knows that Buick, Pontiac, Olds, Saturn, etc are all GM-built.

    10. Re:No, it wasn't OK by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      Um, just a note on VW - VW is NOT "pretty small-time" - they're the largest auto conglomerate in Europe, and definitely among the largest in the world. Linkage

      Out of curiousity, I'd like to know what "ties" GM has to Subaru? Subaru is a subsidiary of Fuji Heavy Industries, and really, kind of an oddball in the automarket (Don't get me wrong, Subaru is my favorite carbrand :)). It'd be rather obvious if Subaru was sharing models with GM, as every Subaru comes with a boxer engine, and Subaru and Porsche are the only auto companies using that engine format.

      As far as GM-Toyota go, they've been extremely close for years, much like Chrystler and Mitsubishi (The Dodge Stealth was just a repackaged 3000GT for example, and the Colt was another repackaged Mitsu). The most obvious example in the US was the Geo/Chevy Prizm being the EXACT same car as the Corolla of the time - in fact, if you took the lisence plate off a Prizm, "TOYOTA" is molded into the bumper plastic. :)

      And one last addition - GM also has a stake in Daihatsu, even though that brand has left the US market. In fact, chevy is releasing a joint GM/Suzuki/Daihatsu design in the next year or so.

    11. Re:No, it wasn't OK by Osty · · Score: 1

      Um, just a note on VW - VW is NOT "pretty small-time" - they're the largest auto conglomerate in Europe, and definitely among the largest in the world.

      Yes, sarcasm doesn't translate well in text, does it? :)


      Out of curiousity, I'd like to know what "ties" GM has to Subaru? Subaru is a subsidiary of Fuji Heavy Industries, and really, kind of an oddball in the automarket (Don't get me wrong, Subaru is my favorite carbrand :)). It'd be rather obvious if Subaru was sharing models with GM, as every Subaru comes with a boxer engine, and Subaru and Porsche are the only auto companies using that engine format.

      I have no idea what ties they have, but the GM website said they did so I'll believe them. From a quick google search, I came up with this page that says GM purchased Subaru from Fuji. Here's another page that sounds more likely -- General Motors owns a 20% stake in Fuji. And as the owner of a boxer-engined car (not Subaru), I certainly do like that format. Does lead to some oil burning, though, just due to the configuration of the cylinders.

    12. Re:No, it wasn't OK by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      Just did a quick search myself and came up with this

      So it it looks like you're correct, they have a 20% stake in Fuji, similar to their holdings of Daewoo stock (not Daihatsu, it's late, and they're both Korean, give me a break :)). Suzuki and Isuzu are also in the same boat - GM has a stake in them, but not outright ownership, as with Saab. (My current car, a 99 Metro, for example, is just a rebadged Suzuki Swift).

      But it looks like unlike with their other holdings, GM hasn't directly applied that relationship to any of their own models yet. Really, the Subaru AWD system is about all GM stands to gain... which makes me wonder if GM is planning on releasing an AWD car (none of this SUV car) in the near future.

      And I agree, boxer engines are awesome - especially from a power to displacement perspective. The WRX (let alone the STi) was often compared to the Porsche 911 in terms of HP/L - the WRX ran a 113.5:1 ratio, while the 911 ran at 117:1. I don't think it's coincidence that they're both boxers. If you want further insanity, the new STi's ratio is an even 120:1. :)

    13. Re:No, it wasn't OK by Osty · · Score: 1

      The WRX (let alone the STi) was often compared to the Porsche 911 in terms of HP/L - the WRX ran a 113.5:1 ratio, while the 911 ran at 117:1.

      I assume you're referring to the 911 Turbo? I just ran the numbers:

      • 996 (C2, C4S, C2 cab, C4 cab, Targa): 320hp, 3.6L = 88.89 hp/L
      • 996 GT3: 380hp, 3.6L = 105.56 hp/L
      • 996 Turbo: 415hp, 3.6L = 115.28 hp/L
      • 996 GT2: 456hp, 3.6L = 126.68 hp/L

      and just to be complete:
      • Boxster 2.7L (with the '03 hp updates): 225hp, 2.7L = 83.33 hp/L
      • Boxster S: 258hp, 3.2L = 80.63 hp/L
      • Cayenne S: 340hp, 4.5L = 75.56 hp/L
      • Cayenne Turbo: 450hp, 4.5L = 100.00 hp/L
      • Carrera GT: 605hp, 5.7L = 106.14 hp/L

      Of course, the WRX will run your ~$30,000 USD while a 996TT will run you ~$120,00 USD. I'm not about to do a $/hp comparison :)
    14. Re:No, it wasn't OK by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      hehe I had actually gotten bored one day and done a $/HP comparison between the WRX and the STi. I'd give you exact numbers, but I actually threw away the sheet of paper I had it written on a few days ago (this was including financing based on several different terms, blah blah blah).

      Just a quick look though would be:

      WRX - $24,000MSRP/227HP = $105.73/HP
      STi - $31,000MSRP/300HP = $103.33/HP

      And yes, those are base prices. The cool thing about the STi though is the fact that unlike the WRX, there aren't any performance options - they're all standard :)

  31. we're gradually being replaced... by maliabu · · Score: 1

    in 80's when things were being automated, blue-collars were hit hard.

    nowadays, white-collars designed and invented a lot of useful and efficient technologies which are now slowly replacing relatively less efficient white-collars. we should have seen this coming.

    i'll be more interested to know what's the next 'collar' to be replaced due to the advancement we have made so far.

  32. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by miniver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, in this area (Washington DC metropolitan) depending upon the type of construction work you do, you can be just as screwed as the white-collar types. The late 90s saw a huge commercial construction boom, but with the current economic bust, there are huge buildings that either (a) have never been finished, (b) have never been occupied, or (c) are now standing empty because all of the tenents went bankrupt. That means no new commercial construction. In Loudoun county alone (home of AOL & MCI/Worldcom), 16% of the office space is empty, and if MCI/Worldcom is forced to close their offices here (more than one million square feet), that figure would double.

    Residential construction is still hot, but "used" home sales are starting to outstrip new home sales, and new residential construction is moving farther away from the metro area, simply because most of the inner metro areas are already built to zoning capacity, and "smart growth" advocates (you know, the sorts who have a $1m+ house on 5+ acres of land, and want everyone else to live in apartments near metro stops) have squashed new local development.

    --
    We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
  33. The USA is Dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It is official -- The UN is now confirming: The USA is dying

    One more crippling bombshell crushed the already beleaguered American economy
    when x-rates.com confirmed that the American Dollar has dropped yet again,
    now down to .9 of a Euro. Coming on the heels of a recent Usenet survey which plainly states that The American Economy is in a recession, this news serves to
    reinforce what we've known all along. The USA is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict the USA's future. The hand writing is on the wall: The USA faces a bleak future. In fact there won't
    be any future at all for the USA because it is dying. Things are looking very bad for America. As many of us are already aware, the US continues to lose relevence. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    The IT industry is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core
    developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time IT jobs to india only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: The American IT Industry is dying.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    Microsoft Encarta states that there are 291,065,636 people in America. What is the US's national debt? Let's see. According to the The Debt clock the USA's National Debt is 6,465,271,811,559.14. Therefore each American
    is $22,212.42. in debt. In fact, the USA's national debt has continued to
    increase an average of $992 million per day since September 30, 2002. Indeed,
    it can clearly be seen the the US is going broke faster then the Soviet Union did

    Due to the troubles of American Meddling, An Capitalist Gorvernment and so on,
    South Vietnam was attacked was taken over by North Vietnam who sell another
    a more compassionate government. Now Iraq is also dead, its corpse turned over
    to feed the US media.

    All major surveys show that the USA has steadily declined in the world economy.
    America is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If
    the USA is to survive at all it will be among a broken collection of warring
    factions. America continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save
    it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, the United States of America is dead.

    Fact: The USA is dying

  34. OK. Enuff worrying. Let us look at some solutions. by prakslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hi!

    Instead of worrying about how we all are headed to the homeless shelters and how the profit-hungry Corporations and the Government is to blame, can we think of some ways to "offshore-proof" our employability?

    Here are some suggestions:

    (1) Move up the chain!! Instead of being the one whose job is being exported, think of ways to crawl you way up the ladder to become the one who is doing the job-exporting.

    (2) Work in Defense. If you are writing software for the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, administering the UNIX cluster at the local Air Force Base or cranking out Code for the F-22 at Boeing/Lockheed Martin, rest assured, your job isn't going to be outsourced to a shop in Bangalore - even if they promise to do it for free!

    (3) Work for an out-sourcing /off-shoring business or start one of your own! Heck, if the companies will export 3 million jobs in the next few years to save money, I'd say there is money to be made in helping companies save money. Like they say, if you can't beat 'em , join 'em.

    (4) Get into Sales and customer-facing jobs. I know y'all like to work in T-shirts with ketchup and coffee stains but may be it's time to get a makeover, buy a suit and start honing up on your people-skills. A company cannot hire someone in Russia to do a face-to-face meeting with a client in Chicago or Atlanta. An added advantage - The makeover and newly found people skills will help you get dem girlz too! :-)

    Of course all the above is easier said than done.. but saying it is still a better start than all the complaining and worrying...

  35. How we arrived at the present situation: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 0, Troll

    How we arrived at the present situation:

    The Supreme Court elected George Bush. As Alan Dershowitz said, it was an unprecedented abandonment of judicial principle.

    New president George Bush put a man in charge of foreign policy who had lived his entire life with the idea that the way to solve problems is to kill people and destroy their property. This sent another very clear message to Arabs that the U.S. government support for killing Arabs would increase.

    Arabs and Muslims are prevented from having a voice in their government partly by the U.S. government presence in Saudi Arabia.

    Arabs and Muslims are prevented from living in peace by the violent Jewish occupation of the land that was theirs (now known as Israel).

    The U.S. government pays between 3.5 and 5.5 billion dollars every year to Jews in Israel. This money is used to buy helicopter gunships and other high-profit American-made weapons. The weapons are used to kill Arabs.

    Arab and Muslim cultures are not particularly good at communicating. They tend to feel that getting attention through violence is their only option. (It would be better if they could start their own influential newspaper in the U.S., as the Jewish people have in the New York Times.) The Jewish cultures are far better than the Arab cultures in teaching their children to be intellectual. To be influential by communicating, it is first necessary to learn to be intellectual.

    Since the U.S. government is actively involved in killing Arabs, and the Israeli government is actively involved in killing Arabs, the Arabs decided to fight violence with violence and kill a few Americans. Numerous Arabs were willing to sacrifice their lives for this.

    Using techniques the CIA taught them in Afghanistan, the Arabs planned and executed the destruction in the U.S. on September 11, 2001.

    The uncertainty that violence brings causes leaders not to want to invest. The Bush administration has already incurred a huge U.S. government debt. The cost of pretending that the terrorists are sacrificing their lives for no reason is huge.

    The uncertain political and financial climate (constant, never-ending war) and bankrupt government causes job loss and loss of opportunity.

    1. Re:How we arrived at the present situation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you made it to my friends list

  36. Re:Time For A Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous Coward, why do you hate Indians/Filipinos?

  37. In related news.... by ebbomega · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another Anonymous Coward loses his job due to Chronic Foot In Mouth syndrome.

    Right. You have a job. You got job security? You got the code to prove it? Doesn't mean a licking difference, because a faltering economy means just that: FALTERING. Your job exists now, but will it in a year, month, week or will you get a pink slip tomorrow?

    How do you know you won't be knocking on IBM's doors praying to be let in or accepting some shit job like Game Testing for EA or something like that? Because, frankly, there is zero job security in the tech world today.

    --
    Karma: Non-Heinous
    1. Re:In related news.... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Because, frankly, there is zero job security in the tech world today.

      Where *is* there job security? Nothing is safe. Government? W wants to outsource half of 'em to private firms. Marketing is the safest choice I have come to conclude, but most geeks are shitty at it.

      American workers are simply in for a bumpier ride than in the past, especially "professionals".

  38. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    All those jobs you mention are good for people who are good with their hands. I have no coordination or strength lol.

  39. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by nelsonal · · Score: 1

    Get in and learn the skills, most homeowners would like to change something about their house, but don't have the time or skill to do it themselves. You can make a nice suppliment to your income of you get a contractor's license, and do a little work on the side of what ever else you are doing. Stuff like tiling a floor, changing a kitchen counter, laying wood floors, sheetrock, and others, none of it should be too dificult for any of us to learn and the excersise and knowledge that you can point to something you built are both pretty nice.

    --
    Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  40. Falling Dollar NOT END OF WORLD. by grimani · · Score: 1

    I posted before but it seems that this misconception is widespread enough to warrant additional explanation.

    A WEAK DOLLAR IS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY.

    This is because most major American companies derive huge amounts of their profits from overseas (i.e., from exports). And when the dollar is weak, exports can be priced much more competitively.

    For example, lets say Coke wants to price drinks sold in Japan at 1dollar each.

    Ex1. Strong Dollar:
    Exchange rate is 100yen for 1dollar.
    Price of Coke in Japan will be 100yen.

    Ex2. Weak Dollar:
    Exchange rate is 50yen for 1dollar.
    Price of Coke in Japan will be 50yen only!

    In other words, with a weaker dollar, Coke can set lower prices will keeping its revenue (in dollars) the same. So this allows American firms to undercut prices and compete more effectively against foreign companies.

    In addition, a weak dollar also inflates the amount of profits from operations in foreign countries.

    For example, lets say Coke will make 100billion yen in profits in Japan.

    Ex1. Strong Dollar:
    Exchange rate is 100yen for 1dollar.
    Coke will have made 1billion dollars in profit.

    Ex2. Weak Dollar:
    Exchange rate is 50yen for 1dollar.
    Coke will have made 2billion dollars in profit!

    So even though profits are stagnant at 100billion yen, Coke has still doubled its income. All because of a weak dollar.

    To conclude, a weak dollar is NOT BAD.

    In fact, a major concern right now is that if a weak dollar hurts the exports of other countries, they will try to devalue their own currencies.

    Of course, currency values are all relative, so if Japan devalues the yen, and we still want a weak dollar, we have to devalue further, prompting them to do the same...and so on.

    Things then spiral downward.

    1. Re:Falling Dollar NOT END OF WORLD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ex2. Weak Dollar:
      Exchange rate is 50yen for 1dollar.
      Price of Coke in Japan will be 50yen only!"

      And US foreign debt and trade deficit will be twice as big...

    2. Re:Falling Dollar NOT END OF WORLD. by thogard · · Score: 1

      Coke (the drink) is a bad example. When was the last time its price went up in the US? Its been solid over over a decade. A 24oz (600ml) bottle in Australia now costs AU$2.50. In New Zealand, NZ$2.20. In Egypt 50p. In Australia the prices have gone up from about $1.80 to $2.50 in the last two years. If milk prices go up in Australia, Coke prices will also go up. Same when orange juice supplies ran low, the price went up and so did Cokes. In the US Coke competes the Pepsi. In Australia they compete with nature, and nature hasn't been nice to the orange plantations.

  41. But these examples tell a different story. by Krapangor · · Score: 0, Troll

    When you actually read the article you will notice that these laid off guys have all low-level academic titles like bachlors. There is a MBA mentioned but everyone knows that you get these things for a few business seminars and they are nothing to do with real science. Not even economical sciences.
    I wouldn't consider these guys as white-collar workers. evryone knows that knowledge standards are raising rapidly and with a BS you are still a blue-collar worker. White-collar starts at least with a MS or a PhD.
    So, I wonder if real white-collar workers really have these problems.

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
    1. Re:But these examples tell a different story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi Krapangor, you stupid little troll fuck. Mensa member? My ass. More like village idiot.

  42. instead by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Instead of hanging, why not eliminate the tax benefit of moving work and companies off-shore.

    If you don't allow companies to deduct costs for moving work off-shore. It is a double slapp when a company moves the work offsjore, to foreign workers, then give the company a tax advantage for that.

    1. Re:instead by twelvestring · · Score: 1

      Companies actually get MORE of a tax benefit for keeping work in the US.

      Example:
      Joe X in US gets paid $10/hr for 10 hours = $100
      Bob Y in India gets paid $1/hr for 10 hrs = $10

      Company A's tax rate is 30%:
      - They get a $30 tax deduction for Joe X
      - They get a $1 tax deduction for Bob Y

      Although companies certainly have several other tax advantages to moving things offshore, this isn't one of them.

    2. Re:instead by mcwop · · Score: 1

      Or maybe in addition, the taxing jurisdictions in the U.S. can lower the myriad of payroll taxes, which might make it more attractive to hire here in the US.

      --

      "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

  43. The really ridiculous thing is... by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All of this is basically unnecessary. With a little more work we could have cheap nuclear power or perhaps hydrogen. Start up mining projects in nearby parts of space and you solve matrial shortages. Once that's done, we could build machines to do the work we need to do and free us all from labor and poverty. This isn't sci-fi, it's something attainable by mankind in a generation or two. The problem is there are too many people opposed to this. Oil companies, old money who'd loss their importance without scarcity, polititions and leaders who thrive on war and stife (George Bush, I'ma lookin' at you), etc, etc.

    Probably the silliest group that opposes this sort of thing is common laborer's afraid of losing jobs to machines (that includes white collars, remember how many accountants got put out of work by Lotus 123?). It seems to me instead of getting angry at the tool that takes your job, you ought to be mad at people who control the distribution of goods made by those tools to the detriment of the rest of society. There's something really wrong with a society that lets 2% of the people control 95% of the wealth. There ought to be less talk about bolstering the economy and more about improving the general standard of living. Oh well, not like that's gonna happen anytime soon.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The really ridiculous thing is... by evilpaul13 · · Score: 1

      So, I'm guessing your immediate way to improve the standard of living is to give everyone $500 checks from the Federal Government? Or tax the hell out of the people who fund the multi-billion dollar factories and R&D labs that made possible the device you're reading this on? (Or the dozen or so other devices you could be reading this on? PDA, laptop, desktop, cellphone, etc.)

      As the poorest people in the US live better than the Caesars of Rome and others that ruled empires that the sun never set on, then that "5% of the wealth" doesn't sound so shabby.

      Who cares if a Rockefeller has 20 billion dollars, when most everyone who has far, far less is hardly starving and dying of plague? Don't you have anything better to do than be envious of your neighbors? "The grass is greener on the otherside of the fence so I'll go dump some salt to make us equal."

      And for another thing, if cheap hydrogen power is easily possible, then why wouldn't a large corporation jump on it, patent every possible aspect, and rake in the profits and royalties for the next 20 or so years? And am I also to believe we could build machines that can do everything a person can do, maintain and repair themselves, and improve themselves? Don't people mock the viability of most "self-healing servers"?

    2. Re:The really ridiculous thing is... by gr66nman · · Score: 1

      That's a great utopian view of the world where nobody has to work and everybody is happy. It's also extremely unrealistic, as well. Capitalism is a requirement of our republican and very competitive society. If you remove the competition from the way we live, you remove the very basis of our economy: The thought that if you work hard enough, you can enjoy life a little (or a lot) better than your neighbour. Without work, how do you decide who does what? Who becomes president or prime minister or supreme ruler?

      People blame globalization for their woes, but if the US had an inclusive economy, people would complain that work was shifting from one state to the next. Corporations have and will always continue to shift large sections of work to where it is cheapest. However, a small company with 20 employees is unlikely to shift their 5 tech guys overseas because they'd likely find they spend just as much trying to manage that group overseas as they do locally.

      There will always be opportunity whether you find it or make it yourself.

    3. Re:The really ridiculous thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the poorest people in the US live better than the Caesars of Rome[...]

      I highly doubt that. The structure of society back then was as it is today in following the 50-40-10 scheme for lower-middle-upper class. Read some history books about the living standard of the roman upper class. Also,

      when most everyone who has far, far less is hardly starving and dying of plague

      is not new either. In fact, most societies considered these things as standard. It's just that you almost never read about a splendid, peaceful time in history books, only about wars, catastrophes, etc.

    4. Re:The really ridiculous thing is... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      we could build machines to do the work we need to do and free us all from labor and poverty. This isn't sci-fi, it's something attainable by mankind in a generation or two.

      Have you ever heard of the Roman Empire? Much of the work was done by slaves (ie. the biological equivalent of robots/machines), leaving the non-slaves free to go watch some poor sap fight it out with a lion.

      To make a long story short, their country crumbled.

      What do you think will happen when we have solar panels that give us all the energy wee need, and have robots to do all the work? Who will be the doctors? Who will man the army? Who will be out there innovating, and comming up with new ideas? There's no direct incentive to do anything. Kind of a socialist paradise, where we hope everyone will work extra hard for the betterment of all of mankind, but we really find out that people are selfish bastards.

      So, when we are all free to do nothing, who will be protecting us from few who want to band together to take power?

      That may be a bit of a bleak look at the possible future, but these issues are not as simple as people always think, and there seems to be a real shortage of thought going in to serious and dangerous issues (like genetic engineering and cloning).
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:The really ridiculous thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you ought to be mad at people who control the distribution of goods made by those tools to the detriment of the rest of society.

      Those are the people I'm mad at. And I hope they're the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes.

    6. Re:The really ridiculous thing is... by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      Some points:

      1. I'm well aware that everyone in the world isn't going to be nice and work together. My point is we have the technology to make that a moot point. We could have the technology to make work as we know it obsoulete. Trouble is, humans are so incredible dumb and greedy that they can't seem to live without long work hours and/or crushing their fellow man beneath him. It's just as dumb to be angry because you longer have the chance to do back breaking work, as is is to hord money and build mansions you can't possibly occupy. It may be the way things are, but it's really, really dumb.

      2. Globalization is causing those woes. It means capital will flow wherever labor's cheapest. Previously this couldn't happen. First, shipping technology was lacking, then the USA and Russia where fighting the cold war, and companies where either afraid to go abroad or else too patriotic. The end of the cold war eroded both feelings, and now capital is leaving in droves. That small company you talked about? They'll fire their employees and outsource the work to a big corporation in India. It's done all the time with call centers (my brother's losing his job to India), so why not with coding? The problem is, as soon as standards of living start to rise (like they are in India), capital moves out to where those standards are the worst, and saves money in the process. Then standards of living fall back down where the capital left, and the cycle repeats itself. This is already happening in India, where they're losing jobs to Indonesia and Vietnam.

      As things stand, the whole of the world is rapidly becomming one big second world economy. i.e a few very rich and a lot of very poor. After all, capital will continue to flow where labor's cheapest, meanwhile machines will continue to replace more and more jobs. So there's few jobs and low wages for even those few.

      Capitalism can't cope with this, because is was concieved at a time when the average merchant had a stake in the community he was profiting from. Such a merchant wasn't going to do things that destroyed his community because, well, he lived there. Now, a modern CEO can live far away from the squalor he creates and protect his wealth with a army of lawyers and soldiers. They're the new Monarchs, and the only reason we haven't felt they're iron fist is that science has finally gotten to the point where we can generate enough wealth for even the most rapacious monarch.

      Communism is not a solution either; it's the retoric of a dictatorship. You'll never get past the revolutionary phase because, well, people are awful. The solution, as I outlined in my post, is to use science with a bit of social engineering (population control, proper education, etc) to make all this a moot point. The fact that this isn't happening is the greatest failure of the human race in histroy.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    7. Re:The really ridiculous thing is... by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      Ideally we should be free to support higher learning and research. I think the open source movement and Richarch M. Stallman are proof that people can and do exist who can be made to do useful things without being force to. The real problem is the throngs of stupid (of which I am regrettably a member, BTW :). Read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley for in interesting solution to the problem. A better solution would be to just control population so that you only have as many people as you can deal with using social engineering. It's an unpleasant solution, but better than letting the world decend into squalor and war.

      BTW, when we have enough wealth for everyone to be fed, clothed, housed and entertained, there will be no war. The root of war is _always_ economics. Even in the case of mad dictators who whip their populace into a fenzy, without bad economic conditions you can't whip a populace into that frenzy. I remember reading one of the big problems terrorists had with sleeper cells is the cell members would give up on terror once they got jobs, wives and houses.

      As for abuse of power. That generally requires either a board populace, a shortage of material wealth, or (usually) both. With science, I see no reason why we can't do away with both problems, and get on with the advancement and improvement of the human race.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    8. Re:The really ridiculous thing is... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      I think the open source movement and Richarch M. Stallman are proof that people can and do exist who can be made to do useful things without being force to.

      You aren't being forced to do anything currently, but there is clear incentive. With the FSF, many people write free software to help them with their commercial offerings, either helping with GCC to build their commercial software, or developing OS pieces to help sell their hardware. Even in that non-profit organization, there is much indirect profit to be made, which is why they have gotten funding.

      A better solution would be to just control population so that you only have as many people as you can deal with using social engineering.

      Which then goes back to the root problem. who is it that is going to be the ones working to control the population? They have all the food and power they could want, what incentive is there to do this work?

      BTW, when we have enough wealth for everyone to be fed, clothed, housed and entertained, there will be no war.

      I don't happen to believe that. Heard of the crusades?

      There are many reasons people may want to take power, and being able to feed your family is really not a major one even right now.

      As for abuse of power. That generally requires either a board populace, a shortage of material wealth

      It doesn't really require either... A raving lunatic with a few cronies could just decide he wanted control of the world. It's not as if there is anything to stop him.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:The really ridiculous thing is... by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      For controlling population, I have a simple and fair solution: Mandatory steralization untill an arbatary age (say, 27). I think you'll find that if young, irresponisble people can't have kids, the problem of overpopulation in any civilized society goes away.

      True, my knowledge of the Crusades is shakey (it's been a long time since I was a history major :). But I seem to remember something about the wealth being brought in by those crusades being tremendously useful. Also, you must have had a somewhat bored populace to get them to go off to a war they might die in. There probably wasn't a lot you could do back then. No tv, and the chruch, I seem to remember, looked down on people pursuing science, since that undermined their basis for power.

      My point about power is that that raving lunitic is welcome to all the power, for all the good it'll do him. Without boredum and/or a material wealth shortage, people can't be made to do the kind of nasty things that raving lunatic wants them to do. Give people food, clothing, shelter and something to do, and they mellow out. The lunatic will rave, but not listend to. He'll be a figure head. Also, I don't have such a low opinion of the human race that I don't believe that they couldn't find _something_ to do besides torment their fellow man.

      Oh, and I think you'll find that in our modern Capitalistic society, People take power to amass wealth. Not wealth to feed their families, but wealth as a means to an end. For it's own sake. How else can you explain mind numbing amount of wealth amassed by individuals in places like America. Also, how else can you explain just how crummy our political leaders have become. I mean, say what you will about the American president, but he's no leader, he's a figure head at best and a buffoon at worst (google for bushisms if you doubt me).

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    10. Re:The really ridiculous thing is... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Also, I don't have such a low opinion of the human race that I don't believe that they couldn't find _something_ to do besides torment their fellow man.

      I don't believe that either. Hovever, I always believe there will be a few that will go that route... Even if you just want to believe it will only be the completely insane that act like this, that's still plenty.

      People take power to amass wealth. Not wealth to feed their families, but wealth as a means to an end. For it's own sake.

      If you look around, you will see many people with power for the sake of power... Many people waste lots of wealth just for the sake of having more power over others.

      All you need to do is find someone with more money than they could ever spend, and watch as they continue to amass money. It is not the money that they want, but the power and status that comes with it.

      Our political leaders are not usually rich enough that they fall into the above category... They need more money to sustain their lifestyle, and always want more because they would like to live even more comfortably. They are not good examples of those that want power.

      And yes, Bush is a complete moron at best, and a criminal at worst.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:The really ridiculous thing is... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Who cares if a Rockefeller has 20 billion dollars, when most everyone who has far, far less is hardly starving and dying of plague? Don't you have anything better to do than be envious of your neighbors? "The grass is greener on the otherside of the fence so I'll go dump some salt to make us equal."

      It's really not about envy or destructive equality at all. It's more about maximising global wealth. Extreme concentrations of wealth typically distort economy and government in a way that furthers the concentration of wealth while reducing the overall wealth and halting progress.

      Part of the problem with teh current economy is that the very wealthy are NOT funding multi-billion dollar factories and R&D labs. They are sitting on their wealth.

      The biggest bug in capitolism as practiced today is that money acts oppositely to natural forces. That is money attracts money and poverty attracts poverty. The cycle has repeated throughout recorded history. Wealth in a society flows continuously from the have-nots to the havs until the disparity becomes unbearable. Then the have-nots revolt, kill the haves, and burn everything down.

      There's also the issue of transitioning to newer and better technology. We continuously invent technology capable of taking over human labor. At the same time, we have no plan for how the displaced workers are to make a living. We routinely figure out how to allow 1 person to do the work of 10, but we fail to figure out how the other 9 are supposed to eat.

      In practice, the problem above has been 'solved' by growing the economy to make room for the other 9. The result being that all 10 work just as hard as ever, making no more than they made before, and the owner of the equipment pockets the productivity gains.

      One problem is that the economy can't grow forever. This is especially true when the wealth concentrates upon an ever smaller portion of the population. If the masses can't buy any more stuff, there's nowhere for the economy to grow.

      Karl Marx proposed to prevent the concentration of wealth by having the state sieze everything. History has shown that that approach simply demotivates everyone and results in people concentrating political power and 'special execptions' rather than wealth. It turns out that power accumulates even faster and spills over even less than economic wealth, so that the society self-destructs even faster (not any differently than a free economy really, just faster).

      The failure of big socialism in the USSR doesn't mean that American capitolism is the one true way, just that it's better than 'Soviet Communism' (which never actually developed into Communism).

      A $500 check from the government isn't going to be the answer, but neither is giving more to those who already have all of their needs and most of their wants met while leaving those who barely meet their needs to fend for themselves.

      Consider: In a free market, prices will fall to the marginal cost of production. What happens if we can drive the marginal cost of production to zero?

      Consider also, if we introduce demand flexibility for the masses by making the basics (food, clothing, shelter, and these days medical care and education) freely available to all. I'm not talking about gourmet meals, mansions, and designer clothes here, just the basic necessities (and unlike the current system, no social stigma, no massive government forms, no losing your benefits because you have the audacity to actually put $100 in the bank or save up to buy something, no questions asked, just ask and you shall receive). What does that do to supply and demand? How does that change the balance of economic power? How does that affect individual decisions to take an economic risk such as starting a small business? For that matter how does it affect cultural and artistic pursuits? Material progress? (hint: no more selling your dreams and ideas for a penny on the dollar in order to eat).

      In answer to your question above, if cheap hydroge

  44. Can't outsource everything... by cyclone1996 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm an aerospace engineer in the space/defense sector, which is notoriously cyclical. Sometimes I questioned my sanity in staying in it, but working on spacecraft was just too fun to leave.

    Ironically, it's a pretty good place to be these days. Defense spending is way up for obvious reasons, and it's poured into high-tech programs that demand a lot of engineering. Many, many people bailed out for the tech boom in the late '90s, which thinned out the employee base. I won't say there is a massive shortage of people or a huge number of unfilled openings, but there is a healthy market with employers like Lockheed, Raytheon, CIA - calls from recruiters and job hopping are pretty common where I work.

    And, national security jobs can't be outsourced to India - 99% of them have US citizenship as a basic requirement.

    1. Re:Can't outsource everything... by jlseagull · · Score: 1

      I won't say there is a massive shortage of people or a huge number of unfilled openings, but there is a healthy market with employers like Lockheed, Raytheon, CIA - calls from recruiters and job hopping are pretty common where I work.

      I dunno. I'm an MSEE with 2 years experience and a 3.4 from a pretty good uni, and I've been trying to get in at Lockheed for about six months. I know one of their VP's and about eight other people in their spacecraft systems group, but they insist on going through HR, who are quite snotty and never get back to you. They have scads of jobs on their website, but don't respond at all to inquiries. Lockheed seems to take forever to do anything. I guess it makes sense, being that it's a 150K+ employee company, but it's frustrating to deal with.

      Got any tips?

      --
      'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
  45. modern agricultural laborers by notany · · Score: 1

    Developers inhabit a continuum from just below real Software Engineers
    (those that have read Knuth and understood him) down to the burger
    flippers coding in VB to a spec someone else wrote. They are the post
    modern agricultural laborers AND THEY KNOW THIS really.
    -- http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/30459.html

    --
    Dyslexics have more fnu.
  46. good times by dtfinch · · Score: 3, Funny

    The company I work for is doing great, mainly because I'm underpaid.

    I actually typed about 1000 words describing what I do there, but decided to scrap it. Now I feel bad for spending an hour on this post.

    1. Re:good times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see why you're underpaid:

      1) You have time to write 1000 words and one hour on slashdot
      2) You're indecisive since you started writing 1000 words and then erased everything
      3) You're stupid because you should have realized that you shouldn't have even bothered posting in the first place.

    2. Re:good times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whatever dick head. you are a dick head because: 1)it was a sunday in which he posted. 2)He changed his mind to use less resource to convey the same message. 3)you are a dick head

  47. Bartending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I am in a similar situation to what you are in except I spent 4 years in the computer industry as a systems engineer with linux and other unices. I worked for Qwest and Navisite during that time and had a lot of fun and made some good money. When the company was going down I took a couple of months off and then decided to get a job as a bartender, since I had previous experience serving tables. The money is great and you dont have to participate fully in the countrywide tip pool :). I am just now after over a year, going back to finish my CS degree. If things go well and the market recovers I can hopefully land a good computer job because the only thing I want right now is to work in the industry at any level or pay. I just love working on computers but I have to live.

    If you are ever in Riverhead on Long Island go to the restaurant across the street from the racetrack. Just look for the black haired guy with a part in the middle. Ask me something about computers and I'll know.

    As

  48. And it was foolish... by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... for companies to do so. Many were hiring people just to have them available to them for work. They never gave them anything revolutionary to work on (by and large), and ended up wasting them. It was a bad investment, planning for something that didn't pan out.

    It didn't help that people *flocked* to technical programs at universities, forcing excessive weed-out classes to reduce admissions numbers. I ended up ceasing to ccontinue with my CSE major not because I didn't want to learn the trade to do something that I liked, working with computers in newer, exciting ways, but because I didn't want to do group projects with people who had no idea what a spreadsheet was, and we all were to be basically graded on the performance of the lowest member of the group. (yes, I am bitter)

    People flocked to the programs for the money. There's no money now, and there are a lot of trained people who are very upset about not being able to make a five year career on a four year education. This is one fad that died.

    I believe that it'll level out again, and that suitable numbers of college-training-required technical jobs will come back, but hopefully this period of bust will be remembered, and the trend won't repeat for a long time.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:And it was foolish... by blix5 · · Score: 1

      It may not level out if the jobs are flocking overseas. Those jobs could be gone for good.

      Speaking from experience, a lot of people that are left in the IT field actually DON'T have any idea of what a spreadsheet is.

      It's kinda sad that such a relatively young field has already bumped out the geeks that love and *know* software/hardware, and replaced them with drone opportunists.

    2. Re:And it was foolish... by TWX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It may not level out if the jobs are flocking overseas. Those jobs could be gone for good."

      I don't think that all of the jobs, or even a majority of them, will do that. Remember, it's good to have employees that you have at arms' reach, so you can throttle them when they screw up royally, metaphorically speaking. If they're physically in the same office as the corporation management, there is a lot greater quality control possible than if they're on the other side of the planet, working in a nearly opposing time zone. Easy to complete projects will be outsourced, but stuff requiring new developmental effort will remain. Also, if they're overseas, it might be more difficult to get financial restitution from them for something gone wrong, like the leaking of trade secrets, severe bugs that should have been fixed, and the like. The legal system there might not even give you a case. Here, there is precedent for dealing with employee misconduct, be it intentional or accidental, and restitution can sometimes be found.

      "Speaking from experience, a lot of people that are left in the IT field actually DON'T have any idea of what a spreadsheet is."

      I know. The sadder fact than that is that frequently people use spreadsheets, creating massive numbers of relational fields, macros, and processes, when they could use a programming language or shell script to achieve the same results in a fraction of the time.

      " It's kinda sad that such a relatively young field has already bumped out the geeks that love and *know* software/hardware, and replaced them with drone opportunists."

      Every field with high salaries is full of opportunists. The thing that computers/technology has as an advantage is that it's much harder to bullshit your way through. Sometimes people come into one of the Linux channels on IRC because they need help with a server they're responsible for, and they can't get this-or-that to work. When it's stuff documented at The Linux Documentation Project, or a Google Search away, I don't help them. I'll help those wanting to learn for themselves, but if they *need* my help to do a job, they shouldn't be doing it in the first place. They will eventually weed-out, because they'll find a problem that they can't beg for help to fix, and will expose themselves. Bosses don't like paying $129/hr or more for outside field help when they already have someone on staff who supposedly knows how to do it.

      I do what I can to be the best technician/admin/computer guru that I can be. I work to show that my merit with what I do should give cause for me to be advanced, and it has worked several times. I'm fairly confident that it'll work again once the system has finished deflating from the bubble that blew.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:And it was foolish... by Quantum+Skyline · · Score: 1

      It didn't help that people *flocked* to technical programs at universities, forcing excessive weed-out classes to reduce admissions numbers.

      Students still flock to technical programs at universities.

      I ended up ceasing to ccontinue with my CSE major not because I didn't want to learn the trade to do something that I liked, working with computers in newer, exciting ways, but because I didn't want to do group projects with people who had no idea what a spreadsheet was, and we all were to be basically graded on the performance of the lowest member of the group. (yes, I am bitter)

      I understand your bitterness, there are a lot of underqualified CS/CE/SE/EE students out there. I've dealt with them a lot.

      People flocked to the programs for the money. There's no money now, and there are a lot of trained people who are very upset about not being able to make a five year career on a four year education. This is one fad that died.

      People still flock to these technical programs for the money. I still hear about CE/SE/EE/CS students who are there for the Benjamins in the future. And they're forced to think that way. Everyone who I tell that I'm in Computer Engineering says "Wow. You'll be making good money." The fad is not dead.

      I believe that it'll level out again, and that suitable numbers of college-training-required technical jobs will come back, but hopefully this period of bust will be remembered, and the trend won't repeat for a long time.

      I think so too, but it will take some time. And since we don't seem to learn from history, I think there will be a repeat of this.

    4. Re:And it was foolish... by hax4bux · · Score: 1

      You are so wrong. If you are smart enough to actually get a real CS degree and really do the work, then you are probably smart enough to do anything.

      Work sucks by definition. It's not all bad, but you are paid to sit through a lot of unsavory parts as well as the interesting pieces.

      If you agree that work sucks, then it only makes sense to be compensated for your pain. I personally prefer to be highly compensated for my pain. I've been selling my life in increments of 1/4 hour for over 20 years now. I want something to show for that.

      My point here is that if CS delivers a quality career, then I'm all for it. And if CS does not deliver a quality career, then I'm going to go find one that does.

      This isn't religion, this is work. I have airplanes to fly, boats to sail and family to support.

      Put another way: "you are not your job". I hope you find some satisfaction, but work is the wrong place for personal enlightenment. (Unless your Dogbert).

    5. Re:And it was foolish... by TWX · · Score: 1

      "Work sucks by definition. It's not all bad, but you are paid to sit through a lot of unsavory parts as well as the interesting pieces."

      What?!

      Don't take this the wrong way, but doesn't that make life suck? I mean, Depending on your commute time, you could be spending as much as eleven hours a day dealing with work related issues. If you're awake for sixteen hours a day, on average, then you only have five hours a day that is your time, to make your day un-suck from work sucking. The only days that you have all to yourself are weekends, and that's assuming that you don't have deadlines or overzealous bosses that need you to do weekend work.

      I enjoy what I do, even field tech or bench tech work. It's not some "off in la-la land" type of enjoyment, either, I put forth a little bit of effort at one point to gain a lot of enjoyment out of it. If you don't like what you're doing, go get yourself a better job. Doing it for the money will leave you an empty shell of a person.

      I *liked* QA more than field work, because I found it fun to make things break, especially when I could demonstrate them breaking, reproduce them breaking, and figure out what failed. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have kept doing it for even the relatively short time that I was able to do it. For me, it was a rush, a small feeling of power, that the computer lost (or really, the programmer), and I won. This lead the company that I worked for to building better software, because the conflict was something between people and machines, not between people themselves, or between people and their desires to be elsewhere.

      Seriously though, if you detest what you do this much, find something that you are passionate about, and do that.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:And it was foolish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the medical doctor world.

      The number of intelligent, excellent would be doctors that gained admission who then looked around and say "what the..." or were doctors for a decade or two adn then left and went on to other successful careers or simply retired is remarkable, imo.

      I don't make big bucks myself, but I have no problem getting something to eat or paying off my substantial upper 5 figure loans.

  49. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1
    Forget 'general' type construction skills unless you want to run a company or fix up your own place - go specialised. A plumber in the UK can earn around $100,000 pa as self-employed and if you are prepared to do call-outs, more. They cannot train enough because no qualified plumber wants to earn $30K lecturing when they could be out there actually doing the job and earning many times that/

    Ne construction goes in waves (at the moment in many parts of the western world it is on a downturn) but many people still need the basics for maintenance.

  50. Heaven forefend... by eidechse · · Score: 1

    My normally empathic heart is having a hard time bleeding for this guy. Especially considering:

    "...the 40-year-old engineering exec has been out of work for three months now."
    and
    "My kids think I'm still working. My oldest knows I'm looking for a job, but not that I'm out of work."

    So the first guy's got the scratch to maintain his suburban Chicago existence for 3 months whilst lying to his kids so they have no idea of their situation. Then we hear thu implication of how this is exactly mhat blue collar workers are going through.

    In the interest of fairness, I will admit that I, thankfully, am an employed white collar worker. That notwithstanding, this article makes it seem as if the current economic doldrums are amazingly unbelievably unprecedentedly awfully fantastically horrible; as evidenced by the fact that, gasp, executive consultants may not be able to maintain the lifestyle which they have became accustomed. And, to add insult to injury, "White-collar workers and college graduates are in a state of shock...".

    We do have a serious economic problems. However, I don't think that shedding crocodile tears for the plight of the yuppie is any way to start solving them.

  51. It ain't that simple. by Krapangor · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The Dollar is falling because the investors don't trust the US economics any more. So they invest e.g. in Europe or Asia. While your products get cheaper the companies won't have enough money to use the advantage. And the US forgein trade deficit makes they situation much worse. Most growth in the last 10 (!) years was based on lended money. Now the creditors want to get their money back. And this will eat up all your positive effects form the cheap dollar.
    The next problem is that a weak Dollar will drive international economics to use other currencies for trading contracts. And with the appearance of the Euro there is a single powerful currency with a strong economic background to take the Dollar's place. The US goverment tries to prevent this by military means (like Irak) but can't wage war on everyone. And have the Dollar as the international trade currency is extremly important for the US, because you can finance all your resource consuption just by printing new money. In fact this was a "money-for-US" tax for other countries but this will be gone soon.

    A weak currency is sometimes just a slow poison. That's the reason why the European are so keen on having a hard Euro.

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
  52. long term effects by jav27 · · Score: 1

    it was a matter of time before free trade and zero control in capital flow affected the well paid middle class in the US. Now, since few high salary jobs are created, the purchasing power of that middle class slowly erodes as the unemployed relocate to lower paying jobs. I wonder the implications of this for sectors like tourism that depend highly on that middle class purchasing power.

  53. People need OXYGEN, FOOD AND LODGINGS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are EVER thinking you'll never get a job again, forget the computers. Take a Food Preparation course, or Hospitality/Hotel.

  54. Oh boo hoo by red5 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, start your own business (when the economy is down it's the best thing to do). Write a kickass application. Take your skill and make something. Till you open your own business you're just a cog in a wheel. Easily replaced and of no real value to anybody.

    --
    I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
    1. Re:Oh boo hoo by blix5 · · Score: 1

      That would be nice, but:
      No job = no money.

    2. Re:Oh boo hoo by red5 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take a lot of money to start a business. My dad did it while supporting a family of five (himself, mom and three kids).

      --
      I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
    3. Re:Oh boo hoo by blix5 · · Score: 2

      Did your dad have credit cards, a hefty 401k and a house to mortgage?
      Many out of work people (not just tech geeks) don't have the privilege of soft money.

      Actually, if I had the money, I'd probably go back to uni. :)

    4. Re:Oh boo hoo by red5 · · Score: 1

      Did your dad have credit cards, a hefty 401k and a house to mortgage?

      Not really (a chevron card), no and no.

      Many out of work people (not just tech geeks) don't have the privilege of soft money.

      Well the guy in the article was earning 200K a year. If he doesn't have savings enough to start a business out of his home he's really not that bright after all.

      --
      I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
  55. solution to national debt by js7a · · Score: 4, Informative
    It would be easy to get rid of the U.S. national debt, if we didn't have the lowest tax rate of all but one of the industrialized nations. Take a look at the country with the highest tax rate as a fraction of GDP, Sweden; they have very responsible debt levels (unlike ours), along with 4% unemployment (we just hit a nine-year record high above 6%) and very reasonable 2.2% inflation. Moreover, Sweden is way ahead of the U.S. in the only way known to make more citizens. While Sweden is the best place to raise kids, the U.S. has increasing crime rates (which tend to correlate with unemployment), and therefore likely soon-to-be-decreasing property values.

    What is Sweden's secret? Progressive taxation. Average production workers in Sweden pay no income tax to their central government because the bottom bracket starts about a tenth above the average production worker's salary. The Swedish tax rate is typically about 57% of income earned above that base. Sweden only has two central government tax brackets: 0% and 25%, so their "federal" taxes are actually closer to the "flat tax" than ours are in the U.S. The additional 32% or so varies by local jurisdiction, as does the income bracket at which it takes effect.

    The problem in the U.S. is that top-bracket income earners (including corporations, medium-sized businesses, and most of the top 1% rich, excluding some of the prominent top rich in the media spotlight) pay a huge amount of money in order to help elect government officials who will keep the top tax brackets low. This effectivly "saves" them an even larger amount of money, except for the externalities like crime rate, debt, and property values. We used to have regulations providing equal air time for federal candidates, but Reagan's FCC did away with those, so most candidates today, even most nationally prominent Democrats, sure know which side of their bread is buttered on. There are some notable exceptions, however.

    1. Re:solution to national debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Please explain this to me...

      If what you say is true, why did federal tax revenues nearly triple from 1980 to 1988?

      Remember, the top 1% had their tax rate slashed in 1980 and then cut a little further in 1986.

      According to your theory, higher taxes on the top 1% results in more tax revenue. Are you saying that you really think revenues would have nearly tripled in that 8 year period if taxes were not lowered? How do you explain this gigantic surge in tax revenue?

      Clearly you are out of your league here. Also, in regards to your comments about debt, read some of the other replies to this subject, the myth of the national debt of the US is one of the largest frauds ever used by politicians in this country. The US national debt is a low percentage of the US GDP. This is right up there with military spending. People like you also run around telling everyone that the US spends way too much on defense, when really, the US spends a modest 3% of GDP on defense.

    2. Re:solution to national debt by js7a · · Score: 2, Interesting
      why did federal tax revenues nearly triple from 1980 to 1988?

      Because of GDP growth and increased dependence on regressive forms of taxation.

      The US national debt is a low percentage of the US GDP.

      Tell that to the currency traders who have been dumping dollars for euros like mad over the past month. The truth is that the present value of the U.S. deficit in perpetuity is about $44 trillion, which has us teetering on the brink of insolvency at our current tax rates. Look at the pie charts in the back of your federal income tax instruction booklet; do you see the slice labled "interest on the national debt"? Now open Barron's or the Wall Street Journal and have a look at historical interest rates. If you ignore the brief run-up in the several months preceding the 2000 election, you will note that they have been at all time lows. What do you suppose would happen to the size of that pie slice representing interest if rates returned to 1982 levels? Here are some hints: David Stockman, "Read my lips...," Paul O'Niell, Mitch Daniels.

      There is no way we can support the health and pension costs of the baby boomers as they retire without a radical rebracketing of income tax rates, and there is no reason not to select Sweden's simple brackets, based on the clear emperical evidence of their excellent society in terms of education, worker training, unemployment and inflation rates, parent support with daycare, social services, etc. Swedish unemployment levels are not what anyone associates with a "socialist" or "welfare state." They simply have a two-bracket, steeply progressive, egalitarian income tax that grows their middle class while ours in the U.S. is shrinking.

      A shrinking middle class puts us on a collision course with riots, not unlike those the president's father faced a dozen years ago.

      People like you also run around telling everyone that the US spends way too much on defense...

      Indeed I do.

    3. Re:solution to national debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, people are really worried about the long term ability of the US to pay its debt, that is why they are demanding so much for 30 year debt, right? Oh wait, 30 year debt is at near record lows!

      People were/are moving to Euros for now(including myself) to make money, not because they think the US is in a bad debt position.

      There is no way 30 year debt would be so cheap if what you say is true.

    4. Re:solution to national debt by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Clearly you are out of your league here.

      Actually, it appears that you are out of your league. The other poster, to whom you were replyings, cited figures and mounted logical arguments in favor of his position. I found them much more compelling than the ad-hominem attack shown above.

    5. Re:solution to national debt by fmaxwell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Increased GDP, no shit, that is the whole point. There is a tax sweet spot that maximizes GDP growth.

      Paying huge sums of interest on the federal debt hurts the GDP while fiddling with taxation has little to do with economic growth according to most respected economists.

      Let's look at this rationally: What does the federal government do with tax dollars? It buys goods and services, primarily from U.S. corporations. That money then goes to U.S. workers who spend it, supporting everyone from salespeople to restaurant workers to truck drivers.

      Others will complain about the tax dollars of the rich going to social programs. They may not like it, but who is more likely to spend money that they get: Someone who has a six figure income or a lower-income person who is trying to scrape together money for a new windshield in their car, clothes for their kids, a new refrigerator, a new mattress, etc.? The poor have a whole list of things that they need to buy while the rich want for little. If you want money stimulate the economy, then give it to people who need to spend it.

    6. Re:solution to national debt by javiercero · · Score: 5, Informative

      You sir know nothing about "moving money"

      " Yeah, people are really worried about the long term ability of the US to pay its deb"

      Acutally they are, why with continuous tax cuts under the Bush administration. People who are investing in dollars are getting the signal that the US is in no hurry to pay its debt. Therefore they are funneling all their money into Euros, because they can liquify their investment quicker when dealing with the European Central Bank. The federal reserve can not guarantee the current issuing of debt to 3th parties. And that is a fact, most Americans are unaware of how capitalism works, and that is quite sad.

      Look at it this way, you have a "friend" who just asked you for money. At the same time you find out that he is buying a brand new car, house, stereo, whatever. And at the same time you have found out htat his employment status has been demoted from branch manager to the guy that has to flip the burgers. So common senes tells you that his income has been dramatically reduced, while his expenses have skyrocketed. Just after you find out (and he is making no effort to hide these facts in fact he is quite proud of his new lower position in the workplace and he drives his shinny porche everywhere), your friend comes asking you for more money even though he still has not payed back hte money he borrowed before. Mind that during the same time you have had to deal with a much more tight budget for yourself, i.e. you have to drive your old crappy car and you do not want to buy much stuff (you like to keep you bank balance in check).... so tell me: Will you lend more money to your friend?

      The US is sadly setting itself for some rude awakening. Then again, welcome to capitalism... now that people have an alternative to the dollar, the US economy may have to actually get real! The US really has nothing to back up the inmense debt staked against its currency. The only reason why the US was getting away with it for so long was because it was the defacto trading currency, hence people had to support the dollar (even though they were not too happy to do it), but now... there is an alternative. Buh bye monopoly, now there is a real competition.

      If you are still thinking like the money traders of the 80's and before, you are setting yourself for a massive reality check. Fine with me though...

    7. Re:solution to national debt by js7a · · Score: 1
      There is a tax sweet spot that maximizes GDP growth.

      On the contrary, plotting the tax rates of various jurisdictions against their growth rates yeilds a correlation below 0.1.

      It sure the hell isn't 70% like it was in the bad old days.

      Where, on Neptune?

    8. Re:solution to national debt by ces · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That $44 trillion of US Federal debt provides a tremendious amount of liquidity to world financial markets and a "safe" investment to park cash in. Eliminating it or even reducing it below certain levels wouldn't be a good thing.

      There is no way we can support the health and pension costs of the baby boomers as they retire without a radical rebracketing of income tax rates

      Fuck the boomers. Actually almost every country is facing a demographic crunch. The number of workers availible to support pay-as-you-go pension schemes is shrinking almost everywhere. Both social security and medicare are in need of massive reform. Jacking the tax rates on younger workers is not the way to fix things. Actually a gradual rise in the age where one can collect social security and medicare would take care of most of the "crisis" unfortunately this is politically difficult to do.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    9. Re:solution to national debt by ces · · Score: 1

      It sure the hell isn't 70% like it was in the bad old days.

      Where, on Neptune?


      I think the grandparent post is refering to the old top-bracket rate which I believe was around 70%.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    10. Re:solution to national debt by Alphtoo · · Score: 1

      Move to Sweden. They build some damn fine cars. Just don't stay here and bitch.

    11. Re:solution to national debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      I'm not going to get into the details, but Sweden is the most moronic communist country in the world, and taxes is one of the worst things here.

      This country is going straight to hell, because the few intelligent people that earns some money is tired of sustaining masses of lazy bastards that live out of the taxes of the rest.

      How fun do you think it is when 50% of your hard earned money goes to pay for the booze of the legions of alcoholics that infest this country??

      And then, the morons don't even want to join Euro, idiots!
      (that is so they can keep devaluating the Swedish Korona, and keep the appearance that this communist system kind of 'works')

      It pisses me off so fucking much, because this is a beautiful country, but it's incredibly naive citizens with it's braindead communist system make it impossible to live here.

      This is the country from where God Ingmar Bergman had to run away because was accused of trying to avoid taxes!(I have heard that his taxes were approaching 90%, I will let you make your own conclusions; also IIRC one of the most famous Swedish writers was once accused of tax cheating, when her(his?) taxes were over 100%!!

      And don't hope for any change, there are way too many people living out of the government to allow it.

      As for crime, crime is growing really fast here, having in mind that prisons are more like luxury hotels, and that the police is one of the most incompetent in the world(did you ever heard of Olof Palme?), add to that they let any 3rd world uncivilized barbarian monkey come here, and you have the heaven for criminals.

      Thanks for the taxes graph, Japan here I go!!!

      \\k

      P.S.: For the record, I have nothing against the Swedish people(or the few that are left here anyway), IMHO they are just incredibly naive, and don't even realize that they are destroying their incredibly beautiful country, which makes me _very_, _very_ sad... (I will say more, in general, Swedish people(specially the ones from the North) are the _most_ friendly I have ever meet, and also very quiet and calm, which I like very much)

      P.P.S.: BTW, I don't want to mean that the US is any better, I have to agree with Alan Cox here, I will never put my feet on such a Fascist Undemocratic Religious Military State

      P.P.P.S.: Apologies to anyone that might be offended, but you got me in a really bad day, when one of my best friends has been detained by the Swedish police for running a business that was helping this country move forward and get of of the idioticy(BTW, his companies run only Open Source software, including desktops), I don't know yet of what stupid thing they accuse him(of working too hard and being too smart, I guess) but he has done more for this country that anyone in it's stupid communist government, and this is how they pay him back!
      THANK YOU FOR NOTHING, MORONS!

      </flamebait></troll></rant>

    12. Re:solution to national debt by MKalus · · Score: 0, Troll
      Then again, welcome to capitalism... now that people have an alternative to the dollar, the US economy may have to actually get real!


      One little thing you forgot: Things like Gas prices and products where cheap for the US because they printed the money they PAID in. The money always came back.

      Imagine what would happen if all the delivery contracts all of the sudden would be charged in Euros instead of USD? Or if the OPEC would decide that they rather get paid in Euros? (And that is something they think about loud already).

      Another not so well known fact is that:

      1. Iraq had stopped asking for USD in their Oil for Food program sometime last year and rather wanted to be paid in Euros.
      2. North Korea stopped trading in USD and has switched it's international trading to Euros.
      3. Iran is on the way to do the same.

      Can you imagine how much the US would hurt if people decided to abandon the Dollar (to which they only held on because the US Gov in the past was working for a strong Dollar) and move into the Euro?

      All off the sudden the US would need to buy Euros in order to do foreign trade, which in turn would bring the Euro up higher and the USD down even more which in turn would mean higher prices at home, for EVERYTHING. Have a look next time you're shopping where your stuff is coming from and you will realize just how fucked up for the US that would be.

      Maybe some more wars anyone? Europe maybe?

      M.
      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    13. Re:solution to national debt by antirename · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your plan has several large gaping holes in. First, the liberals would have to be in power. They are not, although it might happen. Second, the liberals would have to be smart enough to spend that money effectively. I don't see that EVER happening. Where I live the liberals bracketed their historic district/tourist trap with public housing back in the 60's. Want to guess what happened a year or two later? I knew you didn't really need to. I live in the high rent area of the historic district. Right in the middle of the most beautiful part of the city in a house built in 1870. I also sleep with an AK47 and a 12 gauge within easy reach. They haven't been needed yet (the dogs got the one would-be home invader that was dumb enough to break in) but I would be a fool not to be armed judging by the crime statistics around here. Fed up downtown residents just invited the Guardian Angels in since the police won't enforce the law for fear of appearing to be racist. The government won't help us, so we're helping ourselves. Yeah, there could and probably will be side effects (it was a realy interesting meeting when the Angels came in, old southern white money and two Hispanic ex-gang member Angel reps... and some cops trying to make everyone uncomfortable) So, to me, you're saying that you want to give more money to the people in those concrete jungle housing projects surrounding my home. Why? Do they need more fucking gas money to drive the five blocks to try to rob me? Again? Guess I need ANOTHER trained doberman if your tax plans ever see the light of day. Comparing liberals in Sweden to liberals in America is foolish. The liberals here would give the money to the minorities to get that guaranteed "black vote" on election day. They don't care if the quality of life goes up for those people, or anything else about them. If a tax plan like yours ever goes through I'm afraid I'd be forced to move offshore or buy a fanny pack if I wanted to go out after dark.

    14. Re:solution to national debt by js7a · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If a tax plan like yours ever goes through I'm afraid I'd be forced to move offshore or buy a fanny pack if I wanted to go out after dark.

      I don't think you understand that liberals these days couldn't care less about public housing and restoring welfare. Our top priorities are universal health care (not a whole lot more money than Medicare for the boomers, really), education (better preschool, class sizes, and college tution aid would be a good start), and figuring out how to pay for your social security when you retire.

      We aren't going to come take away your gun, as much as I might personally belive that to be a good thing. We are well aware that the Republicans know how to siphon that top percent money into campaign ads one way or another, so we want you to be armed in case another John Ashcroft shows up at 3 a.m.

    15. Re:solution to national debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry socialist boy, but maybe you should take your happy ass over to eurobitch land where the government can be your mommy and daddy. I prefer rugged individualism to the government invading allfacets of my life.

    16. Re:solution to national debt by lordholm · · Score: 1

      I have to say:

      I am a Swedish citizen still living in Sweden, and I fully agree with what you say.

      PS! I'd like to hear more about your friend and the horrible crimes he is acused for. If it is intresting I might write an article about it in a anti-socialistic magazine that I have... connections with. DS!

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    17. Re:solution to national debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong mcfly. Europe doesn't produce shit, so even if the euro went sky high it wouldn't affect us. It only helps our exports.

    18. Re:solution to national debt by antirename · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I KNOW you couldn't care less about public housing. I have to live next to it while it rots. And riots. And robs. And mugs. And reproduces. You are saying that "OK, we fucked up urban planning. Artificial ghettos suck, we put them in the wrong place, oh well. Tough shit. NOW we're after health care and social security". And I'm supposed to think that the liberals will do a better job with health care than they did with welfare? Tell you what, you liberals fix the messes you have made already, and figure out how to the criminals to do what you tell them (like turn in all those guns they have illegally) and THEN maybe the country will give you another shot at fixing things. Voters, like myself, are concerned about issues. You should address those issues, even if that "it's politcally incorrect" thing in your brain starts to protest. And no, I'm not a Republican, I'm a libertarian.

    19. Re:solution to national debt by chimpo13 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fuck the boomers... Jacking the tax rates on younger workers is not the way to fix things.

      You're right. We should institute Death Race 2000 with more points if you off someone older than 55. If we start offin' the old folks, we won't have to raise taxes on us kids.

      As the cars roar into Pennsylvania, the cradle of liberty, it seems apparent that our citizens are staying off the streets, which may make scoring particularly difficult, even with this year's rule changes. To recap those revisions: women are still worth 10 points more than men in all age brackets, but teenagers now rack up 40 points, and toddlers under 12 now rate a big 70 points. The big score: anyone, any sex, over 75 years old has been upped to 100 points.

    20. Re:solution to national debt by otmar · · Score: 2, Informative
      The US is sadly setting itself for some rude awakening.

      An interesting read concerning the US debt is on billmon.org. Powerfull stuff.

      /ol

    21. Re:solution to national debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sorry socialist boy, but maybe you should take your happy ass over to eurobitch land where the government can be your mommy and daddy. I prefer rugged individualism to the government invading allfacets of my life.


      Yeah Mister Selfish Caveman, stay in your Far West with your gun, praying God the gov. will stop spending money for the less fortunate.

    22. Re:solution to national debt by danheskett · · Score: 1

      I've been following your sermon here, and I have to comment.

      First off, there are many many many in your wing of the political spectrum who would in fact take away all hand guns, rifles, and other firearms. You have to acknowledge that to be taken seriously. Congress and the Senate in fact have members who seek a repeal of the 2nd amendment, or incremental limitations on who can own guns.

    23. Re:solution to national debt by Tony+Shepps · · Score: 0, Troll

      Whilst penning this ode to your favorite socialist paradise you forgot to mention that Sweden's standard of living is below that of the lowest standard of living of any US state.

      HTH

    24. Re:solution to national debt by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      "Tell that to the currency traders who have been dumping dollars for euros like mad over the past month."

      I believe that it's a good thing because it will lower the value of dollar. U.S. always had a trade deficit and yet the value of the dollar remained high. Now the dollar is devaluing like it should have and hopefully will fix the trade deficit and large export of U.S. jobs issue soon.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    25. Re:solution to national debt by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

      +1 - Poster lives in the real world with eyes open

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    26. Re:solution to national debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The poor have a whole list of things that they need to buy while the rich want for little. If you want money stimulate the economy, then give it to people who need to spend it.

      Posting as AC to not appear to be an eliteish, show-offish douche.

      BUT, I am fortunate enough to still make damn good money, even in this economy. My disposable income, which I most certianly do dispose of, is much higher than what " a lower-income person who is trying to scrape together money for a new windshield in their car, clothes for their kids, a new refrigerator, a new mattress, etc." will spend all year. Not to mention the fact that the more money I have in my pocket, the more likely I am to contract portions of my business out, supporting other people and businesses.

      Your bought the dems line of BS. Try to think aobut how this works for yourself....don't just paraphrase what you've heard from others. "Your" theory just doesn't pan out.

    27. Re:solution to national debt by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can you imagine how much the US would hurt if people decided to abandon the Dollar (to which they only held on because the US Gov in the past was working for a strong Dollar) and move into the Euro? All off the sudden the US would need to buy Euros in order to do foreign trade, which in turn would bring the Euro up higher and the USD down even more which in turn would mean higher prices at home, for EVERYTHING. Have a look next time you're shopping where your stuff is coming from and you will realize just how fucked up for the US that would be.

      And you completely skip the balancing part of that economic concept: where our exported good cost less therefore become more competitive in the world market, lowering our trade deficit, creating more jobs, and recovering our white collar IT jobs back from India, because it is now cheaper to hire our own workers, and possibly even for other countries to hire our workers/contract out to us.

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    28. Re:solution to national debt by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Iraq had stopped asking for USD...North Korea stopped trading in USD...Iran is on the way to do the same.

      [melodrama]
      Oh dear, three of the most important trading partners of the US have gone to Euros!
      [/melodrama]
      Let me know when Canada, Mexico, Japan, and China want Euros. Right now they still seem to like dollars.

      Can you imagine how much the US would hurt if people decided to abandon the Dollar and move into the Euro? All off the sudden the US would need to buy Euros in order to do foreign trade, which in turn would bring the Euro up higher and the USD down even more which in turn would mean higher prices at home, for EVERYTHING. Have a look next time you're shopping where your stuff is coming from and you will realize just how fucked up for the US that would be.

      Yeah, but a move to the Euro as a baseline currency is about as likely as a move to the Ruble. Saying "if everything was priced in Euros" is like saying "if everything was priced in Blue Whale Skulls"-- it presupposes a highly unusual initial condition. The reason dollars are the de facto world currency right now is because the US is where other countries want to spend their money. If they got Euros for their [oil/textiles/widgets], they'd still have to convert to dollars in order to buy US products. Your scenario involving a plummeting dollar and surging Euro presupposes that not only will countries stop accepting dollars as payment, but that they will no longer buy anything that requires dollars for payment. So unless the EU suddenly becomes an economic giant and the US economy withers away to nothing, your scenario is just hot gas.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    29. Re:solution to national debt by Hobbex · · Score: 4, Informative

      Get a clue before you start painting pictures of socialist wonderlands. Sweden is everything but a positive example.

      Firstly, the unemployment rate. The Swedish government plays number games, and uses artificial means to suppress the "open" unemployment down to under 5%. In truth, if you start including the people who have been given early retirement because they were deemed unemployable, or those in different government reeducation or temporary placement programs, the unemployment rate is closer to 15%.

      Average workers do pay income tax, and a lot of it, they just don't pay the central government tax. The 30-35% of the income paid to on the local level (and it isn't actually local either, because richer counties are taxed for the poorer ones) is paid by all. And that is not everything: there are hidden taxes on labour, in the form of taxes on companies for employing people: the true tax rate, including these, is closer to half for people with low incomes, and to two thirds for people with "high" incomes ("high" starts at around $35k - hardly considered high income in the States).

      Sweden has not thrived under it's cleptocratic government. In the last thirty years, it has fallen from being the second or third richest nation in the world, down to being among the poorest of the western countries. In the EU only Portugal and Greece are poorer, and that looks likely to change. If Sweden had enjoyed the same economic growth since 1970 as the US, it's per capita GNP would have been double what it is today.

      Sweden lacking in innovation and corporate growth as well. Entrepeneurs, skilled labor, and even large companies are leaving the country at alarming rates mostly driven out by the standard of living. With such high taxation on labor, purchasing services is beyond the reach of the typical family, which leads to stressful do everything yourself lives and a generally unhealthy population. American leftists often laud the less time Europeans spend at work, but in truth people here are more stressed because they spend that time at home doing things which the a middleclass American family can afford to pay for (the result of which is a less efficient society and destruction of potential wealth).

      And for the highest taxes in the world, what do we get? Sweden is hardly a great place to live any more. Crime victimization rates are actually higher here then in the US (the US has more murders and gun crime - for obvious reasons) and the justice system has been on the brink of collapse for 15 years. A minority of all crimes even get investigates. There is state health care, but it involves long waiting lines, deteriorating service, and is in a constant state of crisis. The school system is also fairing ill - the education is sub par compared to the rest of the EU.

      If you want this so bad, then please take it. Sweden is a country drowning under it's own system, and unable to do anything except continually raise the taxes and devalue it's currency, slowly consuming the countries entire post-war wealth. Only Thatcher and Reagan type reforms could begin to save it.

    30. Re:solution to national debt by Golias · · Score: 1
      Paying huge sums of interest on the federal debt hurts the GDP while fiddling with taxation has little to do with economic growth according to most respected economists.

      Okay, let's just tax everything over $50,000 a year at a rate of 100% then. Nobody really needs to make more that $50,000, right? Sure, nobody will have surplus wealth to invest in the market, but think of all the nifty new government programs we could afford!

      Let's look at this rationally: What does the federal government do with tax dollars?

      Mostly, it hires bureaucrats who don't produce anything.

      That money then goes to U.S. workers who spend it, supporting everyone from salespeople to restaurant workers to truck drivers.

      Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. If all the money we are supposedly spending on the poor actually ended up in the hands of the poor, we could put each and every poor family in America into ritsy hotel rooms, complete with room service for their meals. The overwhelming majority of the money collected by our government in the name of assisting the lower class is pissed away in ways that do almost nothing to impove the lives of those who actually need help.

      If you want money stimulate the economy, then give it to people who need to spend it.

      That only stimulates consumer spending (assuming that much of the money you are talking about ever gets to those who need it, which is total fantasy.) What the economy needs right now is a stimulus of investment, not just spending. Taking money away from those who would invest it in the market is not going to stop the downward spiral of the value of your 401K.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    31. Re:solution to national debt by Fesh · · Score: 1

      "That money then goes to U.S. workers who spend it, supporting everyone from salespeople to restaurant workers to truck drivers.

      Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. If all the money we are supposedly spending on the poor actually ended up in the hands of the poor, we could put each and every poor family in America into ritsy hotel rooms, complete with room service for their meals. The overwhelming majority of the money collected by our government in the name of assisting the lower class is pissed away in ways that do almost nothing to impove the lives of those who actually need help."

      Worse, as stated in the article... Money to purchase goods and services is going to companies that are increasingly outsourcing labor overseas. So a portion of it isn't going to U.S. workers at all, and that portion is steadily growing...

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    32. Re:solution to national debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What U.S. products?

    33. Re:solution to national debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, but don't call us when the poor get pissed and start shooting you for sport. Just remember, "Let them eat cake" is the phrase you're looking for.

    34. Re:solution to national debt by RTMFD · · Score: 1

      What you forget is that in the US (tax year 2000), 90% of all taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners. So we do have "progressive taxation." What we really need is a constitutional amendment to limit government _spending_ to no more than 3% of the GNP.

      About crime and unemployment, you play the statistics trick, but as a student of statistics myself, I must remind you that correlation does not imply causation.

      BTW, if you don't believe my stats on tax paying in the US, check these figures for the information on who _really_ pays taxes in the United States.

    35. Re:solution to national debt by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      What U.S. products?

      More to the point, what EU products? The US may not export like (say) China does, but by the same token the EU does so even less.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    36. Re:solution to national debt by mc6809e · · Score: 1

      Let's look at this rationally: What does the federal government do with tax dollars? It buys goods and services, primarily from U.S. corporations. That money then goes to U.S. workers who spend it, supporting everyone from salespeople to restaurant workers to truck drivers.

      If your reasoning were rational, it would argue for robbery: After all, what does a robber do with the money he stole from you?

    37. Re:solution to national debt by js7a · · Score: 1
      there are many many many in your wing of the political spectrum who would in fact take away all hand guns, rifles, and other firearms. You have to acknowledge that to be taken seriously.

      Who in congress has proposed banning handguns in the past decade? The most I've seen proposed is a foiled attempt to get mandatory trigger locks (mandatory to own them, not necessarily use them) and some attempts to get a way to clearly show when semiautomatics have a round in the chamber. Are you and I reading news from the same capitol?

      Taking away rifles is ever more absurd. Get your tinfoill hat and see if you can dodge those black helecopters.

      The assault rifle ban is going to expire, with the Republicans in charge, just as the crime rate is on the upswing. Great.

    38. Re:solution to national debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, the circular logic that is Economics has now come through one full revolution. I wonder how many more posts before it goes through another.

    39. Re:solution to national debt by js7a · · Score: 1
      You are saying that "OK, we fucked up urban planning...

      No, I am not. I'm saying we fucked up the primary education that would have made the urban planning tolerable.

      ... NOW we're after health care and social security". And I'm supposed to think that the liberals will do a better job with health care than they did with welfare?

      The liberals instituted medicare and social security in the first place, under the constraints of a tax base not much more than that of Mexico's as a percent of GDP. The fact that it's not already broke amazes me.

      I'm a libertarian.

      Please tell me, what is the libertarian model for funding ambulance services?

    40. Re:solution to national debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The top 5% income earners in the US pay 56% of the taxes...The top 50% pay 96%..Thats just horrid. I'm 23 and I have to work until June just to pay the government. I truly cannot believe there are people in this country who are asking for more and higher taxes.
      We need to ABOLISH the income tax. It is unconstitutional, and if the government had less of our money, it couldn't have these giant programs and would actually have to focus on what the government is really there for.
      To hell with Sweden.

    41. Re:solution to national debt by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Yes, Sweden is sometimes shown as a (debatable) example of "socialism done properly", but if the US tried it, there is no guarentee that it would turn out as well. Instead we might get something like France or India. (India is sometimes given as an example of both failed socialism and failed democracies.) The socialism dice don't always land on the best square.

      I just wish our govmt would kick out the visa workers (H-1B,L-1) during down times, or at least stop the inflow of new ones. That is the least they could do. We don't have to become Sweden or France to do that. It is not a slippery slope.

    42. Re:solution to national debt by mandalayx · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that progressive taxation is the answer. Remember The Grade Tax?

      Perhaps more interesting are the tax loopholes that the rich tend to use much more than the poorer...

      (and I'm still not sure why the poor in Sweden should pay 0% tax while they get a fair share of gov't services. seems to encourage people to make as much as possible in the 0% bracket)

    43. Re:solution to national debt by dogfart · · Score: 1
      I KNOW you couldn't care less about public housing. I have to live next to it while it rots. And riots. And robs. And mugs. And reproduces

      And just think how much more efficiently the private sector could accomplish these same ends! The free housing market can produce slums far more effectively than any government program. Most 19th Century big cities were full of rotting crime-infested slums - and not a dollar of taxpayer money was spent to subsidize them!

      Publicly assisted housing programs in the US have been fairly decimated over the last 20 years. What I see of free market housing solutions now are people living in cardboard boxes. Thirty years ago this was unheard of. It was thought that a first world country like the US would NEVER have third world shanty-towns. I don't know about you, but I don't feel any safer knowing that public housing has been replaced with encampments under freeway onramps.

      You may resent the public housing you live next to. I fear the people without housing who inhabit public streets, parks, vacant lots, and the like.

      --

      "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

    44. Re:solution to national debt by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      My disposable income, which I most certianly do dispose of, is much higher than what " a lower-income person who is trying to scrape together money for a new windshield in their car, clothes for their kids, a new refrigerator, a new mattress, etc." will spend all year.

      So are you saying that you have no savings? That you spend every dollar that you get? Because that's what the lower income people do. They won't spend 60% of a tax cut. They will spend 100% of it. So, for economic stimulation, you give the money to the people who will put it back into the economy.

      Your bought the dems line of BS. Try to think aobut how this works for yourself....don't just paraphrase what you've heard from others. "Your" theory just doesn't pan out.

      I reasoned that out for myself. I don't have to listen to other people's theories in order to reason things out. It's sound, straight-forward, economics. That others have come to the same conclusion is no surprise to me.

    45. Re:solution to national debt by kedi · · Score: 1

      Hobbex (41473) wrote:
      "In the EU only Portugal and Greece are poorer, and that looks likely to change."

      Plain, simple and pure bullshit, just like rest of the post. I live in Sweden, which despite all problems, is still the most decent place to live.

    46. Re:solution to national debt by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

      You are a vulgar little man, aren't you?

      If all the money we are supposedly spending on the poor actually ended up in the hands of the poor, we could put each and every poor family in America into ritsy hotel rooms, complete with room service for their meals.

      So what's your point? That we should have no one overseeing the programs and, instead, just leave the money in big baskets in poor neighborhoods? Whether you like it or not, there have to be people that administer and police the programs. Much of the idea of the programs is to provide training and assistance to get people off of the wefare roles. I'd much rather spend the money towards education, career counseling, nutrition counselors, drug awareness programs, etc. than to put people up in ritzy hotels with room service.

      Money to purchase goods and services is going to companies that are increasingly outsourcing labor overseas. So a portion of it isn't going to U.S. workers at all, and that portion is steadily growing...

      But the federal government gives strong preferential treatment to U.S. businesses. You won't find the government buying fleets of cars from Kia, Hyundai, BMW, or Saab.

      Under the Republican tax scheme, the majority of tax cuts would go to the same CEOs that are laying off U.S. workers and shipping their jobs overseas. Those bastards should have their taxes doubled, not cut.

    47. Re:solution to national debt by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      If your reasoning were rational, it would argue for robbery: After all, what does a robber do with the money he stole from you?

      So you want to be the anti-Robin Hood, stealing from the poor to fund tax cuts for the rich?

      Taxes are not analogous to theft. Taxes are NECESSARY. They pay for our military. They pay for social programs. They pay for federal law enforcement. They pay for parks and recreation. They even pay the salaries of the people who are pushing for tax cuts (while voting themselves pay raises). The list goes on and on. Robbery contributes nothing to the country. Robbery does not provide for national defense. Robbers don't prosecute companies that pollute. Robbers do not provide unemployment checks to people out of work. You act like we get nothing for the tax dollars that we pay to the federal government. Every program from the Interstate highway system to rural electrification has been paid for by taxes.

      You know how Bush kept saying "it's your money"? Well, he was wrong. It's not your money. That's not how government works. You elect representatives and agree to abide by laws that they pass. If they pass a law saying that you will pay income tax, then the tax money that they collect is not yours. It's the government's.

    48. Re:solution to national debt by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's just tax everything over $50,000 a year at a rate of 100% then.

      Bad idea. It encourages the wealthy to move overseas, taking their money with them. You want a progressive tax rate so that if they earn more, they keep more.

      Sure, nobody will have surplus wealth to invest in the market, but think of all the nifty new government programs we could afford!

      Since when have Republicans been concerned about what we can afford? They control the Presidency and both houses of Congress and their own "budget" calls for spending over $300 billion more than they can afford. That's a record for the feds spending more than they take in through taxes -- and, they are still trying to cut the taxes in order to drive that deficit even higher in later years.

      Mostly, it hires bureaucrats who don't produce anything.

      Just who are these "bureacrats"? I'm tired of that nebulous argument about unnamed, mysterious people. What, specifically, are people at the EPA, BATF, or the Social Security Administration supposed to "produce"? Are they supposed to organize production lines and start producing staplers? Personal computers? VCRs? Cattle feed? Mag wheels? Just what is it that you want them to produce?

      That only stimulates consumer spending (assuming that much of the money you are talking about ever gets to those who need it, which is total fantasy.) What the economy needs right now is a stimulus of investment, not just spending.

      More idiotic supply-side economics crap. What good does it do for an investor to pour money into a company that can't sell its products? How will it help for an investor to put money into Nike if Nike can't sell the shoes it already makes? And why would an investor put money into a company that has a shrinking market?

      What investors are doing in this economy is putting money into overseas currency and corporations. So you give money to an investor in this economy, and it will probably go out of the country more often than not, creating no jobs for Americans and probably help fund companies that compete with American firms.

    49. Re:solution to national debt by Golias · · Score: 1
      So what's your point? That we should have no one overseeing the programs and, instead, just leave the money in big baskets in poor neighborhoods?

      No, my point is that increased spending on social programs in not going to be the massive boon to the economy that the original post had implied. You can make the case that more welfare is a good idea, but not on the grounds that it will end the recession any more quickly.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    50. Re:solution to national debt by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      No, my point is that increased spending on social programs in not going to be the massive boon to the economy that the original post had implied.

      I never meant to imply that social programs would be a "massive boon" to the economy. I was refuting the argument that money put into those programs was wasted. Helping the poor with food stamps increases sales in grocery stores. Paying the government personnel who adminster the food stamp programs gives money to the middle class. And the middle class spends as much money as they make.

      All I was saying is that giving the money to social programs is better for the economy than giving it out to the wealthy -- many of whom will invest it overseas. If you want to twiddle the economy with tax cuts, then cut taxes of those in the lower and middle incomes.

      Bonds: The rich will buy government bonds. Why is that bad? Because the bonds are used to fund the deficit. So Bush pushes through a tax cut for the wealthy. This runs the deficit up. The government issues bonds. Who has money to buy bonds? The wealthy people who just got a big tax cut. Then they enjoy not only a tax cut, but interest on the money borrowed to fund the tax cut for years to come. And who pays the interest? The U.S. taxpayers, most of whom are not wealthy.

      You can make the case that more welfare is a good idea, but not on the grounds that it will end the recession any more quickly.

      Sure I can. Without welfare, many unemployed people would lose their houses, rack up debt that would haunt them for the rest of their lives, and probably have more difficulty getting employment (hire any homeless people lately?).

    51. Re:solution to national debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Assault Rifle Ban" (a misnomer if I ever heard one) did nothing to reduce crime. It took semi-automatic rifles with "pistol grips" and other cosmetic differn\ences betwwen a normal rifle away from law abiding citizens who wanted to own one.

      Semi-auto rifles are not evil, they don't jump up in the middle of the night and kill people of their own volition. Semi-autos are not full autos, like most non-gun educated people seem to think. Although with the right training a good shot can approach semi-auto speed with his bolt action. I see no reason to ban one type of rifle based purely on cosmetic reasons.

      Criminals will always have guns, even if they are banned. People who want to hurt other people will always find a way. What's next, knife registration? Sharp pointy stick license laws?

      How about this, people can own what they want, provided they are not (a. insane, b. Convicted felons, c. Able to take and pass a firearm education and proficiency course as manadated by the feds.) Then I can walk around with my Glock, or my Remington strapped to my back and no one can say a fucking thing.

      A gun is a tool, just like fire is a tool and a knife is a tool. How people use the tool depends on educating them on the proper care and use of said tool.

      Irrational fear of objects is not what people need to be safe. Do you honestly think some dude would open fire on a group of people if he knew damn well that 75-90% of them had wepaons on their person and were trained in their use?

      Maybe if he was suicidal, but people who are gonna go off are gonna go off, no matter what you do. Better to take them out as quickly as possible before they damage too many people.

      NYC has the harshest gun laws in the country and people get shot there all the fucking time. Chicago has a ban on handguns and people get shot there as well.

      If the US banned firearms, I'd carry my 8 inch stag handled bowie in a non conspicious location and the next fuckhead who tried to mug me could eat all eat inches up his rectum.

      Leave guns alone.
      You want to enact social reform, start with helping get people out of poverty. Give them incentive to move out of the ghetto and into normal society. Stop giving them hand outs, give them a hand up.

      Education, enact a standard nationwide educational curriculum and make education a federal, not a state issue.

      Get corporate sponsorship in schools so supplies can be updated and teachers paid better. Stop expecting teachers to be parents and start being better parents and if you can't be a parent, don't have 12 fucking kids.

      Common sense people...common fucking sense...

    52. Re:solution to national debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so. Look no further than the Eurodollar (the standard for benchmarking interest rates for corporate funding) which is the most actively traded futures contract in the world.

      Dollars have become so pervasive a store of value, and measure of value-at-risk - they have a inherent value beyond the sheer output of our economy.

      It our control over this export (yes export) that gives us the leverage to borrow beyond our output, and its an asset Europe covets (thus the Euro).

      Finally, Europe will melt-down over the common currency/legislature. It may take awhile, but its coming.

    53. Re:solution to national debt by snarfer · · Score: 1

      http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/2002_07_28_seethe forest_archive.html#79710987

      Hereâ(TM)s the numbers. In 1981 the on-budget (not from Social Security) tax receipts were $469 billion which was a 16% increase over the prior year. Then the Reagan tax cuts started. 1982 tax receipts were $474.3 billion, 1.1% over 1981, and the on-budget deficit shot up to $120 billion, an increase of 62% in a single year!. 1983 receipts were $453.2 billion, a DROP of 4.4% creating a deficit of $208 BILLION, and increase of 73%!

      Then they increased taxes. This huge jump in deficits panicked Congress enough to pass the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act, the largest tax increase in our history. Tax receipts climbed to $500.3 billion, a 10.4% increase, and the deficit shrank almost 11% to $185.6 billion.

      In 1985 Congress passed the Gramm-Rudmann-Hollings Anti-Deficit Act. In 1985 tax receipts were $548 billion, a 9.5% increase. But now the huge military spending increases AND the debt interest were kicking in and the deficit rose to $221 billion, and increase of 19%. That's another story - the TAX RECEIPTS were climbing again, leading to the doubling Republicans claim was brought about by cutting taxes, conveniently leaving out that the largest tax increase in the history of the world occurred in between.

    54. Re:solution to national debt by bigmattana · · Score: 1

      I happen to know that Taiwan has a lower tax rate than the US. Why aren't they on your tax rate chart? Also, why don't they just show the tax rate, instead of doing a tax rate per GDP?

    55. Re:solution to national debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its funny, I've met several Swedish people in the U.S., but I don't know anyone dying to move to Sweden.

    56. Re:solution to national debt by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 1

      The EU (which doesn't even include all European countries, at least not yet) actually exports more to the US (in financial terms), than the US exports to the EU.

    57. Re:solution to national debt by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While relatively-speaking Sweden may still be doing a acceptable job with its tax funded services, they have become an increasing problem for the last ten years. The major issues in the past two elections (most recently in September last year), have revolved around:

      An under-funded police, with way too few officers especially in scarcely populated areas. The percentage of crimes solved has gone down, particularly for car burglaries and such crimes that may be considered less important on the whole but are important to give citizens a sense of safety.

      2) A declining health care system, which while still having good technical quality (Sweden is home to a lot of medical research), and providing care to everyone, has incredibly long operation queues for various non-urgent (but still frustrating) conditions. Would you believe me if I said that for some types of operations, the queue is in the range of years rather than weeks? It's true, although it does vary a lot between counties.

      As an aside, I should perhaps take the opportunity to also mention the privatization of healthcare services in Stockholm county, ruled by a liberal-conservative-christian coalition for the past several years (until they were ousted by a largely skeptic and hostile population last year and replaced with the social democrats, greens and left party who already held national majority). Many hospitals built with tax money were sold (underpriced) to private firms, although taxes still provide the actual funding with the exception for smaller fees which are present for publicly owned hospitals as well. My analysis is that the public was frustrated with declining healthcare, giving the right-wing a window of opportunity to attempt their recipe for solving it -- with privatization. Would it have worked had it continued? Your guess is as good as mine. But the right-wing coalition left the county with a huge budget deficit I'd rather live without.

      A declining education system, with insufficient discipline and decreasing scores, particularly in immigrant-heavy areas and an insufficient number of teachers to help students with special needs.

      An increasing sick leave problem -- a surprisingly large part of the workforce is on long-term sick leave, causing an absolutely gigantic hole in the public finances.

      An aging population (having to cope with poor service at publicly financed retirement homes), resulting in fewer people having to provide finances for more and more retirees.

      I should also point out that while a lot of people don't pay national tax, everyone pays local tax to the county -- between 28 and 33 % depending on what parties hold majority county in the local governments.

      In summary, Sweden has major problems in some areas and emulating it in every respect is not necessarily the solution. I should perhaps say though that I support the basis of the system, and do not want to see further privatizations (which are impossible to reverse and in my opinion are more likely to go wrong than right).

      "LeftOfCentre"
      Stockholm, Sweden, EU

    58. Re:solution to national debt by sheldon · · Score: 1

      "That $44 trillion of US Federal debt provides a tremendious amount of liquidity to world financial markets and a "safe" investment to park cash in. "

      Wait a minute. $44 trillion? Where did you get that number from. The US Federal debt is like $6.5 trillion, still high but my god! The US GNP is only like $10 trillion. That'd be over 4 times the GNP!

      "Eliminating it or even reducing it below certain levels wouldn't be a good thing."

      I don't see why not. Money that is tied up in US Federal Debt is not being used in private investment.

      "Both social security and medicare are in need of massive reform."

      I agree. Unfortunately the Republicans just want to completely eliminate Social Security, which isn't helping this debate at all.

    59. Re:solution to national debt by mcwop · · Score: 1

      Sweden compared to the U.S.? Ha!. Two totally different places. Sweden has a population barely bigger than New York City. New York city alone has a 27% latino population, many of whom might be considered illiterate in the English language (by no fault of their own). Landmass of Sweden is 449,964 sq km (size of Texas) compared to the U.S.'s 9,372,610 sq km GDP per head $20,353 for Sweden and $32,042 for the U.S. Whew I can throw stats around too. Lastly when you make comparisons please do a more thorough analysis. The U.S. is a complex place, and an innovative one. Sweden can thank the U.S. for the Internet later. I am still trying to figure out how this whole thread even begins to address the issues raised in the story. well if we could just be more like the Flanders', we would all be better off. Done ranting.

      --

      "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

    60. Re:solution to national debt by Golias · · Score: 1
      Bonds: The rich will buy government bonds. Why is that bad? Because the bonds are used to fund the deficit. So Bush pushes through a tax cut for the wealthy. This runs the deficit up.

      Okay, you obviously don't know how the bond market works. The number of Federal bonds issued has nothing to do with how many people want to buy them. Investors playing the bond market does not drive the debt up.

      Sure I can. Without welfare, many unemployed people...

      Easy, big feller. I didn't suggest eliminating welfare. I only said that an increase of welfare benifits is not an effective way to end an economic slump. Proof of my point is the fact that this is exactly what was attempted from about 1972 until 1981, and it failed utterly. Most economists in 1979 reached the consensus that the US would experience a second Great Depression by 1983. How did we prevent that from happening? Tax cuts and deficit spending.

      Deficits in bleak times make sense, because it shifts some of the pain into more prosperous times, when the burden can be handled. During a recession, not only are tax revenues down, but demands for government services (such as unemployment benifits) skyrockets. It's pretty much impossible to meet 100% of the government's obligations during a recession without government borrowing. To even attempt to do so is not only futile, but counter-productive, as higher taxation would only serve to slow down the recovery.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    61. Re:solution to national debt by Fesh · · Score: 1

      "You are a vulgar little man, aren't you?"

      1) Ad hominem. Thank you for playing, we have some wonderful consolation prizes for you.

      2) Ad hominem directed at me quoting poster I was responding to. I won't stoop to the level of describing in any great detail the level of brilliance displayed.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    62. Re:solution to national debt by MKalus · · Score: 1
      And you completely skip the balancing part of that economic concept: where our exported good cost less therefore become more competitive in the world market, lowering our trade deficit, creating more jobs, and recovering our white collar IT jobs back from India, because it is now cheaper to hire our own workers, and possibly even for other countries to hire our workers/contract out to us.


      Will it really? The US is the biggest market, the manufacturing capabilities have been moved overseas and it would cost a lot of money to get the machines back.

      The tooling of a plastic piece can easily cost several hundred thousand dollars the difference would have to be extreme before this happens.

      Also the question would be: Would the demand be there to make it useful? Most of the goods these days flow INTO the US, not out of it.

      M.
      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    63. Re:solution to national debt by sheldon · · Score: 1

      Out of curiousity...

      Since the implementation of the New Deal and the Great Society, poverty rates have declined in the United States. The rates of malnutrition has declined. The average life expectancy has increased. The death rate in infants has declined.

      The unemployment rate was 25% in the depression. We've not seen that rate since. Even with the 6% unemployment rates today, people are better off because of safety net in place.

      And you call all of this a failure?

      "You should address those issues, even if that "it's politcally incorrect" thing in your brain starts to protest."

      Ok, so the New Deal and the Great Society only fixed 80% of the problems, we still have the 20% left.

      I take it you're one of these glass half-empty types, shouting out Doom and Gloom so that people will listen to you.

    64. Re:solution to national debt by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 1

      If you genuinely think that Sweden should thank the US for the internet (as if it mattered where things were invented, given that all inventions build upon previous inventions), then the US should also thank Europe for the World Wide Web, developed at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) (which Sweden co-sponsors), without which hardly anyone except us geeks would be likely to use the internet.

    65. Re:solution to national debt by MKalus · · Score: 1
      melodrama]
      Oh dear, three of the most important trading partners of the US have gone to Euros!
      [/melodrama]
      Let me know when Canada, Mexico, Japan, and China want Euros. Right now they still seem to like dollars.


      No they are not powerhouses, but their moves are political motivated and you can bet that other countries are watching, the US lost a lot of goodwill in the world in the past year and the only reason people in the past held onto the USD was because the american government was working for a STRONG dollar, now they seem to have abandoned it and if it starts to drop further it means less profit for the countries and companies, they go where it is secure and if that is Euro they will.

      Canada, Mexico, Japan and China all have their own currency in case you haven't noticed. Do they trade AGAINST the USD? Yes they do like a lot of currencies on this planet, mainly because in the past that was a good thing to do, the USD was stable, now that this is changing it could very well be the Euro. The Euro zone is population wise as big if not bigger than the US and as such a very attractive market for companies in countries like China.

      Your scenario involving a plummeting dollar and surging Euro presupposes that not only will countries stop accepting dollars as payment, but that they will no longer buy anything that requires dollars for payment. So unless the EU suddenly becomes an economic giant and the US economy withers away to nothing, your scenario is just hot gas.


      Is it? The reason they would go for the Euro is not because they want to sell into the Euro Zone (which is easily as big as the US market) but because the Euro is a more stable and more profitable currency.

      Contracts are made for YEARS in advance (up to 2 years) and they do assume that the Dollar is at least as much worth in two years than it was when the contract was signed. Right now it looks like the US Government doesn't really care what way the dollar is going and that is the problem.

      If the foreign companies and countries loose their faith in the stability of the Dollar (and that doesn't even have to be a REAL instability an imagined one can do just fine) they will look for alternatives.

      The Euro is the perfect candidate, a huge zone, access to dozen of different markets and (presumably) stable. If that happens than the US DOES have a problem.

      Also as I wrote in above, never forget that the goodwill the US had over the past couple of year is rapidly disappearing. Saudia Arabia for one is not very happy with the US and there is an ice time.

      It only needs one big country to decide to go to Euros and if that works out for them the rest will follow.

      Economy is not a science, especially not things like stock markets and currency trade, those rely a lot more on faith than anything else and if the faith is gone you are in trouble.

      M.
      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    66. Re:solution to national debt by MKalus · · Score: 1
      More to the point, what EU products? The US may not export like (say) China does, but by the same token the EU does so even less.


      Off the top of my head:

      - Nissan cars (Renault holds a stake).
      - Mercedes
      - BMW
      - Volkswagen
      - French Cheese
      - French Wine
      - Italien Wine
      - Scottish mineral Water (saw that in a supermarket once)
      - All Nestle products (Nestle is a swiss company, okay not EU but european)
      - Infinion chips in your cell phone.
      - Certain AMD chips are made in Germany
      - SuSE (who for example fund ReiserFS)

      And that's just what I can get off the top of my head there are ton's of products more that go.

      etc. etc.
      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    67. Re:solution to national debt by mcwop · · Score: 1

      My point is that there are many ways to measure a country's success. And the U.S. has produced a lot of innovations, compared to Sweden.

      --

      "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

    68. Re:solution to national debt by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Okay, you obviously don't know how the bond market works. The number of Federal bonds issued has nothing to do with how many people want to buy them. Investors playing the bond market does not drive the debt up.

      You are the one that doesn't understand bonds. I'll try to make it simple for you: The government issues bonds to pay for the deficit. Bonds are, in effect, citizens loaning the government money. I did not say that investors buying bonds increased the deficit. I said that the government issues bonds to pay for deficit spending. And when investors buy those bonds, that's money that's not being invested in the private sector.

      I only said that an increase of welfare benifits is not an effective way to end an economic slump.

      And I only said that cutting social programs was not an effective way to end the economic slump.

      Deficits in bleak times make sense, because it shifts some of the pain into more prosperous times, when the burden can be handled.

      When? How much have we paid down the national debt during prosperous times. Every time that there is prosperity, Congress and the President spend the money rather than paying down the debt. When Bush heard "surplus", he went around the country screaming "it's not the government's money -- it's your money!" Did you ever hear him suggest, for even an instant, that the surplus be used to pay down the massive debt?

      At the end of the 12 Reagan/Bush years, the national debt had skyrocketed. They accrued more debt in those 12 years than we had accrued in the 200 years prior to their administrations. Approximately 25 cents of every tax dollar collected by the federal government went towards servicing (paying the interest on) the portion of the debt that they accrued. Want a 25% tax cut with no cut in government services? Pay off the debt and then have a tax cut.

      Republicans demand a tax cut when there is a budget surplus because "it's not the government's money." They want a tax cut in bleak economic times to "stimulate the economy." They don't want to raise taxes in down years because it will "slow the recovery." They don't want to raise taxes in prosperous years because there's a budget surplus -- because they don't budget anything to paying off the national debt. If everything is a reason for a tax cut and nothing is a reason for a tax increase, how do we pay off the debt? How do we fund government services with an ever-smaller tax base?

      If $350 billion dollars will create jobs and prosperity, why not have a $1 trillion dollar tax cut? Imagine how prosperous we would be then!

      To even attempt to do so is not only futile, but counter-productive, as higher taxation would only serve to slow down the recovery.

      Imagine what would happen if you managed your money like Bush and his Republican cohorts are handling ours.

      National: Times are bad and tax revenue is down.
      You: You lose your job and have to take one with lower pay.

      National. You give large tax breaks to the people that are suffering the least.
      You: You give large sums of money back to your employer to help him grow his business.

      National: You pay for that tax cut by issuing bonds, which are bought up by the rich seeking a safe investment.
      You: You borrow the money back from your employer, agreeing to pay him with interest.

      National: Eventually the economy starts to recover and tax revenue is up.
      You: You get a promotion and a raise.

      National: All tax revenue is spent on everything from defense to funding anti-abortionist missionaries.
      You: You go on a spending spree.

      National: The feds continue to pay interest on the bonds but don't pay the bonds off.
      You: You just continue to pay the interest to your employer, never paying down the principle.

      To even attempt to do so is not only futile, but counter-productive, as higher taxation would only serve to slow down the recovery.

      I ne

    69. Re:solution to national debt by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      1) Ad hominem. Thank you for playing, we have some wonderful consolation prizes for you.

      It wasn't an attack. It was an observation. I did not say that your arguments were without merit because of the vulgar way in which it appeared that you presented them.

      Ad hominem directed at me quoting poster I was responding to. I won't stoop to the level of describing in any great detail the level of brilliance displayed.

      Since you, in no way, showed that it was a quote, either via the BLOCKQUOTE modifier or the use of ITALICS, it appeared to be your words at the time that I replied. If you want to quote others, then don't have their text appear to be something you wrote. Brilliance is certainly not quoting another poster and having it appear in normal, non-italicized, non-indented text which appears to all the world to be something you wrote.

    70. Re:solution to national debt by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      More to the point, what EU products? The US may not export like (say) China does, but by the same token the EU does so even less.

      Off the top of my head:
      [blah blah EU products blah]

      Christ almighty, I didn't say that the EU didn't have a wide array of diverse exports from all its various regions! I could easily rattle off ten times as many products as you did that come from the US. But I won't, because my original point was in regard to the total value of exports. It was along the lines of "while the US may have lower total value of exports compared to (say) China, the EU total export value is lower still; therefore, other countries switching to the Euro from the dollar is unlikely".

      c'mon people, pay attention...

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    71. Re:solution to national debt by Fesh · · Score: 1

      Evidently simple quotation marks aren't good enough. I shall write that down in my book of Life's Lessons.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    72. Re:solution to national debt by MKalus · · Score: 1

      What is actually still produced in the US and exported to other countries?

      Cars? Mainly for the domestic market.
      Food? Same thing.
      Clothing? Well look at the labels, even american companies like Nike, Gap, Eddie Bauer etc. produce offshore.

      So what are you guys exporting? The US actually has a huge trade defecit and that for quite some time.

      M.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    73. Re:solution to national debt by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Evidently simple quotation marks aren't good enough. I shall write that down in my book of Life's Lessons.

      Going back, I did see the quotation marks, but was initially thrown by the italicized sentence, believing that was the means by which you indicated quoted text. Please accept my apologies for my error.

    74. Re:solution to national debt by Golias · · Score: 1
      You are the one that doesn't understand bonds. I'll try to make it simple for you... (comment followed by an explanation of what bonds are, which I already knew.

      I did not say that investors buying bonds increased the deficit.

      As I re-read your previous post, I see that you did not, in fact, intend to say that. The sentence "this runs the deficit up," was meant to refer to the tax cut, not the sale of bonds, but the clumsy structure of that paragraph, combined with my lazy reading of it, lead to a moment of miscomunication.

      However, I put this to you:

      From your original post: " If you want money stimulate the economy, then give it to people who need to spend it."

      From your latest reply: "I never suggested higher taxation."

      So, you advocate more social welfare spending, but with neither higher taxation, nor deficits. A perfect plan, other than being completely impossible.

      Have you ever considered running for office?

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    75. Re:solution to national debt by mc6809e · · Score: 1

      So you want to be the anti-Robin Hood, stealing from the poor to fund tax cuts for the rich?

      That is a deceptive statement: Taking less from someone rich is not the same as stealing from the poor. And tax cuts aren't funded -- they are the opposite of funding.

      And what motivates your above statement anyway? I was critical of your poor argument and it is still a poor arguement. It doesn't follow that I'm an anti-Robin Hood.

      Taxes are not analogous to theft. Taxes are NECESSARY. They pay for our military. They pay for social programs. They pay for federal law enforcement. They pay for parks and recreation. They even pay the salaries of the people who are pushing for tax cuts (while voting themselves pay raises). The list goes on and on. Robbery contributes nothing to the country. Robbery does not provide for national defense. Robbers don't prosecute companies that pollute. Robbers do not provide unemployment checks to people out of work. You act like we get nothing for the tax dollars that we pay to the federal government. Every program from the Interstate highway system to rural electrification has been paid for by taxes.

      Okay. Now that is a better argument, but its not the same one that you used before.

      Still, it seems weak. The government is nortoriously ineffecient. We get very little for what we pay. I wonder if you remember the stories of $900 toilet seats awhile back? A single Patriot Air Defense Missile costs $3,000,000. Who is stealing from whom?

      Now I agree that there are functions that governments ought to perform and these must be funded through taxes, but you can't possibly believe that this requires fully 28% of our GDP. At some point the people being taxed are being taken advantage of.

      And just who benefits from these expensive services? Well, we all benefit from defence for example, but we all don't pay for it. The bottom 50% pay just 4% of the income taxes. And do you really think the people that benefitted from the rural electrification program were the same that payed for it? No way. So again, you're argument is weak.

      You know how Bush kept saying "it's your money"? Well, he was wrong. It's not your money. That's not how government works.

      This is one of the scariest things you've written. We are not slaves. The money we earn IS our's and the government should serve us. Its not the other way around. This also runs counter to your government-provides-services argument. After all, if the money already belongs to the government, why justify taking it on the grounds that services are being provided?

      You elect representatives and agree to abide by laws that they pass. If they pass a law saying that you will pay income tax, then the tax money that they collect is not yours. It's the government's.

      Bullshit. The biggest group decides how much will be taken. My representative, if it can be said I really have one at all, can stand there and say "no", and the rest will say: "tough shit, hand it over."

      Now I realize this is the way it is and I've got to suck it up, but don't tell me I'm eating ice cream when I'm really getting it in the ass. And don't tell me that finger-painting class for homeless, single, dyslexic, crack whore mothers with A.D.D. is a service I can enjoy generously provided by the government. I know the score and so do you.

      Oh, and you're a hypocrite, too. I read your rant about the H1B program. Remember, you're "the rich" compared to poor skilled workers from other countries, and you don't seem to have a problem screwing them out of a job if it will help you, right? Right. Fck'em. They ain't 'mercans.

    76. Re:solution to national debt by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 1

      I think having 30 times more people is a large part of the explanation for that (although not necessarily the only factor).

    77. Re:solution to national debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So unless the EU suddenly becomes an economic giant and the US economy withers away to nothing, your scenario is just hot gas.

      The EU is already bigger (and more profitable) than the US. Our productivity growth over the last twenty years has enabled us to reduce our working week down from 40+ to the mid-30s, whereas the US has relied on pushing the working week from 40-something to 50-something hours a week.

      Sayonara US losers...

    78. Re:solution to national debt by TheEternalVortex · · Score: 1

      The US has a trade deficit of something like $450 billion per year--the highest of any country. Germany, for instance, has a trade surplus of about $100 billion per year. The US exports $750 billion and Germany exports $600 billion. France exports another $300 billion (with a small surplus), etc. The EU easily exports much more than the US. And much, much more than China.

    79. Re:solution to national debt by fmaxwell · · Score: 1
      I'm going to be a stickler here. Sorry if it annoys you:

      As I re-read your previous post, I see that you did not, in fact, intend to say that.

      Not only did I not intend to say it, I did not say it.

      The sentence "this runs the deficit up," was meant to refer to the tax cut, not the sale of bonds, but the clumsy structure of that paragraph, combined with my lazy reading of it, lead to a moment of miscomunication.

      What I wrote:
      So Bush pushes through a tax cut for the wealthy. This runs the deficit up.
      That hardly seems clumsy or misleading.

      So, you advocate more social welfare spending, but with neither higher taxation, nor deficits. A perfect plan, other than being completely impossible.

      If you read a bit more carefully, you will see that I also said:
      All I was saying is that giving the money to social programs is better for the economy than giving it out to the wealthy -- many of whom will invest it overseas. If you want to twiddle the economy with tax cuts, then cut taxes of those in the lower and middle incomes.
      To put it another way, I am advocating neither increased spending on social programs nor a tax cut (for any socio-economic group). But, if you hold the opinion that giving government money away is the best way to stimulate the economy, then it should be given to those with the most need -- whether through tax cuts or through social programs. To better explain my position on this issue, allow me to list some of my key beliefs:

      1. Those in the lower incomes tend to spend all of the money that they get on goods and services.

      2. The wealthy can afford to invest money.

      3. In economic hard times, the wealthy invest more heavily in overseas markets and government bonds.

      4. If sales are down at a company due to the economy, it is unlikely that wealthy investors will put their money in that company.

      5. If you want businesses to grow, then you need to stimulate demand for their product.

      6. Government bonds compete with stocks for investor money. The more money going into bonds, the less investor money there is for stocks.

      7. If there are valid reasons for cutting taxes at some times, then there have to be valid reasons for raising them at other times. It's "voodoo economics" to argue that a budget surplus is a reason for a tax cut in prosperous times and economic stimulation is a reason for a tax cut in bleak times. If taxes are only cut, the national debt will spiral out of control.

      8. The Republicans push for tax cuts that they know that we, as a nation, can't afford in the long run. It is a political ploy to buy votes that might work for a term or two. The Democratic Presidents who succeed them, in order to reign in the debt, are forced to raise taxes. (This backfired on George H.W. Bush after Reagan pulled this stunt. After Reagan's two terms, Mr. "Read-My-Lips" was the one who had to raise taxes.) It's like divorced parents where the father (played by the Republicans) tries to buy the childrens' love by indulging them with candy, staying up late, etc., leaving mom (the Democrats) to be the bad guy of who makes the kids eat healthy, sets reasonable bedtimes, etc.

      9. In prosperous times, we should pay down the debt. If we increase the debt in bleak economic times (via deficit spending) and never pay it down, it doesn't take too many economic cycles before we are drowning in debt.

      10. Government spending stimulates the economy more than tax cuts for the wealthy. The feds "buy American." They hire Americans. The Americans they hire use their government paychecks to buy goods and services in the U.S.

      11. The wealthy, as a group, have no "buy American" mentality. The wealthy are more likely to buy a Rolls Royce than an American car. They are more likely to buy French wine than a California wine. Giving money to them is a crap shoot. Some of it will find its way back into the U.S. economy and much of it will go overseas.
    80. Re:solution to national debt by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      What does the federal government do with tax dollars?

      They take money from some people, keep a profit for themselves, and distribute the rest to other people. That is the simple business model of government, and just in case you missed the "profit" part, there is a very good reason why the US government has grown immensely over the past century: it benefits those in power.

    81. Re:solution to national debt by mcwop · · Score: 1

      Exactly the point. Two completely different situations/countries.

      --

      "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

    82. Re:solution to national debt by danheskett · · Score: 1

      Who in congress has proposed banning handguns in the past decade?
      I never said they proposed it, just that they support it.

      You claimed that progressives do not want to take away handguns, but please, do you deny that there is a strong number of progressives who are considered mainstream who wish to ban handguns?

    83. Re:solution to national debt by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      What is actually still produced in the US and exported to other countries?

      A general catergorized list? How about "capital goods, automobiles, industrial supplies and raw materials, consumer goods, agricultural products"?

      Cars? Mainly for the domestic market.

      The fact that the US produces more cars for its own consumption than it exports doesn't make the number of cars it exports any smaller. Levels of domestic consumption are irrelevant.

      Food? Same thing.

      Yep, same thing. If you think the US doesn't export a crapton of food, you're totally off your rocker. In fact, the US exported more than $3.5 billion worth of food to the EU in 2000. The US exports more food (in real numbers, not irrelevant "as % of food produced" numbers) than any other country on earth.

      Clothing? Well look at the labels, even american companies like Nike, Gap, Eddie Bauer etc. produce offshore.

      Yeah, the US doesn't export much in the way of clothing, but so what? You've listed three items, two of which the US does export.

      So what are you guys exporting? The US actually has a huge trade defecit and that for quite some time.

      Having a trade deficit doesn't mean the US doesn't export! All it means is that more is imported than exported. The fact that the US can still afford to buy so much offshore is, if nothing else, an indication of the strength of the dollar.

      Your arguments are wrong and/or irrelevant. Try again.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    84. Re:solution to national debt by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      The US has a trade deficit of something like $450 billion per year--the highest of any country. Germany, for instance, has a trade surplus of about $100 billion per year.

      Trade surplus/defecit has no bearing upon how much is exported in real quantities.

      Germany exports $600 billion. France exports another $300 billion (with a small surplus), etc.

      Half of Germany's exports are to other EU nations, as are more than 60% of France's. You can't count "internal exports" when adding up the numbers.

      The EU easily exports much more than the US. And much, much more than China.

      Admittedly, the US and EU are pretty close when it comes to total value of exports. But my point with China was that, despite their export value being less than half that of either the US or the EU, they could put themselves in a position of near-total self sufficiency. If they're not buying machinery, steel, or plastics from the rest of the world anymore, they no longer need to ask for payment in euros or dollars. Then suddenly their currency gets a lot harder.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    85. Re:solution to national debt by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      They take money from some people, keep a profit for themselves, and distribute the rest to other people. That is the simple business model of government,

      Have you even seen a newspaper or news program in the past six months? Thanks to the idiotic tax cut and the war launched because of imaginary weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. government will spending over $300 million dollars more than it takes in next year. How is that a profit? Did you used to work as an accountant at Enron?

      and just in case you missed the "profit" part, there is a very good reason why the US government has grown immensely over the past century: it benefits those in power.

      You act like the government is some kind of amorphous creature that eats money, never giving anything back. The government is composed of elected, appointed, and hired U.S. citizens. Every one of those U.S. citizens who takes home a government paycheck puts money back into the economy. So, for example, a corporal in the Army gets a paycheck and uses it to buy food, clothing, and shelter for his family. He may use some of it to make car payments, buy some DVDs, take his significant other out to dinner, buy a new carpet for his home, pay an electrician to install a ceiling fan, etc.

      But, to allay your fears that the government is always growing larger, the Clinton administration's Reinventing Government initiative resulted in the elimination of 377,000 civilian jobs, cutting the federal work force by 17% over those eight years.

    86. Re:solution to national debt by MKalus · · Score: 1
      Your arguments are wrong and/or irrelevant. Try again.


      Sorry, but I don't agree with you, just because you seem to think you're living in such a great country you seem to have lost all sense for reality.

      Or to quote a guy in the SCO threat today: What are you smoking?

      The fact that the US produces more cars for its own consumption than it exports doesn't make the number of cars it exports any smaller. Levels of domestic consumption are irrelevant.


      Where does the US export cars to? Mexico? Some of their territories?

      Looking to europe the number of american cars sold there is a joke, Japan? Try again. Australia? No chance. Asia? Maybe they produce locally. Canada? It goes the other way.

      American companies might be working abroad but the chances are they produce the cars in the local market, not in the US.

      Yep, same thing. If you think the US doesn't export a crapton of food, you're totally off your rocker. In fact, the US exported more than $3.5 billion worth of food to the EU in 2000. The US exports more food (in real numbers, not irrelevant "as % of food produced" numbers) than any other country on earth.


      Got some links? I would like to see where the food really went and what it was (I take a guess here: Beef).

      Having a trade deficit doesn't mean the US doesn't export! All it means is that more is imported than exported. The fact that the US can still afford to buy so much offshore is, if nothing else, an indication of the strength of the dollar.


      You've just proofen my own point: You are stating that the only reason the US could prosper was because of a strong USD, now think again what will happen if the world market decides to deal more with Euros?

      M.
      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    87. Re:solution to national debt by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      the U.S. government will spending over $300 million dollars more than it takes in next year

      And that's profit. Let me explain...

      Government is a business, but the business of government is fundamentally different than free trade. One important difference between government and private business is that government does not generate its own revenue through voluntary association, i.e. calculated risk. They simply take what they want, by force, from the people who actually do generate income through risk. In the business of government, there is no financial consequence for making a bad business decision. Those who are directly responsible for making the bad decision may or may not be removed from power, but government as a whole still profits. Why? Because they have already expanded their "market share", i.e. they have succeeded in creating new responsibilities for government. In other words, they have succeeded in growing their business.

      To elaborate -- when a private business makes a bad investment, they are penalized through loss of revenue. When a government program fails (drug prohibition to cite an obvious example) it is often rewarded with more revenue. Why? Because government, holding a monopoly on force as a business model, (a) has no competitors, and (b) doesn't answer to the "market" (the people) as private business must. Simply put, government makes its own rules. The fact that we get to choose who gets the power does not, in any conceivable way, remove the element of power from government.

      Therefore, when government spends more than it "earns", those in power suffer no loss. Case in point: the US government has been consistently spending more than it "earns" for the past century -- check the national debt if you need proof -- yet those in power today hold more power than anyone before them, and they have more revenue at their disposal than ever before. The US government is bigger and more powerful than ever before. Profit!

    88. Re:solution to national debt by ces · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute. $44 trillion? Where did you get that number from. The US Federal debt is like $6.5 trillion, still high but my god! The US GNP is only like $10 trillion. That'd be over 4 times the GNP!

      I'm not sure where the $44 trillion number came from, I was just cutting-and-pasting the number from the post I was replying to. Now that I think about it $44 trillion would possibly exceed total yearly global GDP. That's the problem with using big numbers in reference to money, after a while it all stops seeming real.

      According to the national debt clock the Outstanding Public Debt as of 17 Jun 2003 at 07:38:50 PM GMT is:

      $6,597,991,181,374.68

      I don't see why not. Money that is tied up in US Federal Debt is not being used in private investment.

      Not really, money that is tied up in the US Federal Debt is money investors don't want to risk in private investment. This is the key liquidity that the US Federal Debt provides to world financial markets.

      I agree. Unfortunately the Republicans just want to completely eliminate Social Security, which isn't helping this debate at all.

      As I said in my post, "fuck the boomers".

      On a more serious note, I believe both the Social Security and Medicare "crisises" could be entirely eliminated by gradually raising the age of eligiblity. While it might screw some people who were counting on qualifing at 62 1/2 or 65 years old it would take care of the problem.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    89. Re:solution to national debt by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      And that's profit. Let me explain...

      So you have redefined "profit" as size and power rather than as money. Sorry, but that's not what profit means to me.

      Case in point: the US government has been consistently spending more than it "earns" for the past century -- check the national debt if you need proof

      That is the point of this discussion: While Clinton was actually running a surplus, Bush's budget has set a new record for deficit spending.

    90. Re:solution to national debt by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      So you have redefined "profit" as size and power rather than as money.

      In the business of government, that is exactly what profit is. Power is directly proportional to profit, because power guarantees profit. How could it not?

      Power is the ultimate "business model". When you make a business transaction based on power, you don't worry about whether or not your "client" is going to accept your "offer". By the very definition of power, they have no choice!

    91. Re:solution to national debt by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      In the business of government, that is exactly what profit is. Power is directly proportional to profit, because power guarantees profit. How could it not?

      Power and profit are not the same. There is nothing wrong with a democratically elected government having power. It has nothing to do with national debt or budget deficits.

  56. Re:OK. Enuff worrying. Let us look at some solutio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (1) I don't want to. If I'd wanted to end my working life as a middle-manager, I'd have majored in Business Administration or something equally useless.

    (2) Great, make it your job to help kill people.

    (3) "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em", otherwise known as "Backstab everybody around you so you can make a buck".

    (4) Yeah, get on your knees and be a corporate whore.

  57. Come on, we are geeks here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being scared of big numbers is for non-geeks. The US national debt looks large, it is a really big number. However, the US economy is over 10 trillion dollars per year. As a percentage of GDP, the national debt is not a problem. Some will argue with the exact numbers, but most reputable economists will but the national debt in the area of 40-45% of GDP. The current amount of that debt is only like 2-3% of GDP. That is not a big problem!!!

    Other countries have worse debt problems than the US, including other advanced nations, such as Western European countries.

    Sure, in absolute dollars, the US has really high debt, but when you look at percentages, which is all that really matters, the US is doing fine.

    Debt is not bad. Obviously, the US does not want to push its debt up too high, because too much debt is bad, if it reaches levels around 60-80% of GDP, then you should worry.

    Think of it this way, Bill Gates house cost a lot, way more than any of ours, but we shouldn't worry about how is going to pay for it. To Mr. Gates, a 20 billion dollar house is cheaper than a 100 thousand dollar house is to most of us.
    Get the comparison? Debt is only meaningful in terms of ability to pay. The US has a huge debt, but it has a huge ability to pay. Germany has less debt, but they have much less ability to pay.

    It is all in the percentages folks. I would have though most geeks would not be afraid of numbers just because they are big.

  58. My Experience And Predictions by Bloodmoon1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Back when I was in highschool (Class '01), I was sold on taking Cisco classes at our Community College for the better part of my day all year. My initial plan was to graduate early, get a job doing whatever, but I went for Cisco instead because 1) It was 13 free college credits and 2) EVERYONE was telling me how I'd be making $30k/yr easy, probably even before I got out of college. Took the classes, got my CCNA in Nov. '01, right about the time the economy officially turned to shit. I worked making collection calls for Ford until 6-02 when I joined the AF, got a medical discharge 6 months ago, and now I can't find a job anywhere. I know my stuff, I'm a CCNA, but I can't get a job. I do mean anywhere to. I never had a problem getting jobs when I was in high school, but now that I have a diploma, some college, a professional cert., and some life experience, I'm having to dig through the my sofa for change for food or gas.

    Now, I'm really not trying to sound like I'm bitching, because I'm not, I'm just recounting my experience. I'm also not saying all those people who told me Cisco was great screwed me, but rather, I think they we're just going with the info they knew to be true. Problem is their info was from '99 or so. Now all the IT jobs I can find open want more experience and skills than I think any human could have, and want to pay them something in line with McWages.

    All in all, my whole experience has me actually wondering if IT is even going to be a viable career for long. For some reason, I see it going to something of a plumber type occupation. Very few places have a in-house plumber and only call one when they are need for their specialized skills. With computers becoming easier to use and more stable all the time, I can see IT people no longer needed on a day to day basis and instead delegated to being the IT plumbers. Seriously, have you ever seen one of Apple's XServe's? I don't think it can get much easier than that. Maybe I can be a teacher, seems like I'm always hearing about more of them being needed...

    --

    Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
    1. Re:My Experience And Predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, CCNA is the mere beginning. Work for CCNP. Pick up a Microsoft MCP -> MCSA -> MCSE throught the community college system for free at night.
      Put your CCNA to work by wiring a school or church for free and you can put it on your resume. Teach some free classes at the library. Get two 386s and put linux/BSD on them and learn as much as you can. Join a user group or start one.

      Doing these things you will meet people and start networking of a different kind.

      I know it is hard, I just came off of 6 months unemployment and my wife is in school full time.

      And remember to register to vote in the next election!!!

    2. Re:My Experience And Predictions by AvantLegion · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And this, kids, is why we actually FINISH college, mmmkay?

      In a saturated market, the guys without college degrees are the first ones crossed off the list.

    3. Re:My Experience And Predictions by Bloodmoon1 · · Score: 1

      I'll agree with you on that one by far. YES! Anyone reading this thread, LEARN FROM MY MISTAKES! At least I'm still young and have time to fix the errors of my ways. I always said I would finish college. Problem is I never had a real time frame laid out, now I do, and now I will. I still have to figure out what the hell I want to do, but I'm sure by Spring of next year, I'll have something.

      So my words of advice to anyone getting out of school this year? Don't. Seriously. I didn't think I would need it, and let's face it, evidence is building I was wrong. Hell, even in the Air Force with a college degree I could have went as an officer and made some real money. Also, if you're joining the Air Force, go as an Officer. Aside from less responsibility and less work, there's nothing to being enlisted in the AF besides less money and a big fricken' rank insignia on your arm, which while it may look important, is a big disadvantage in a combat scenario (think sniper/C&C relation). But I digress... Go to school, damn it!

      --

      Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
    4. Re:My Experience And Predictions by ozborn · · Score: 1

      Don't get down on yourself and don't train/spend money on courses for a job just because you heard it has good employment prospects now. That's what you did last time and you got burned. Find something you like or at least have a genunine interest in. Maybe it's teaching, maybe's it not but training yourself for whatever the market "wants" right now is a waste of time. Good luck!

    5. Re:My Experience And Predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to agree. People with a CCNA are basically a commodity nowdays. If you want to get anywhere with Cisco you have to get at LEAST to the next level. And personally I wouldn't make a career out of it unless I planned on getting a CCNE.

    6. Re:My Experience And Predictions by pi_rules · · Score: 1
      In a saturated market, the guys without college degrees are the first ones crossed off the list.


      But the first ones -on- the list are the ones who already have an 'in' with the company. Personally, nothing beats having a good reputation and recomendations. I'm sitting in my job right now simply because I worked with some of the people that got into this place before and they really appreciated my skills. Before I got here I pulled a contract job through a recruiter that -still- calls me to make sure I'm not looking for work sometimes. After two months on the job my employer "bought" me from the contracting firm to hire me full time. He hadn't ever seen a client make a decision that fast before I guess.

      Being a nice guy, fun to work around, and knowing your shit really goes a -long- way if you ask me.
    7. Re:My Experience And Predictions by evilviper · · Score: 1
      In a saturated market, the guys without college degrees are the first ones crossed off the list.

      You didn't read the article at all... The very point is that a degree is no longer helping people keep their jobs.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:My Experience And Predictions by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
      So true.

      I make 6.75 an hour delivering sandwiches and I have been using Linux for 5 years and FreeBSD for 2 years. I have both A+ and mcse certifications and 1 1/2 of experience dealing with help desk tech support.

      I miss my 35k a year job and I consider that a huge amount of money today. I can't believe I once that that was shit pay. Sadly I consider this the high of my life.

      Sorry about the dude who got his Cisco certification. I get angry and give the finger whenever I see these learn computers at ITT commercials on TV.

      Life is unfair and sucks alot sometimes.

      Become a delivery driver in the meantime. Yes I could paid 6.75/hr but I get $150 a week from tips!

      There are no cheap ways out. Employers today see people who cut corners and do not work redicolously hard. I refer to those like myself who did not want 4 years of college and chose certification. After $7,000 spent I just created a whole on my resume and made myself less employable!

      I still have very strong emotions over this and it takes awhile to earn your humility. Finish school. Its a %100 fraud used by HR to filter applicants but you can not fight the system. You must be part of it instead.

    9. Re:My Experience And Predictions by evilviper · · Score: 1
      I dare say that the problem simply is your lack of experience. Most empoyees don't want someone fresh out of college, they want someone frest out of 2-4 years working at a real job. Lower your standards for now to get a couple years of experience, then try looking around... You will certainly be much more successful.

      have you ever seen one of Apple's XServe's? I don't think it can get much easier than that.

      There is a very big difference between being able to get a server going, and being able to keep it running 24/7, putting up barriers to security breaches, having remote logging, custom-purpose clusters, etc. Ease of use may be cutting out the demand for lots of junior admins at very small companies, but those that seriously depend on their network infrastructure will always NEED someone exceptionally skilled to make sure they have 100% uptime, and 100% security.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    10. Re:My Experience And Predictions by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      You didn't read the article at all... The very point is that a degree is no longer helping people keep their jobs.

      One does not contradict the other. That's like saying "the ability to read is no longer helping people keep their jobs - therefore, the ability to read is not important in a job applicee".

    11. Re:My Experience And Predictions by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      This is very good advice. I'm glad you've shared this story with everyone. Best of luck in everything from here on out.

  59. Isnt age discrimination against the law? by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

    With all the people out of work, if you are willing to take the pay cut and have more experience there should be no reason not to hire you.

    Hey, maybe instead of unemployed, you can be retired off the lawsuit payoff.

    Maybe someone should form a "Age Discrimination" Watch group. Why dont you guys/gals stop bitching and do something about it. Stop the whinefest and get off your ass and do something about it.

    I know at our work, HR started is only hiring entry level pay positions (they call it a choice market, and can get talent at that price...) but they still hire the most experienced people that apply.

    1. Re:Isnt age discrimination against the law? by Nf1nk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Say this to yourself untill it sinks in
      NOTHING IS ILLEGAL UNTILL YOU ARE CAUGHT
      if what the company wants is cheap abusable labor, they hire young folks who don't know any better, if they get called on this practice they point out some small flaw in the people who they did not hire or say they did not interview well.
      Or if they are real jerks like someone I may know they hire to quota and lay off to get things the way they like it.
      watch groups and lawsuits often don't work and they sit even worse with future potential employers.

      --
      I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
    2. Re:Isnt age discrimination against the law? by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

      But thats the point, how can you post a job and not get 100 applications with at least half of them being over the age of 30? The job market sucks, and if you are only hiring kids in this resession, you are breaking the law.

      I live in washington state, we still have quotas on minorities, you can bet that the state checks on those stats, why not check on age descrimination numbers also?

      But with all these "Age'ism" news stories on slashdot lately, you would think someone, somewhere is going take charge and do something. The unemployment office keeps a list of all the places you applied (for unemployment verification). With that large database, they could pointpoint the worst offending companies in a second.

  60. The recession the US deserves by vandan · · Score: 1, Interesting

    With the bad taste over the phantom 'Weapons Of Mass Destruction' (tm) still in our mouths, those of us who disagree with the owner of the largest stockpile of 'Weapons Of Mass Destruction' (tm) on Earth chuckle at the US predicament.

    You see, the companies that have elevated your country to its current position in international thuggery are quite willing and able to give your jobs to less well paid workers in other countries . Usually these slave-labour countries are run by a military dictatorship, much like the one the multinational corporations would like to have everywhere.

    Several contradictions US society must deal with if they want to evolve from where they are:

    1) You can't steal everything. Even with all the wars US has started and all the 'rights' it has won and 'deals' it has signed, it must pay the world for the goods and services it uses. Currenty it does not. Currently, the US foreign debt is climbing by over $US 1 billion per day.
    2) Military dicatorships are not acceptable, except when they allow US corporations to rape the country's local resources - including the people in slave labour camps.
    3) American patriotism is the greatest force on the planet, except when tbe individuals insist on charing so much for their sevices, and it becomes more profitable to employ foreigners in slave labour camps.

    I could go on and on, but those who agree with me need no more reminders, and those who don't agree with me already have their heads in the sand by now.

    1. Re:The recession the US deserves by rogerbo · · Score: 1

      MMM, look I normally don't defend the US or large corporations which do desverve much of the shit they get, BUT

      IT services jobs are mostly being farmed out to India and the Phillipines as the article said. both India and the Phillipines are stable democracies. Multinational corporations usually don't like to invest in dictatorships because therre is too much risk of instability, a coup or some kind of revolution losing their whole investment. Even when a dictator stays in power there is a huge cost incured doing business in Military dictatorships as corruption costs (bribery) has to figured into every stage of a business deal.

      Unless the dictatorship has resources you can't get elsewhere (oil, gold, diamonds) there ain't much investment there as it's too high risk.

      So yeah, globablization is a nasty thing when it's your job being shipped overseas to a less developed country but at least you can take some consolation in knowing it will probably be shipped to a less developed democracy....

    2. Re:The recession the US deserves by Per+Cederberg · · Score: 1
      Usually these slave-labour countries are run by a military dictatorship, much like the one the multinational corporations would like to have everywhere.
      I thought India was the worlds biggest democracy (population-wise).
    3. Re:The recession the US deserves by kinnell · · Score: 1
      Even when a dictator stays in power there is a huge cost incured doing business in Military dictatorships as corruption costs (bribery) has to figured into every stage of a business deal.

      Actually, this is more true of a democracy. A military dictator will do more or less what the US asks as long as they keep on supporting him. Environmental and labour laws are irrelevant, competition can be controlled. In a democracy, a comany has to either abide by the local laws, hence incurring elevated costs, or bribe a lot of people to get around them. Search google for "Production Sharing Agreements" and you'll get the drift.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
  61. You are a blue-collar worker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny to notice that most /. posters think they are 'white-collar'. They are not. They are at best 'blue-collar' workers. Little hands that implement the ideas of others. If you get fired and you are not able to see you are nothing more than a production line worker, then you may start to understand why you are fired. On the other hand, you probably prefer to dream on.

    1. Re:You are a blue-collar worker by notany · · Score: 1

      So true.

      --
      Dyslexics have more fnu.
  62. "bad weather" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHEN WILL the bad weather end? Why the distance between what is and what ought to be? Where are Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction? If he was such a threat, why did his army perform so poorly? Does it matter where he is? If the war in Iraq was not about oil, why does the United States insist on its indefinite control? If the war was, instead, about democracy, why are the Iraqi people, including Saddam's proven enemies, excluded from authority? Is Iraq to be like Afghanistan, where war lords rule and heroin thrives? Are there more suicide-bombers now than ever? Has the American war on terrorism advanced safety? How did relations between the United States and its European allies become so fragile? Will history recognize the 21st century Anglo-American combine as a mere continuation of the 19th century British Empire? What do good intentions count for if they cut a wake of wreckage? And is the bad weather the result of an atmospheric low that will not lift without the answers?

    Why are taxes being cut when teachers and librarians are being laid off? What happened to campaign finance reform? Why is the United States more divided by race than ever? When did its citizens ever decide to forgo privacy? How can low-income wage-earners support their families? How much longer will the middle class be able to afford health insurance? Why are Americans eating so much bad food? Does prime time television hold a mirror up to the nation? Who teaches children to bring guns to school? What happens to teenagers who fulfill every graduation requirement except the test they can't pass? How many more will fail that test because their teachers were laid off?

    Such impossible questions go a long way toward explaining the American mood. We cannot answer them, so we do not ask them, and the emotional weather is lousy. Thus, the patently false ebullience of George W. Bush -- the doubtless man -- is the perfect emblem of a nation so adrift that it dares not look twice at its real condition. Whatever the technical reasons for it, the economy that refuses to recover matches perfectly a broad psychological stagnation that precludes self-knowledge. Why are Americans incapable of looking directly at what we are doing and what we are becoming?

    Abroad, the United States wages war on such vaporous pretexts that when they dissipate in the first breeze of mourners wailing, Americans take no notice. A strong tradition of multilateral internationalism is overthrown without political controversy or even debate. An old liberal dream of world federalism, nations united as democratic partners in global governance, is replaced by a program of American unipolarity, world government administered by fiat from Washington. And who in Washington questions this?

    At home, an anxious sadness underlies the civic life. Careers feel terribly uncertain. Leisure is a forgotten luxury, which is not all bad because blank spaces in the datebook spark insecurities most of all. Intimate relationships are burdened by what is not discussed, and the confessional to which many people might once have carried such secrets is now dangerous. The Catholic crisis, cutting an entire community loose from moorings of authority and meaning, directly affects only a part of the national population, yet it, too, seems very American. The sadness is as religious as it is political.

    In America each boon seems now to carry a curse. Is our freedom secured? Yes, by a government that can eavesdrop on every conversation. Are we well fed? Yes, to the point of obesity. Is our medical care superb? To the point of bankruptcy. Are we the most heavily armed people in history? Frighteningly so. Does the unprecedented success of the national project over the last generation bode well for the next generation? Obviously not. Can we dare to ask why?

    An answer is apparent this very day in Iraq. The distance between what is and what ought to be is so vast there that only an act of communal self-blinding can keep Americans ignorant of it. The dark national mood ha

    1. Re:"bad weather" by evilpaul13 · · Score: 1

      "If the war was, instead, about democracy, why are the Iraqi people, including Saddam's proven enemies, excluded from authority?"
      Are we supposed to go on the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" idea? Maybe the US should have just left Germany completely after WWII to the care of Uncle Joe Stalin who is world renowned for being such a kind and caring guy?

      And proclaiming Iraq a colony after less than two months might be a tad premature, wouldn't you say?

      "Why are taxes being cut when teachers and librarians are being laid off?"
      Maybe the government is actually reducing its expenditures at the same time it temporarily reduces its tax inflows? What some would call "fiscal responsibility"?

      "An old liberal dream of world federalism, nations united as democratic partners in global governance, is replaced by a program of American unipolarity, world government administered by fiat from Washington. And who in Washington questions this?"
      As opposed to unelected bureacrats from nations run by violent, murderous tyrants governing the world populace by an unelected committee's fiat is better? Why? Because it is more popular?

      Democracy is absolutely nothing more than popularity, afterall. Rule, by the mob.
      (I'd love to hear an explaintion as to what more democracy is if anyone disagrees?)

    2. Re:"bad weather" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we supposed to go on the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" idea? Maybe the US should have just left Germany completely after WWII to the care of Uncle Joe Stalin who is world renowned for being such a kind and caring guy?

      There were local administrators and mayors in Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII. But then, these countries did not have major proven oil reserves did they?

      Maybe the government is actually reducing its expenditures at the same time it temporarily reduces its tax inflows? What some would call "fiscal responsibility"?

      No, it is called tax breaks for the rich and pork barrels for corp. campaing donators. It is pushing a far right conservative agenda to remove social programs under the guise of budget reduction.

      As opposed to unelected bureacrats from nations run by violent, murderous tyrants governing the world populace by an unelected committee's fiat is better? Why? Because it is more popular?

      This is a generalization. The majority of UN seats are not filled by tyrants. People tend to represent their own best interest.

      Democracy is absolutely nothing more than popularity, afterall. Rule, by the mob.

      America's government is supposed to have this thing called "checks and balances" -- a far cry from mob rule.

      But as Bush has shown, it is possible for a man who lost the vote to steal the office. This is not even rule by popularity.

      And American's mood shows their lack of confidence in the current Junta running the U.S.A. America also drives the worlds economy, so guess what? Our problems become the world's problems.

  63. phrasespotting by miu · · Score: 1
    The rudderless recovery and economic uncertainty deserve much of the blame.

    I take it "Fortune" is not a big fan of Bush's economic policy.

    --

    [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
  64. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor excuse. The human body is quite adaptable and can change it's own parameters when necessary to cope with the current situation. I too (yet another AC :P) had said the same thing, but after 3 months of not feeding myself or my family, decided to take up a job as an auto mechanic. The more I did, the less sensitive I became to grease and other hazardous chemicals involved in automotives, and the more skilled and strong I grew. Take the time to step away from the computer, and work out - you won't regret it!

    This ad paid for by the international council for Anonymous Life Changing Posts.

  65. Farming Re:Solution? Try a different career... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I grow pot now. Good indoor is worth more than gold per ounce!

  66. Most companies arent listed - small/med business by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Perhaps the puzzling part of the article (how the dollar and market don't look so bad but unemployment is) can be answered by the negative effects of giving ultra-big business all these "pro-business" concessions via government mandate.

    Small and medium size business employ more people than all large companies combined in the US. Yet, every stimulus package from Congress only benefits the big boys who can afford a team of lobbyists and a legal department that dwarfs most law firms.

    Where does this leave the real innovators? Its hardly contested that innovation and new markets are usually created by those willing to go at it with a small company and do it or fail trying as opposed to some big-business top-down master plan. In the tech industry you have to fight the legal departments of potential competitors, fight the patent junkies, fight potential adversaries like the massive and powerful content industry, etc before you can even come up with a decent business plan.

    Someone somewhere is sitting on a billion dollar idea but its not going to go anywhere because investors fear retribution from unfair competitors. Or perhaps she cannot get enough money to pay for years of IP challenges. In a legal war of attrition its the little guy who loses, and loses badly.

    I think we might be seeing a loss of innovation and a loss in small to medium sized businesses. How can these companies compete with sweetheart deals, crony capitalism, and legal tricks?

    If this little thesis is correct it would explain why Joe from Winnekta can't find a job, even though the economy isn't as bad as it was in the 80s, why PCs are still ugly and loud beige boxes, and why relatively new tech like cellphones are a better deal and a better product overseas. Or why broadband is so expensive here in the States.

    Everytime congress cuts a deal for some business it raises a barrier to entry for small business to walk in and compete. Enough barriers and you've got an economy that isn't moving, but is dependant or more crony capitalism to keep it going. I hope I'm wrong as I'd hate to be here when this all hits critical mass.

  67. A master sells his creation... by poptones · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...and a serf sells his time.

    Prophetic words from potter George Ohr. What we are seeing is a cycle we are doomed to until we get over this mass consumerist mindset. Sure, you can go to wallyworld and buy tons of crap you couldn't afford before - but for what? I'm willing to bet 70% of everything that comes out of that place ends up in a landfill within three years.

    If you look around you'll see some people still doing just fine - or even better than last year. $40,000 cars still sell and automakers are coming out with $100,000 cars. People I know who make high end home entertainment systems are still doing just fine. Why? Because the people who can afford that stuff aren't the ones whose jobs are being shipped overseas.

    I hate how this sounds, but it all comes down to values. Not family values but simple common sense values - like spending twice as much on an article that will last five times as long. Like buying something that represents craftsmanship and community instead of a cheap chinese trinket you had to get in order to keep up with the neighbor.

    It's everywhere - even on those "home improvment" type shows. Every week I laugh in disgust as Steve Thomas and the boys tell us how great this new styrafoam and plastic POS they are gluing to the front of their project of the month is when compared to the old, outdated plaster and woodwork that it's replacing - never mind it's a hundred fucking years old and just now in need of replacment - this new same-as-ten-thousand-others piece of crap is "just as good"... yeah, right.

    You don't have to be a millionaire to buy good shit - you just have to learn to not drive yourself into debt buying truckloads of cheap crap. Until the people of the US can accept this most basic bit of common sense, it's all downhill.

    But don't worry... all that infrastructure - the roads, the abandoned factories, the empty offices - will still be here, and all those jobs will come back... in twenty years, when the US economy has finally and completely hit the shitter and the people of the US will once again willingly work 12 hour days in sweatshops for peanuts - producing cheap american trinkets for the up-and-coming EU market and all those freshly minted eurotrash capitalists from the FSU.

    1. Re:A master sells his creation... by Duncan3 · · Score: 1

      Dunno where you've been, but everyone I know that still has a job is already being forced to work 12 hour days because employers know they replace an anyone who wont in about 30 seconds. So their quality of life is absolute crap.

      --
      - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
    2. Re:A master sells his creation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      producing cheap American trinkets for the up-and-coming EU market and all those freshly minted euro trash capitalists from the FSU.

      The EU, Japan, India, and China would be in a pretty poor position if the US economy were to stall out. All of these countries have built their economy on exports to the US while still remaining fairly protectionistic of their own markets.

      Did you know, for example, that consumer in India has a limit on the amount of foreign charges he can place on his card? And that an investor in India cannot re-invest money outside India unless that company holds a large stake in US companies? Did you know that the Chinese government pegs their currency to the dollar and holds it at a rate that encourages exports? That the EU has put up large numbers of regulations that make it impossible for US companies to penetrate the EU markets? For example the bans on GM food (even for animal feed), US Beef, forcing US companies to comply with VAT, and forbidding an EU subsidiary to even share customer names with their US owners!

      Did you know that Japan has bought a record number US dollars in an attempt to hold up the dollar? And that the US treasury holds a record 987 *billion* dollars for other countries that have been buying US securities to hold down the dollar?

      So why are all these countries so anxious to prop up the US dollar? Why are they complaining so much about the fall of the US dollar? Because their economy depends on it! If the US consumer can no longer buy their goods their economies will simply stop functioning. The EU can no more penetrate the Japanese market any more than Japan can penetrate the Chinese market. There is simply no other place for their exports to go!

      And it is unlikely to change over the next 30 years. While we have a problem with the number of Baby Boomers retiring in the next few years the problem in the EU, China, and Japan is *much* worse. While we have a record deficit they have a worker deficit. There are simply not enough workers in these countries to support the number of people expecting to retire in the next 20 years. Their economies will be moribund for at least the next 3 decades while the US with its open immigration policy may actually continue to grow.

      I am not saying that all is well in the US. The US can't continue to support its military, deficit, and low tax rates. There will be a time of reckoning. My guess is that the US is going to return to inflation numbers that were last seen in the late 70's in order to offset the national debt. Of course that will be good for US genXers that will still have large mortgage payments with 6-7% interest rates.

    3. Re:A master sells his creation... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      You do have a good point, but in some cases, there aren't any good options left.

      How about buying a new car? I look around, and I barely ever see a car more than 5 years old. Why is that??? It's simple, all car companies are making their cars so that they run fine for 100,000 miles, then completely crap-out. Anyone happen to know of any companies that sell cars with durable engines that can be easily and cheaply repaired if necessary?

      It does seem that everyone is stuck in their "lowest-price no-matter-what" mindset, and I've really never understood it... Buy from the companies that give you 3 or 5 year warranties. Viewsonic for monitors, ASUS for Mobos and misc. No IDE hard drive manufacturers giving you more than 1 years? Time to start buying SCSI, which is really less expensive in the long run.

      Personally, I think we need to have prominently placed "Made in the USA" stickers on everything. Right now, manufactures do their best to completely hide the origin of their products, because they know if it is prominent, people will go for the American-made products.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:A master sells his creation... by poptones · · Score: 1
      Aside from your very limited view of the world seeming to relate to computer peripherals and cars, I'll introduce this bit of retort:

      My Mustang (the only new car I ever bought) was still winning street races with over 250,000 miles on the clock. It had been rebuilt a bit - a transmission overhaul at 100,000 or so - but aside from that (and the mods I made to the top of engine) it was stock right down to the camshaft and roller lifters. A man I used to chauffer around (I came to think of him as sort of an adopted grandpa, even 'tho he was younger than my dad) bought a "new" Lincoln TC with 60,000 miles on the odo. It was still running like a new car when his sister sold it after he died, when there was nearly 150,000. In our driveway right now sits another with the same "modular" engine and over 150,000 on the odo - and it runs better than the '87 with the old 5.0 "tank engine" (and barely 120,000 on the clock). The suspension system is also better built, as are the steering and ventilation systems. A few years ago I sold an '85 Subaru given to me by a friend; it ran like shit because it was down to pretty much two working cylinders in its flat-four. But even with terrible performance it was still reliable enough I never worried about it starting or getting me where I wanted to go. It had nearly 300,000 miles on the odo when I sold it to a friend (who collects subarus) for parts.

      If anything, even fairly cheap cars last far longer today than they did thirty years ago. And you don't have to spend a fortune, because you don't really need a new car. Many people want one, and some people "need" the tax write-off. But, in the end, a car is a terrible, terrible investment - even worse than buying a mobile home. And yet most folks seem to think little of signing a letter of credit to pay back a year's worth of their salary over a three, four or five year loan. Which is fine if you make 150K a year, but downright stupid when you make a fifth of that. And, because they're so deeply in debt and earning barely enough to pay rent and energy and insurance and loan payments, every penny matters. So instead of buying thirty dollar shirts that last for years, they go to wallyworld and buy cheap shit that might last six months before it's thread-worn. But that doesn't matter because it'll be "out of fashion" by then, anyway.

      I see three pairs of shoes right now over in my closet. Two are skechers, purchased at the store on Melrose; the other is a pair of Cole-Hahns, purchased a couple of years before. The Cole-Hahns have been through three soles, but I think nothing of paying thirty bucks every year or two to get them reworked; they're soft as butter and worn but far from tattered. The skechers are long since dead, separating at the seams, dried out, and brittle (In fact, I really should toss them). The skechers were decent shoes (and the sandals are still OK) but they cost me about $60 a pair. And the skechers these replaced also cost me about $60. The cole-hahns costs me nearly $200, but have easily outlasted at least for pairs of skechers. And my father, who cringes at the thought of spending twenty dollars on a damn shirt, goes through at least two pairs of cheap shit wal-mart shoes every year. In fact, when he buys them he usually buys a couple of pairs at a time! How is that, in any way, logical? How do these twenty dollar shoes represent "value?"

      They don't. In fact, they are devoid of value. They are overproduced in sweatshops by exploited people who live a miserable existence - and everything about them reflects this heritage. And yet "we" buy them... by the Millions. If there is such a thing as karma, these products are physical manifestations of the very worse of it.

      "Made in USA" stickers are pretty much meaningless because they're so poorly policed and the vast majority of folk simply don't give a fuck so long as they get a low price on the shit they want. Speaking from personal experience, this attitude seems almost universal eve

    5. Re:A master sells his creation... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      your very limited view of the world seeming to relate to computer peripherals and cars

      Pick a subject, I'll be happy to rant about it... Cars and computers just happen to be things on my mind at the moment.

      My Mustang (the only new car I ever bought) was still winning street races with over 250,000 miles on the clock. It had been rebuilt a bit - a transmission overhaul at 100,000 or so - but aside from that (and the mods I made to the top of engine) it was stock right down to the camshaft and roller lifters.

      Umm, so you think rebuilding/replacing the transmission was a MINOR detail? That little fact just about proves my point.

      How many hours did you spend working on it? Oh, you say you didn't work on it at all??? Gee, maybe that's because the cars are built so that they require special tools to work on them. I'm sure you paid a wad of money for that transmission job, and the truth is, it's really quite expensive even for the cheap cars.

      You also didn't mention what year you bought the car...

      A few years ago I sold an '85 Subaru given to me by a friend; it ran like shit because it was down to pretty much two working cylinders in its flat-four.

      And you don't think that a car that is barely-working ~10 years after being purcased, is evidence enough that cars today are complete pieces of crap? If nothing else, with old cars, you had to do minor maintenance, but it was easy, and cheap. Today, they are really designed for housewives, so you don't really have to lift the hood for the first 100,000, but after that, you're better off buing a new car than trying to fix the problems that just pile on after 100K.

      If anything, even fairly cheap cars last far longer today than they did thirty years ago.

      That's just blatantly wrong. Nothing else to be said. Ask any mechanic at all that's been around long enough to see the regression.

      the vast majority of folk simply don't give a fuck so long as they get a low price on the shit they want.

      I don't happen to believe that. I believe that companies have simply managed to hide the country of origin that people just don't think about it anymore. Stick the "Made in _____" on the front of every product, and I'd be willing to bet you'll immediately see buying habbits change... Of course, that is assuming there is even an American alternative, which just isn't the case with TVs, and most other electronics.

      Everyone is instilled with this genetic memory - an irrational fear it'll all be taken away at any moment, and the only way they can fathom to avoid such a scenario is to accumulate even more shit they don't need.

      No, I don't happen to believe that at all. People get junk because it is marketed well, and they don't really think through their purchases. A low price, even if it's just cents less than a product that is 10X better, is a very convincing marketing tactic to a great many people. While they are shopping, they are convinced they are saving money and getting the things they need. They just don't think through the real facts, which need to be more prominent to be noticed. Stickers with country of origin are only one thing. Length of the warranty, quality rating from an independant 3rd party, all things that, if prominently placed, will change buying habbits immediately, because they get people thinking about what's really important, rather than what the advertising says.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:A master sells his creation... by poptones · · Score: 1
      Stick the "Made in _____" on the front of every product, and I'd be willing to bet you'll immediately see buying habbits change...

      You lose. Apparently you've never shopped at wal-mart, where thousands of pieces of merchandise have "made in the USA" labels on them. It means nothing because the only thing "made in the USA" is the goddamn tag. This is not even "news" - it was well proven years ago. No one believes it any more, so no one cares - simple as that.

      I paid nothing to get the tranny in my car rebuilt because it was (believe it or not) still under warranty. I did pay about $300 for extra work - like putting in a high-perf clutch and throw out bearing while he had the tranny out. And yes, for a car with that many miles - and the way they were put on the car (it is, after all, a Mustang) - a transmission rebuild is not only understandable, but expected. What amazes me is how it went another 200,000 without another one.

      I also used to work on them myself, but I quit because being a mechanic is not my idea of a good way to make a living. Shops charge way too much for what they pay the average (or even above average) mechanic.

      And yes, virginia, cars last longer now than thirty years ago.

      Interestingly, the number of old vehicles - those 13 years of age or older - increased by an average rate of 7.8 per cent between 1994 and '99, showing that vehicles are lasting longer. The report predicts that by 2004 the fastest growing segment of the fleet will be vehicles over the age of 13.

    7. Re:A master sells his creation... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Apparently you've never shopped at wal-mart,

      You make it sound as if that's a bad thing...

      It means nothing because the only thing "made in the USA" is the goddamn tag.

      Which is the very reason for the advertising laws. One nice big class action lawsuit ought to do it. Yes, people need to trust you aren't lying to them, but that's what brand names are all about.

      I paid nothing to get the tranny in my car rebuilt because it was (believe it or not) still under warranty.

      Yes, and for that warranty, you paid through the teeth. They try to bundle it in with the price of the car and on-going services, but you are still paying a great deal of money for that warranty.

      And yes, virginia, cars last longer now than thirty years ago.

      No. The article says that more older cars are being registered... That doesn't mean they are working longer with less money being spent on them, or even that they are still running and/or on the roads. Hey, maybe people are just keeping their old cars because they are waiting for resale prices to go up. Not likely, but this article certainly doesn't prove otherwise. In fact, my neighbor had a non-op car sitting in his front yard for about the past 5 years. To be legal, he had to pay the registration, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the very young car practically self-destruted years earlier.

      Interestingly, the number of old vehicles - those 13 years of age or older - increased by an average rate of 7.8 per cent between 1994 and '99, showing that vehicles are lasting longer.

      No, it doesn't show that vehicles are LASTING longer, just that they are around longer before they become scrap metal. It also doesn't say that on-going costs are getting any better for newer cars.

      In fact, that report had a couple of gems which really support my point:

      But it's not getting any easier for the do-it-yourselfer. The increasing complexity of modern vehicles is leading to less DIY work. The report shows mechanic-installed repairs have grown from 57 per cent of all repair work carried out to 68 per cent by decade's end. Older vehicles obviously have a higher rate of DIY work.

      And:

      The cost of vehicle repair has grown slowly but steadily over the years.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:A master sells his creation... by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1
      That the EU has put up large numbers of regulations that make it impossible for US companies to penetrate the EU markets? For example the bans on GM food (even for animal feed), US Beef, forcing US companies to comply with VAT, and forbidding an EU subsidiary to even share customer names with their US owners!

      Well, the effect may be that US has a harder time to export to the EU, but the reasons for all those are actually having politicians that aren't bought and paid for by the corporations but instead actually (sometimes) do what their constituents want.

      Now the GM food and US beef are two of those. We don't want GM food, or beef that's been produced by the use of hormones. We don't care that you want to sell that to us and by 'us' I mean consumers. And this is not hypocrisy btw, we don't produce these ourselves, even for export to you. You want to sell to us, you better start producing what we want, not what you want.

      The VAT thing is to curtail the tax haven effect, as a consumer I'm not too thrilled, but I cannot really fault it either.

      The ban on the exportation of personal data is actually a good one. On slashdot I've seen story after story of how corporations in the US abuse the data they have registered on their customers (and others). This is much less the case here, because it's against the law. The government may or may not do certain data processing or storage, but neither is corporations. No sniffing the network to see that I'm surfing slashdot for example. Now, the personal data protection directive has it's flaws, plenty of them in fact, but by and large the reasons for its existance are the right ones.

      There is actually very little true protectionism against the US from the EU, quite simply because we are the ones with more to lose. We export much more to you than we import in return. So if we started to play that game (at least in ernest) we'd be hurting much more than you. That's why were putting up with your steel nonsense for example while we have already taken that hit, had the layoffs and taken the cost for restructuring our own steel industry, that as a result is now competitive on the world market.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    9. Re:A master sells his creation... by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      I used up all my relationship slots so I can't FOE you.
      I thought I'd leave a message about how much I hate you and your idiotic diatribes as a poor substitute.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    10. Re:A master sells his creation... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Well, I would _hate_ for you to have to see my posts against your will, so I will be only too happy to make you as a 'foe'.

      You just need to adjust your 'People Modifier' settings (under 'Comments' in your prefs) to deduct points from 'Freaks'.

      That will be a very good solution to your problem, no?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  68. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

    Yep, exactly. Learn the various architectural trends and whatnot and figure out how to market yourself. Some people specialize in turning those old warehouses into loft apartments, some people specialize in revamping older buildings to meet construction codes, etc. There's lots of work to be done and livings to be made if you do it right. And furthermore, even though you still have clients, you're still the boss. :)

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  69. I know what a computer does. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, if you had a job that didn't involve something that any 'tard out of College/University could do (web development, coding etc) then you wouldn't have a problem.

    While all my mates were doing programming, I decided to go and understand how the 'net fits together. You know, routing, BGP/AS paths etc. So I am now a network admin at a good carrier (NOT ISP. A carrier. We supply BW to ISPs)

    Yea, this is flamebait. But if you think about it, it's also true. How many web devs do you know looking for a job? And how many people that have a good skill that's hard to find are out of work? Not many huh?

    Thought so.

  70. If things are this bad... by DraconPern · · Score: 1

    did anyone consider moving to where the jobs are going, India? Sure your pay will be less than half, but cost of living in India is low. Plus, you will have a job.

  71. My attempt to explain some economics by Imperator · · Score: 4, Informative

    IANAE

    You got it mostly right. It's easier to look at it the other way: when foreigners want to invest in the US, they need dollars. Thus the demand for dollars increases, and the price level of the dollar will rise. (This is of course in an idealized world where that's the only thing going on at the time--ceteris peribus, as economists would say.) A similar thing happens when people in other countries want to buy American goods and services.

    When the "value" (price) of the dollar goes up, it means Americans (who own lots of dollars) can afford to buy more PS2s because it takes fewer dollars to buy a yen than before. Unfortunately, the Japanese can't buy so many, uh, whatever they buy from us because it takes more yen to buy a single dollar. So our imports go up and our exports go down when we have a "strong" (high priced) dollar.

    When the factors reverse, we have a weak dollar, and the opposite happens. We export more and import less. (Before you assume this is ideal, think what happens to the prices of consumer goods when competition from overseas is lessened.) As you might guess, the ideal value of the dollar relative to the yen (remember, the dollar might get stronger against the yen but weaker against the euro at the same time) is something the US and Japan might not agree on.

    Now, about worker efficiency. Economists have a term for this: productivity. It's not just a buzzword: productivity can be measured in terms of product per man-hour. To find a (somewhat meaningless) national productivity, divide the GDP by the total number of hours worked. For a time in the 90s some economists in the Federal Reserve (which influences the economy, but that's beyond the scope of this post) thought that technology advances were pushing up productivity faster than usual, allowing the "natural rate of growth" of the American economy to increase. (Some even talked about the "end of the [boom-bust] business cycle", in the same way people talked about the "end of history" and other such nonsense.) So instead of aiming to grow GDP at say 3%, they though they could get away with 5%. The result of this was an economy that starting moving faster than the Fed could control it, finally spiraling into a recession. The truth of the matter is there's very little hard data to suggest that overall productivity grew any faster during the last ten years than at any other time in the postwar period.

    Finally, consider that there are other major causes for this recession. For example, a collapse in consumer and business confidence. This has been caused partially by the post-9/11 hysteria, fueled by FOX News and color-coded alerts. Also contributing is the government's increasing deficits. Gingrich and his radicals forced Clinton to balance the budget, and that worked great in good times. Now that bad times have hit, the government is going a little crazy with deficit spending--some is good, but it should be targeted spending, not tax cuts to people who already have lots of discretionary income. Government deficits have all sorts of reprecussions in the economy, few of them good. Another cause has been the amount of corporate crime that has recently been revealed (e.g. Enron). Businesses have been getting away with more and more under the last 4 presidents, and it sure doesn't give people confidence to think "my company could be next--where will the food come from if I'm out of work?". So people are saving more, and an economy built on rising amounts of consumer debt is collapsing.

    In the long run the current shake-up in the economy is health. That sure isn't comforting to the man on the street, though. If you don't like what's being done about it, remember to vote in 2004. That's the only way you'll get people in power that share your views, whatever they may be, on what should or should not be done for the economy in tough times.

    --

    Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    1. Re:My attempt to explain some economics by superyooser · · Score: 1
      the post-9/11 hysteria, fueled by FOX News and color-coded alerts.

      It was 9 / 11 that fueled (ahem) the beginning of the hysteria.

      It's extremely incongruous for you to unload all your criticism for economic turbulence and fear (of which there really is not much anymore; "hysteria" is hyperbole) on the Dept. of Homeland Security and a TV news network conveying relevant news about terrorist activities and measures being taken to prevent future attacks, while omitting from your criticism the primary role that certain non-Republicans (i.e., terrorists, remember those guys? the Saudis?) played.

      Here's more hysteria-fueling propaganda from MS[FOX?]NBC[.gov?]: The terrorists are here!

  72. That's what I'm hoping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At my university, there were more CS majors this year than any other year. There were also more people who dropped the major than any other year. I wonder what went through their minds...

    Wait a second. Computer science actually requires a brain and logical thought? Maybe we should go major in something like Communications or English.

    The CS department also made the courses a lot more difficult, in order to weed out the not-too-bright ones. I didn't mind it though, I learned a lot more than I would have normally.

    What I don't understand though are the kids who get Ds and Fs in CS courses and then stay in the major. They don't put any work into their assignments, and don't care about computers outside of class. Don't they realize that they're going to be spending every day of their lives after graduation in front of a computer screen? ...That is, if they can get a job. Or, rather, if there are any jobs to get.

  73. Are you sure? by jonhuang · · Score: 1

    Pardon me, but did you just say that white-collar jobs are what blue collar workers rely on as a backup when their normal jobs are exported overseas? Isn't it the other way around?

    I want to second the parent post's parent. Let's not roll over in self-pity just because we can't afford as fast a car as before. Large segments of america--larger segments of the world--face the same problems without expectation of economic recovery or 50k jobs.

    1. Re:Are you sure? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Why else would there be so many night school type places for working adults? Because blue collar folks are trying to improve their situation and move up to white collar jobs.

      Nobody is whining because the average pay is going down (well some might be but I'm not).. but having jobs moved out of the country is definately a problem because obviously it makes it ahrder to find jobs. Those large segments of America always had some hope that they could escape the problem by educating themselves.. now they have less hope of that. We don't need everyone to have a $50k/yr job but some job stability would be nice.

      You're probably right that this is what things are like in most of the world. I don't really blame people in India and places like that for taking advantage of the improved job market they are no doubt seeing. I do hope most of them find jobs soon though to keep more American jobs from migrating there. Of course then there is always another poor country to migrate jobs to.. but only if the local education is such that the people can do the jobs.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  74. The dollar should be down. That is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When having economic problems, a weak dollar helps bring money into the economy. That is a good thing. There is nothing to worry about that. However, those investing in American bonds don't want to see an intentional devaluation, so the Fed has to toe a very slim line between not giving the impression that they are committed to a low dollar, yet not trying to pump the value of it.

    There was a round table on either Dobbs or Bloomberg and every panelist said the same thing: lets keep the weak dollar until the rest of the economy gets rolling.

  75. The real reasons managers like younger employees by miu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Easier to bully. Cheaper.

    --

    [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
  76. IT Overseas by Ridgelift · · Score: 1

    In the next 15 years Forrester Research predicts that 3.3 million service jobs will move to countries like India, Russia, China, and the Philippines, with the IT sector leading the way

    These are the same countries that are keen on supporting Open Source solutions instead of paying Redmond their pound of flesh. So you have non-US companies switching away from Microsoft because of their deceptive and vicious business practices. Now US companies are outsourcing their IT needs to those same non-US companies...

    ...thanks a lot, Bill. You're obscenely rich, but you've pissed off the rest of the world, and now they're eating US jobs.

    1. Re:IT Overseas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Damn, I had to read almost the entire thread before I found the "Blame it on Microsoft" post. But here it is, in all it's shiny glory.

      Thanks for restoring my confidence in Slashdot.

    2. Re:IT Overseas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, no disaster is so big you can't blame it on Bill. After all, MS Flight simulator was also the true cause of 9/11.

      Come on, there is more to life than Microsoft or Open Source.

      If you want my analysis: blame it on US higher education. I notice how more and more US professorships are filled by people that were not born in the US, but in India, China, or Europe. For PhD's the trend is even more pronounced. Good luck to all these people, but it does suggest there are no good US candidates for these jobs.

    3. Re:IT Overseas by Ridgelift · · Score: 1

      Damn, I had to read almost the entire thread before I found the "Blame it on Microsoft" post. But here it is, in all it's shiny glory.

      Spoken just like the coward you are, with no identity. Parasites like you need people like me, so you can something to complain against. But I don't need you, therefore I am greater.

      And as for complaining about Microsoft, I did Windows for over 7 years with much agrivation and frustration. Now I use Linux, and I don't do Windows anymore. If you've got a problem with that, then be a man and sign your messages.

  77. Re:OK. Enuff worrying. Let us look at some solutio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Mmmmm, all that hate is keeping me warm.

  78. Long term developements ... by orangeguru · · Score: 1

    1. Real income of white and blue collar workers have been on the decline for several decades, cost of living has been rising. 2. Capitalism is basically killing it's own customers, since people earn less, they can consume less (otherwise they simply make more debts and creating dangerous bubbles). 3. Most manufacturing is done by machines these days, only service and administration jobs are the main areas for humans. So most people work in jobs were they can be easily replaced. 4. Job fluctuation has become extreme - compatred to the old "job for life" hardly anyone stays longer then five years in one company. This also dimishes the social fabric in companies, the ties between workers and management are loser, people stick less together. 5. Globalisation also means not only the exchange of riches (by creating jobs in these developing countries9, but also sharing poverty (in those "rich countries"). 6. Protectionism (like US-steel tarifs) just speed up the shift of jobs, since they raise the benefits of outsourcing even higher and create a "false" market that could collapse anytime without more government intervention. 7. Business is more and more concentrated, so less companies produce all the goods/services. Obviously less companies need less employees. 8. The financial market has developed in a way that it investors make more money, thru short term money business instead of investing long term in companies. This of course doesn't create many jobs ... 9. Since most companies these days are on the stock market, their share values have become more important then the actual core business. Instead on focusing on markets and products, CEO's are forced in a three months rhythm to create value for stockholders - so money gets sucked out of companies and long term projects are hardly tackled. 10. Not to mention the overall inbalance between job payments of CEO's etc. - and that they are hardly held responsible for job and value destruction. 11. Education in most industrial societies is wrecked or seriously cut down, so western countries become "dumber", while developing countries catch up. ...

    1. Re:Long term developements ... by erixtark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1. Real income of white and blue collar workers have been on the decline for several decades, cost of living has been rising.

      I think you could live a much better life much cheaper now than ever. I think we spend a lot of money on things such as market brands and expensive apartments, but these are things that aren't really necessary for your survival. Try taking a look at your expenses over a couple of months and see how much of it that actually goes to quite useless things.

      2. Capitalism is basically killing it's own customers, since people earn less, they can consume less (otherwise they simply make more debts and creating dangerous bubbles).

      The nice thing about capitalism is the balance between demand and supply. As soon as one thing changes the other thing replies by adopting to the change. I don't think the problem is with capitalism but with our current structure of society...

      3. Most manufacturing is done by machines these days, only service and administration jobs are the main areas for humans. So most people work in jobs were they can be easily replaced.

      ...for example full time employments, which is a construct not suitable for a dynamic working evironment.

      4. Job fluctuation has become extreme - compatred to the old "job for life" hardly anyone stays longer then five years in one company. This also dimishes the social fabric in companies, the ties between workers and management are loser, people stick less together.

      This is true from one angle. But our social networks are more important than ever. They just don't coincide as much with our current employmment as they did before. In stead of saying "I work for Company X" you might be saying "I belong to network A, B and C. And, oh yeah, currently Company X is paying my salary". I think that's a good thing.

      5. Globalisation also means not only the exchange of riches (by creating jobs in these developing countries9, but also sharing poverty (in those "rich countries").

      Capitalism is not a zero-sum game, but you are right in that maybe finally the wealth distribution of the world is slowly flattening. I think this is good in the long run. People with a job, a good life and a secure income don't blow themselves up.

      6. Protectionism (like US-steel tarifs) just speed up the shift of jobs, since they raise the benefits of outsourcing even higher and create a "false" market that could collapse anytime without more government intervention.

      Agree.

      7. Business is more and more concentrated, so less companies produce all the goods/services. Obviously less companies need less employees.

      Yes, this is true for businesses in the production sector. But as people move up the Maslow ladder of needs their demands changes. In stead of a faster car we want a car that is an extension of our own personalities and that is fun to drive and own. In stead of a bigger burger we want a fun burger served by a clown that can do Bill Clinton impersonations standing on his arms. We're also healthier and live longer. We want a better quality of life, even as we age.

      Conclusion 1: people in healthcare will always have things to do. We will never be healthy enough.

      Conclusion 2: entertain your customers, no matter what you do.

      8. The financial market has developed in a way that it investors make more money, thru short term money business instead of investing long term in companies. This of course doesn't create many jobs ... 9. Since most companies these days are on the stock market, their share values have become more important then the actual core business. Instead on focusing on markets and products, CEO's are forced in a three months rhythm to create value for stockholders - so money gets sucked out of companies and long term projects are hardly tackled.

      I agree. And I think one of the solutions to this problem is to l

  79. Perhaps conventional full-time jobs are dead? by danielrendall · · Score: 1

    Perhaps society needs to re-think the idea that all jobs should be full-time, single employee propositions. Which would be preferable - to have some people in full-time employment and others fruitlessly searching for jobs, or to have job-share schemes in which everyone can be employed some of the time?

    It's evident from looking at society (I'm in the UK, by the way) that there are many social problems which need addressing, and a large pool of intelligent, educated people with free time who could be doing useful work addressing these problems (e.g. working with delinquent kids, helping the elderly and infirm), but are instead using that time trying to get a job.

    Maybe in the future, we'll accept that not everyone can work five days a week, and instead it will be accepted that people share their jobs, working maybe three days a week, and spending the other two working for the public good. Or maybe they work conventionally for 6 months a year, and spend the other half applying their skills to improve conditions in less developed countries.

    Obviously, people would require paying for these services, and this would be done by the government. This is good for them, as it brings their salary up to the level they'd expect if they were working full time, and it gives them a wider perspective on the world than they might get if they spent their lives in an office. It is also good for the government, since it would mean that social problems for which they're ultimately held responsible are being tackled in a systematic and serious way. And as a taxpayer, I like the idea - currently I'm paying out to have people deal with the consequences of society's ills (e.g. crime, pollution), and I'd think it a better use of my money to have these problems attacked at the root.

    Whatever happens, a society which generates increasing numbers of highly skilled people chasing a dwindling number of jobs is clearly not going to work in the long-term. Will we find imaginative alternative ways of harnessing those skills or wait patiently for 'market forces' to deal with the issue in their habitually destructive way?

    1. Re:Perhaps conventional full-time jobs are dead? by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately in the USA not being employed full-time means no benefits.

      It's pretty impossible to get health care insurance or retirement benefits if you aren't full-time.

      The people in the US are being so ripped off by the insurance companies it isn't funny. That all began with Reagan. I can't even say he was a president. More of a creep really. Now we have the son of a creep, this guy is even worse than his father because he's stupid. We don't have democracy if the President was appointed by Supreme Court.

      The problems in America are not just outsourcing of jobs. The problems are the morons running the place.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
    2. Re:Perhaps conventional full-time jobs are dead? by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately in the USA not being employed full-time means no benefits.
      It's pretty impossible to get health care insurance or retirement benefits if you aren't full-time.



      That's complete and total bullshit. I've been buying my own health insurance for about 7 years, and my "retirement benefits" are my various savings. Anybody still in IT who's working "full time" is getting ripped off.

    3. Re:Perhaps conventional full-time jobs are dead? by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah you can afford the premiums because you do porn.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
  80. well that's what they get for.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    insisting on mindlessly using microsoft products!

  81. Re:but whos to say the recession is over? by evilpaul13 · · Score: 1

    The dollar is most likely over-valued. If it were not, US exports to the rest of the world would be less expensive, and the US would not have as huge a trade deficit as it does now. A decrease in the value of the dollar would result in fewer imports, and greater domestic production which would have a stimulative effect on the economy.

    The stock market is not a reliable indicator of overall economic performance or recovery as it is very heavily influenced by perceptions and not reality. It tends to play catchup to actual trends rather than lead them. (As it should if it has any real significance. Does anything else improve before the thing it is said to reflect improves? Of course not.)

  82. The myth that rich don't pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the IRS, the top 1% of wage earners payed 37.42% of the tax burden while only making 20.81% of earned income. The top 10% payed 67.33% of the tax burde while only making 46.01% of earned income.

    First, the comparison between a massive United States and tiny Sweden isn't close. That is like comparing the books between a mom and pop corner store and Microsoft. There are not going to be too many similarities.

    Second, there are two ways to boost tax revenue. You can tax the shit out of people. However, you are never going to grow too much and have jaw dropping increases from year to year. Or you can lower the tax rate and hopefully spur the economy to boil up, increasing income. The second strategy is much more agressive and have a huge potential upside. It is also why the US was and is the economic leader of the world. Even in a depression were are still top dog. Part of this is because of the flexibility of the low taxation system. Money is kept in the economy where it should be, as determined by consumer spending.

    It's called the American Dream and not the Swedism Dream for a reason.

    1. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by js7a · · Score: 1
      you are never going to grow too much and have jaw dropping increases from year to year.

      Tell that to Volvo, Ikea, and Ericsson.

      you can lower the tax rate and hopefully spur the economy to boil up

      Yeah, right. You supply siders never fail to amuse me. Perhaps you would be credible if Mitch Daniels wasn't thinking of the economy of Tahiti rather than that of the U.S. right now.

    2. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by Malcontent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      " According to the IRS, the top 1% of wage earners payed 37.42% of the tax burden while only making 20.81% of earned income. The top 10% payed 67.33% of the tax burde while only making 46.01% of earned income."

      That's because those people are very adept at hiding income. Were you paying attention to the enron goings on? Now those guys knew how to hide money. Look at Steven Jobs. His official salary is $1.00 per year. Yes one dollar per year. You really think that's his total income?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    3. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by javiercero · · Score: 1

      Tzzzzz wrong. People like you love to spew the useless "theories" for the whole taxation reduction of the upper earners. Funny thing how math works, look at the real figures (those percentages are bogus and you know that).

      The fallacy is that when you are in a lower earning braket ANY money substraced for taxes is far more noticeable. I.e. you make $1000 a month and you have to pay $100. So you are left with $900.00. However if you are making $100,000.00 a month ane you are paying $20,000 (assuming some crazy "burden on the rich" which is usually bogus, because the rich are rich because they can pay accountants to find loopholes). That leaves you with a meager $80,000 per month. I mean those assholes with $900.00 per month do not know how f'king hard it is to get by with 80K a month!

      So yeah, keep on with the same falacy... that is not going to stop us from reminding you that you are full of BS.

      The American dream has nothing to do with low taxes btw.

    4. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      According to the IRS, the top 1% of wage earners payed 37.42% of the tax burden while only making 20.81% of earned income. The top 10% payed 67.33% of the tax burde while only making 46.01% of earned income.

      That's true, but that's only half of the picture. Most of the top 1% wage earners also earn plenty of money outside wages unlike the average American (which on average wins very little, and even loses money outside wages, in the form of paying interest for his debts for instance [which, you will notice, goes to profit of bank shareholders]). The rich pay less taxes on other forms of earnings, the non-rich pay an additional tax in most of their incomes in the form of sales tax.

      Or you can lower the tax rate and hopefully spur the economy to boil up, increasing income. The second strategy is much more agressive and have a huge potential upside. It is also why the US was and is the economic leader of the world.

      No. The US is the economic leader of the world because it is big (couting people). EU zone will be almost as big. The average American is richer because it is working more and longer (and spends less time with friends and family), but anyway from the post-war 1945, the totally destroyed Europe, Japan, part of Asia (South Korea), have considerably reduced the gap between US and them. Wait for China, India, and Russia to quick in. And in addition, Sweden was in big economic problems in beginning of the 1990s... they didn't need to dismantle their state and privatize eveything to get back and roar economically, unlike the American ideologues were saying.

      It's called the American Dream and not the Swedism Dream for a reason.

      Sorry, but this is typical of American arrogance... Most Europeans (except from British), would rather live in Sweden than in US. And not only them. The ultra-violent regressive workahoolic selfish society is not a dream - I have only disgust for massive jailing, death penalty, creationism, abortion questionning, gay putting-down (the Economy minister of Sweden officialy married another man), big SUV, insane work hours and "praise-the-winner-piss-on-the-loser" mentality. That's probably I haven't heard of the "American Dream" in a positive means in European media since the 1980s.

    5. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by antirename · · Score: 1

      You "give the poor more money" types never fail to amuse me either. I pay about 25% in income tax. Then I pay the state. Then I pay property tax. And fuel tax. And when I spend money to actually fucking buy something, I spend 6% tax plus the 1% local option tax. Then I have fees because of energy regulation, which I consider to be a tax as well since it costs me money and was the government's idea. I would get an exact figure, but I really don't want to relive the yearly tax time nightmare. I would guess, however, that US taxes are pretty fucking close to Sweden. It's just spread out so that you don't complain and boot your congresscritter out of office. It's the system that's broken, not the economy. I'm guessing you're a wet behind the ears 22 year old housewife in a picket fence house in a "gated community" if you really think raising taxes would do ANYTHING good. Bleah. Enough of this. Arguing with liberals on Slashdot is a waste of electrons.

    6. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by sniggly · · Score: 1

      In the USA john makes $100k a month and is not responsible for jack who makes $1k - in Sweden (and most other european social democracies) the fates of people are much more intertwined by government services.

      It's a choice, and John who makes $100k has every reason to be upset having to pay 20 times as much as Jack.

      Taxation isn't fair. Every so often you vote people into office who take a huge chunck out of your income and you have very little control over what they do with it. And even all the money you pay now isnt enough for them because they still find reason to racket up a huge national debt as well.

      --
      Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
    7. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by spyfrog · · Score: 1

      I am sure that american taxes are lower than Swedish taxes. With all the taxes and the high VAT in Sweden you can't have higher taxes than us. At least that is what our right wing is telling us - "USA is a paradise". However, one thing that makes Swedish taxes a bit easier to live with is that we don't need a health insurance. Several americans I have talked to says that if you include all necessary inscurances, pension savings and so on you actually pays more in USA than in Sweden. It would be fun to see figures on this. The biggest downside with the swedish system is that hard work and education don't really pays of since it means higher taxes.

    8. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by guybarr · · Score: 1

      I pay about 25% in income tax. Then I pay the state. Then I pay property tax. And fuel tax. And when I spend money to actually fucking buy something, I spend 6% tax plus the 1% local option tax.

      W/O getting into what SHOULD be done in the US (I don't know), from the figures you gave it appears the US taxes are relatively quite low, say 30..35%.

      High taxes are more like 50..60% (income + VAT) I'm not from the US, and would have liked 30% taxes very much, thankyou.

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    9. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ericsson and Saab both managed to find US support. GM paid billions of dollars so Saab could build their new 900. Ericsson was given many interesting defense contracts in the last years of the cold war. Some of thier R&D was a front to cover spy stations run by the US. The amount that the US delivered to Sweeden was to the tune of about $5 billion a year till the fall of the USSR.

    10. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

      Look at Steven Jobs. His official salary is $1.00 per year. Yes one dollar per year. You really think that's his total income?

      That is a perfect illustration that you understand nothing about accounting, or how corporations operate. Yes, his salary may be $1 per year. HIS SALARY. That is only a component of his overall compensation package (which is also taxable), in which he chose/it was negotiated that he would not get a salary, but be compensated with stock, options, etc. The only reason there is a salary figure in there at all is because to officially work for a company in the US, you MUST be paid a salary. The $1 a year is a mere formality. Most COB's of medium and larger organizations receive the same SALARY.

      Get out int he real world and learn something before spouting off.

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    11. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Look at Steven Jobs. His official salary is $1.00 per year. Yes one dollar per year.

      His salary from Apple was $1 per year, plus an options package which turned out to be essentially worthless (in the time-frame he could have exercised the options, the value of AAPL was lower than his option price), plus a Gulfstream V jet which the board of directors awarded him with after he ran the company for about two years. He makes most of his money off his job at Pixar, along with investments from the massive pile of money he's already made. This is all publicly available knowledge. What income do you think he's hiding?

    12. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by js7a · · Score: 1
      I would guess ... that US taxes are ... close to Sweden.

      You would guess wrong by a margin of about 100%.

      I'm guessing you're a wet behind the ears 22 year old housewife in a picket fence house in a "gated community"

      Wrong again, 35/M/urban Mountain View, CA.

    13. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Volvo, Ikea, and Ericsson.

      Not sure about the latter two companies, but the first is owned by Ford Motors. Just want to keep that in mind should the topic come up again.

      (And that's neither here nor there WRT your argument, unless the other two companies are US owned as well.)

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    14. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IKEA, as well as Tetra Pak, are swedish stories of entrepreneurship that rivals even the most successful american ones. Ingvar Kamprad started IKEA in his youth and is now the 17th richest man in the world, according to a recent Forbes list. His wealth is estimated to a little less than a fourth of Bill Gate's. Members of the Rausing family, who started Tetra Pak in the fifties, are on 31st and 40th place in the same place. It is interesting to note that both IKEA and Tetra Pak are private companies with a very short list of owners.

    15. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH....are we trading A/S/L now on slashdot?

      Hooray!

      I'll go, I'll go....

      42/Male/Fagville, CA

      Yay! Fantabulous!

    16. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      That's my point exactly. The non salary income probably does not enter into the statistics you mentioned.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    17. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

      That's my point exactly. The non salary income probably does not enter into the statistics you mentioned.

      The income figures you are sighting aren't just for "wages", although thats the term generally used in IRS-speak. In-kind "earnings", capital gains, etc. are all included. Did you ever stop and think that the few hundred bucks the average middle class family writes off every year in charitable donations and possibly mortage interest, etc. is probably about the same percentage of their overall income that people who make millions per year "hide"?

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    18. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      "In-kind "earnings", capital gains, etc. are all included."

      Are they? Do you know that for sure?

      "Did you ever stop and think that the few hundred bucks the average middle class family writes off every year in charitable donations and possibly mortage interest, etc. is probably about the same percentage of their overall income that people who make millions per year "hide"?"

      It's highly unlikely. Your average joe can not hire a good enough CPA to hide income and shuffle paperwork and money to offshore accounts and such.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    19. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

      Are they? Do you know that for sure?

      Nice rebuttal. And YES. I know that they are.

      It's highly unlikely. Your average joe can not hire a good enough CPA to hide income and shuffle paperwork and money to offshore accounts and such.
      You are still missing the point. The average Joe doesn't make enough money to have to bother with that. But for someone getting hit with most of their income in the highest tax bracket, they have to use the loopholes in the system to acheive the same percentage.

      But I'm not going to argue this point with you any further. You are obviously unequipped to even discuss it if you think that a CPA is something the "average joe" can't afford/doesn't have access to/doesn't need. Just stay in your parent's basenent and you'll be fine.

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    20. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      " But for someone getting hit with most of their income in the highest tax bracket, they have to use the loopholes in the system to acheive the same percentage."

      This is such bullshit. We have a progressive tax system they are not supposed to achieve the same percentage. The fact that they can hide income and avoid paying their percentage tells volumes.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    21. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

      This is such bullshit. We have a progressive tax system they are not supposed to achieve the same percentage. The fact that they can hide income and avoid paying their percentage tells volumes.

      Then go out and bust your ass to make the money it takes to be in the bracket and fill out a 1040EZ. See how long you ass hurts too much to sit down.

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    22. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      "Then go out and bust your ass to make the money it takes to be in the bracket and fill out a 1040EZ"

      I havent filled out an EZ form in eight years. That's for the suckers and the poor. The tax code contains hundreds of thousands of pages, if you are filling out a 1040ez you are seriously overpaying taxes.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    23. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      The fact that they can hide income and avoid paying their percentage tells volumes.

      And the fact that you are still arguing this point shows that you didn't understand the statistics that the AC quoted. I suggest you read that post again- the richest 1% accounts for 20% of all taxable income, but they pay over 37% of the income taxes. You got that? 20% of the income pays 37% of the taxes- what do you know, it is progressive! To put it another way, the "bottom" 99% earns 80% of all taxable income, but they only pay 63% of all income taxes. If the rich are hiding a bunch of income as you claim, then they aren't doing a very good job because they are still paying the lion's share of taxes.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    24. Re:The myth that rich don't pay taxes by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      look at the real figures (those percentages are bogus and you know that).

      Funny- those percentages are the "real figures" as published by the IRS. In other words, even if the rich are paying accountants to find them tons of loopholes, they are still paying a lot more taxes that the poor.

      These are more than just crazy economic theories- they are proven to bring results. Look at the Ronald Reagan years. Reagan drastically cut taxes, and look at what happened: our economy grew at a whopping 3.2%/year, and everybody's income increased. But it gets better- the poorest quintile saw an increase of 6% in real income compared to a 2.5% increase of families that made over $75,000/year (the wealthy), and minorities saw an 11% increase in income over the same period! The poorest demographics benefitted the most from "Reaganomics".

      So not only is your 'Screw the rich' plan unfair, it doesn't work. It punishes success and the whole economy suffers.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
  83. 30 year debt by js7a · · Score: 1
    There is no way 30 year debt would be so cheap if what you say is true.

    Oh, yes there is. If you hadn't noticed, dispite the commercial and consumer debt sectors purporting to be market-based, interest rates in the U.S. have been institutionalized by congress as a command economy. If Greenspan and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency say the prime rate goes up, it goes up, and if they say it goes down, well, they have about 1.5% left before they get to zero.

    I'm not claiming that the market doesn't play a part. If the consumer economy (about 2/3 of the GDP) was actually robust, there would be a lot more demand for homeowner credit, and that would push rates up faster that you can say "Freddy Mac."

    We are teetering on the brink. The baby boomers are looking at their health insurance go up 8-10% annually, and thinking about retirement. Something has to give.

    Look, why not go to Sweden's two-bracket steeply progressive system? Are you going to offer any reasons not to?

  84. High time to go back to school... by lunpa · · Score: 2, Funny

    Looks like I'll have to go back school again but major in Arts.

    At least then I won't be bitter about being overqualified to operate the microphone at the Drive-Thru window...

  85. Compete and survive or become irrelevant by rogerbo · · Score: 1

    The US has been preaching free trade, golbalization and opening of markets to the rest of the world for years now. Funny how when other coutnries actually start to compete with them they scream blue murder and beg for protectionism.

    Take the film production and visual effects post production industry that I know something about as I work in that Industry in Australia. A worker doing the same job as me in LA would probably get paid double what I get in US dollars.

    Recently Australia has been competing in film production and post production because our dollar is lower so the costs are cheaper and we have good skilled crews and visual effects houses here (Animal Logic, Photon, Fuel, etc). of course this has called for someActors to call for strikes against productions going overseas.

    So if we can do as good a job than you for cheaper then tough, you have to lower your costs (wages) to compete globally or watch your jobs go overseas.

    The US has enjoyed a priviliged and isolated position in the world economy for too long, when the US lowers it's dollars and wages to globally competitive levels then it will recover.

    Don't like compitition, well then make sure you control enough capital that you have don't have to compete globally for a living.

    Welcome to the global labour market, you guys asked for it now you've got it so go compete.

    1. Re:Compete and survive or become irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I didn't ask for it.
      The only real problem I have with exporting jobs,.. is when the whole world seems to want send it's stuff here. The jobs exported are really working for companies doing business here.
      How many of the jobs or manufacturing that companies send away are actually bought or used in the countries it was moved too?

      Are Bangladashies wearing Nike's. Doubt it.

    2. Re:Compete and survive or become irrelevant by MKalus · · Score: 1
      Are Bangladashies wearing Nike's. Doubt it.


      Well now, but that was the idea right? Profit, profit above all?

      Imagine how much your sneakes would costs if they would be "Made in USA" and the same profit margin would exist, how many people could afford them? Nike could never ever pay people like Lance Armstrong ton's of money to promote their products and in fact they probably woulnd't be that big.
      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  86. Stupid Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What is Sweden's secret?"

    THeir secrect (seriously) is:

    1) They are a small boutique economy
    2) They have a small, homogeneous work force
    3) Because they are a small country, they can depend on other countries for things like defense
    4) since they are a small country, their economy is a tiny fraction of something like the US

    To use computer terminology, Sweden's economy is interesting, but it doesnt' scale well.

    1. Re:Stupid Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1) They are a small boutique economy 2) They have a small, homogeneous work force 3) Because they are a small country, they can depend on other countries for things like defense 4) since they are a small country, their economy is a tiny fraction of something like the US

      So what you are saying is that US is doomed because it is too big - all people have to do is to cut their countries in smaller countries and automatically it will be much better.

    2. Re:Stupid Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're exactly right, of course all the leftist idiots on slashdot will never agree.

  87. What careers are left? by cartman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The biggest difficulty I can forsee is not the decline in programming jobs, but the decline in skilled careers altogether, because of losses to overseas. The prospect of re-training doesn't bother me so much. But re-train to do what? Accounting? Law? Engineering? DBA work? Manufacturing? Research? All of these careers will move to foreign shores. Graphic Design? Even graphic design is being shipped overseas -- "The Simpsons" is now drawn by people in Thailand for $1/hr!

    Nothing remains! I have no idea what skill to acquire. The only career for which there's brisk demand is NURSING. That can't be shipped overseas, not even a portion of it. I have no desire -- NONE -- to be a nurse. I suppose I could sell clothes at the Gap to people who no longer can afford to shop there.

    1. Re:What careers are left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Simpsons are now drawn in Thailand? What happened to the animators in Inida that used to draw them?

    2. Re:What careers are left? by freeweed · · Score: 1

      "The Simpsons" is now drawn by people in Thailand for $1/hr!

      The Simpsons has been drawn overseas ever since it started (except maybe the Ulman shorts), some 15 years ago now.

      It's cheaper, and in most cases, BETTER than work done in North America. We just don't have that many skilled animators here. Any left work for the evil known as Disney - and I'm pretty sure they've been outsourcing for years too.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  88. And people still buy it by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

    the job market now is the harshest it's been in decades

    No shit. They just figured this out?

    So what's keeping people like Hill and Thompson from finding jobs?

    Lying, cheating, thieving, treacherous management.

    Traditionally a college degree or senior-executive experience protected people from the threat of years of unemployment. Not in this economy, says Jeffrey Wenger, a labor economist with the liberal Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

    Ah, the ollllllllll' bait and switch. Remember the high school guidance office? "Go to college, get a good job." Sure thing.

    "I think they're surprised at how the economy can mistreat you."

    It's not the economy. It's the lying fucks who ought to be keeping their word instead of screwing people out of their careers so they can pump the numbers for next quarter.

    Business school students aren't just studying in Starbucks; they're worried they'll end up working there.

    Such wit.

    While the situation for budding execs or out-of-work ones like Jim Klinck is tough, keep in mind that the overall unemployment rate for white-collar workers is just 3%, about half the overall unemployment rate of 6.1%.

    A few paragraphs back:

    The numbers of those who are searching are staggering

    See, now this is where the bullshit starts. "Keep in mind that you really aren't being fucked over by the millions. It's not as bad as I just spent an entire page describing." Anyone who doesn't see through this happy talk crap is an idiot.

    "Workers should ask, 'Where in the value chain can I position myself?'"

    You can't. A "value chain" implies that there are values. There aren't. Management doesn't give a shit. As long as the numbers are coming in, everything's fine. When the eventually company files for Chapter 11, they just pick up their potato salad and their drink and wander off to the next company.

    The worst possible business proposition in the world is W-4 employment. Labor laws are such that all of the advantages are on the employer's side. Employees have no power, no upside and no recourse.

    No businessperson worth 12 cents would obligate themselves to a mortgage on the one hand (a 30 year agreement with no escape clause) and a handshake at-will employment agreement (which is no agreement) on the other.

    But dumbass managers will continue to believe they can beat the laws of business, while everyone else has to follow them. They tell us "you get what you pay for" at the cash register, but don't listen to themselves during the hiring process.

    Fine. If they want to believe they can compete with underpaid people, that's their problem. You pay five bucks an hour, you're going to get a five-buck-an-hour job.

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    1. Re:And people still buy it by antirename · · Score: 0, Troll

      Managers DONT get it. I was told a couple of days ago: "OK, to complete the project you need time and hardware. I understand this". (The project requires a little more that 600 Mhz PIIIs with 32 meg video card and a half gig of ram. The project is also pointless. And I need another week. Management was told this up front). Response? "For political reasons, you can't have the time you need. Yes, I know you said it would take three weeks working twelve hour days and weekends, but I agreed to two. I can't change that. And I can't buy decent hardware... you'll just have to wait five minutes every time you rotate the model. Maybe you could bring some fast computers from home... we'll just make you a domain admin and let you set up your own subnet. No, I don't know what subnet means, MIS can't do what you need done and said to let you do it yourself." That, unfortunatly, was what happened. In real life. This week. And I'm sure it's not just my company. When managers get in over their heads, bad things happen. Moral of the story? NEVER give a manager a demo solution to a complex problem and let them run with it. You will be buried in consultants (double-buried by IBM, although they at least bury you in competent people who won't let you get your work done). You will get some free lunches out of IBM, but your life will quickly become hell once management starts experimenting with an idea that they don't understand. And when it doesn't work because manangement doesn't understand where the problem areas of implementation are, you will get blamed. Don't stick your neck out, kids. Even if you know the answer, don't raise your hand. Let some other dumbass do it.

    2. Re:And people still buy it by Carmody · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know you said it would take three weeks working twelve hour days and weekends, but I agreed to two.

      You need to take a tip from Scotty, and stop telling the truth about your requirements. "Ya got-ta give yerself some roooom." As professionals, we are used to giving honest answers to questions. "What is the optimal resistance?" "25 ohms" "What is the minimum number of weeks you need?" "2 weeks."

      Keep answering the first question honestly, laddie, but get in the habit of answering the second : "Captain, we canna do it in less than 4 weeks or she'll blow!"

      --
      God is real unless declared integer
    3. Re:And people still buy it by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1
      The smart people like this guy need to become the bosses. The USA needs intelligent people running these companies.

      Sure if this boss were working at McDonald's he would be doing great making big profits. But his boss is not qualified to be in the position he is in.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
    4. Re:And people still buy it by antirename · · Score: 1

      There was no room... parts had to start coming off the line in a month or we lose the job. I tried to give myself a weeks padding :) And yeah, "she's gonna blow". Not my call. Upper management shouldn't try to set deadlines (read micromanage) if they are going to ignore input from the people being tasked with the projects. Once that mistake is made , productivity goes to hell and your employees don't give a shit. Your consultants also view management as serious shitheads after such an incident, which will make it harder for management to get deals. Note to all the CEOs and managers out there: Things like this are proof that you are really not needed. We need you to be a spokesman, go play golf for charity, whatever. But if every time you "get involved" and make a decision things fuck up, why is that? Oh, you listened to your "yes men" managers. Who don't know shit either and who can't keep up because they are "busy managing". Your managers don't want to play hardball, they want to play teeball and keep your yes-men happy so you still have your golf buddies. When hardball is required, and people get run over because they won't do their jobs but still want a say, the person that did the work is called "verbally abusive" in a management meeting. Yes, of course someone got told they were a useless dumbass and got run over... Is that bad? I don't think so. I'm hoping a manager reads this and it hits a little close to home. A lot of companies are going to lose, or are losing, their best people. Their experience goes with it. Can your yes-men get the job done? You don't know, do you?

    5. Re:And people still buy it by antirename · · Score: 1

      The original post was obviously modded by managers :) Ok, I probably came off as bitter, but it was not a troll. It happened as written. The project was completed, literally five minutes under deadline (it would have been 45 minutes early, but our TOKEN RING network was acting up and management wanted 3 paper copies before getting on the plane. Then the main copier started shredding everything B-size, so we had to use the copier in the mailroom. This is also what actually happened. The project was not just a fiasco, it was a nightmare. To all you college kids about to graduate: This is what happens when your management requests and then ignores input. This is what happens when management refuses (after repeated requests) to actually load and use the software you are trying to use to solve a problem. This is why you should always investigate the turnover rate at any company you are considering. Remember, it works both ways: You are trying to convince them that they should hire you, and they should be trying to convince you that they are a good place to work.

  89. That's it... make stuff up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A shrinking middle class puts us on a collision course with riots, not unlike those the president's father faced a dozen years ago."

    There were no riots facing George Bush senior.

    You have interesting points, but just making up stuff make you seem like a lunatic.

  90. If she is a "gen x" er by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then that makes her at most 25-28.

    Hardly "seasoned".

    And trust me, she's a junior member of the HR team.

    Do you know what the problem is? She has problems with authority. She thinks she ought to be in charge "and those old people (a.k.a. those over 35) don't know a damned thing"

    I hope she gives good head, because she certainly isn't well thought out.

    Don't have any children, because you will be divorced within 5 years.

  91. The world doesn't owe you a living by sabecon · · Score: 1

    So what? You think that your elite skills should be worth the world forever? Get a grip on reality. If you are not constantly on the ball making sure that you are employable, you deserve what you get. Hmm, tech sector has been taking a dive and you have been watching your co-workers getting the axe for several years and you just sat on your ass hoping you were not next without reworking your skillset? You deserve what you get.

    Missed the target when you didn't get your QWERT and ASDF certifications and they are what everyone wants? Opps, missed it.

    Got the JKLP Certification or the BSXY degree and the jobs are all out there for the PSSPA Certification and the MSABLMNOP degree? Hmm, the world still owes you a killer salary for even though you made the wrong choice?

    Most people go through several major career changes. Think it was that they got bored with the work they were doing for big bucks? Try going through 4 or 5 totally unrelated unrelated career changes and come back and whine that your high dollar job went away and now you are back at the bottom of the food chain.

    It is your responsibility to keep yourself employable and valuable. As long as you are relying on other people to give you money and cool toys, its your job to make sure that they want to keep giving them to you. Thats the way the world works. Get used to it.

    1. Re:The world doesn't owe you a living by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      You forgot "companies just want to make money"

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    2. Re:The world doesn't owe you a living by antirename · · Score: 1

      Fuck certifications. They don't mean a damn thing other than that you sat through class. I need people that are GOOD at what they do. I entirely agree about changing careers, though... I've done it once already, and am seriously thinking about doing it again. The only way to stay happy for me is to keep moving... avoiding salary compression is a nice side affect, though.

    3. Re:The world doesn't owe you a living by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1
      Are you the pointy haired boss?

      Yeah I would like to go to a doctor who changes jobs every 5 years that would be great.

      You are dealing with people VERY knowledgeable about their field you don't want them changing jobs every 5 years or you'll have people who are a jack of all trades, but master of none.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
    4. Re:The world doesn't owe you a living by antirename · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not the boss... I've just learned how the system works. You work for a company for five years, and unless you advance VERY quickly new hires will be making more money than you. THAT is salary compression. You change jobs every 4-5 years, it's the only way to get a decent raise and keep pace with the recent graduates. Which means the company loses your experience, time and training. If you ask about salary compression, they will say that that don't have a choice. They have to be competitive hiring college graduates. Which does nothing for you. Nada. Zip. So, you move into management if that's your thing and you're really not that good at your current job, or you jump ship if you are good. For more money as a new hire. If you are good at what you do and you want a raise and you don't want to move into management your only option is to CHANGE COMPANIES in my experience. What does your manager do? He writes email and makes powerpoint presentations all day. In essence, he (or she) is a secretary for the people actually getting the work done, even if he relays new work instructions from on high on occasion. This is why managers suck once they become managers and get sucked into company politics.

    5. Re:The world doesn't owe you a living by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And I do not owe the world to behave by its rules, however I do and for that I expect some cooperation in return. If one person breaks the law he is a criminal. If a handfull of people break the law it is a cult. If a large quantity of people break the law it is a revolution. I much prefer cooperating and getting some protection in return. However, making a living and eating are basic needs that are far more popular than religious beliefs and ideals. There will be a breaking point where the former will force people to look for a better place to put their faith, and GOD FORBID it is communism--a lie that promises these needs and delivers slavery, oh , wait, it seems that globalization is doing the same.

    6. Re:The world doesn't owe you a living by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      I used to work as a lead on a tape backup team.
      Every morning a truck pulled up to our dock with expired backups.
      Part of the job was returning those tapes to our library.

      We were short of manpower.
      80,000K+ router techs were volunteering to reslot tapes at time*1.5 because we were short on
      manpower.
      My idiot of a boss was paying for it.

      People will certainly take money to do what they are overqualified to do.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
  92. Move out of portland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would you compete with this kind of labor pool?

    I'd move to DC, Atlanta, Boston...

    People cause their own problems and then bitch about the results.

  93. Are you for real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a building boom in the DC area.

    Look downtown around chinatown; there are tons of apartments and condo's going up. I haven't seen anything like it in 20 years.

    In the rest of the city, they are basically bulldozing blocks and redoing them. Assuming the people building them aren't morons, this tells me there is a lot of interesting in new space.

    Out in the 'burbs, particularly around Rockville, there's so much building going on, its pissing me off. They're tearing down shopping centers and old house to put up new buildings.

    I'm laughing because I say to my wife, "Hey, I thought we're in a recession, and there's a building boom going on".

    Take a look around... the signs of recovery everywhere, only the psychology hasn't changed yet, but that's about 6-12 months away.

    1. Re:Are you for real? by zogger · · Score: 1

      Can you see the reason why your area is still booming? It should be sort of obvious, you are in a completely artificial economic microclimate compared to the rest of the nation, Washington DC exists on coerced tax money basically, it doesn't have to "compete", it's an (generally speaking) complete monopoly run by more or less pointing guns at people heads, pay up, or go to prison. that's where you excessive money is coming from. It's certainly not from being "producers" of wealth.

      And oh ya, it's also *the* #1 bulls eye target if some other nations and groups of the wealthy and armed adequately around the planet decide that the US "coalition of advanced and coerced profiteers" has becomed too arrogant and bullying to suit them.

      Good luck! Glad it's still a good "economy" for you!

    2. Re:Are you for real? by miniver · · Score: 1

      Apartments and condos = residential construction, which, as I wrote, is still hot (primarily because of the record-low interest rates); people still need someplace to live. Most of the Chinatown construction/reconstruction is a result of the new convention center, and was planned and (mostly) financed back during the dot-com boom. I don't get over to Maryland very often, but in Virginia, commercial construction is at a standstill -- no one wants to build more new office buildings when there are dozens of new buildings standing empty.

      As for economic recovery, there's still one more shoe waiting to drop: as soon as the economy starts to "recover", interest rates will start rising again, as the Fed increases the prime rate to combat inflation. Once that happens, the residential construction market is going to flatten out (and possibly tube), which will stifle the recovery for another 2-3 years.

      --
      We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
  94. Re:US National Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forget the tax load needed to keep an employee, the taxes an employee pays, and the hassles of dealing with OSHA, discrimination laws, permits, and HEALTH INSURANCE. In Michigan, decent health care has gone from $150/month for a single ($400/month married) to 550 and 1400 respectively, in just 18 months. In early 2005, I've been told to budget 900 and 2600 per month, respectively. I can't compete with Bangalore.

    What drives up health insurance? It's been the addition of mental health coverage for the last 18 months, and the next 18 months will be the coverage of domestic partners and gay marriages.

    Gov't mandates are pricing the US worker out of the world market.

  95. look again by js7a · · Score: 4, Informative
    1) [Sweden is] a small boutique economy
    With their citizens enjoying 2.4 years more life expectancy than those of us in the U.S.

    2) They have a ... homogeneous work force

    In that they have a 99% literacy rate, while the U.S. has 97% (what a joke! As a certified literacy tutor, I can personally attest that the U.S. English literacy rate, including undocumented workers, is closer to 85%.)

    3) Because they are a small country, they can depend on other countries for things like defense

    They spend 2.1% of their GDP on defense.

    4) since they are a small country, their economy is a tiny fraction of something like the US

    Their economy is 69% services, whereas the U.S. economy is 80% services. Which do you think is more robust?

    1. Re:look again by sgt_sloth · · Score: 1
      2) They have a ... homogeneous work force
      In that they have a 99% literacy rate, while the U.S. has 97% (what a joke!

      You're still skirting the issue, though, which is that Sweden is almost 100% lily-white. Try letting in 1 million immigrants/year from mostly third world countries (and that's just the legal ones) and your cherry-picked stats will not fare so well.

      Sweden is basically comparable in most social indicators to a big suburb of Minneapolis and just as boring. I'd rather take the diversity and vitality of the rest of America (along with the higher crime rates and greater disclocation it produces) than be stuck with the safe but mediocre and bland culture of Sweden. The world's most famous athlete is always an African-American (Muhammed Ali, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods). Well, Sweden's got Annika Sorenstam. America has produced jazz, blues, rock, and rap. Sweden has got... well, ABBA and Ace of Bace to its credit.

    2. Re:look again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      i love how you skirted all of his points with irrelevant counterpoints.

      gotta love these slashdot liberals.

    3. Re:look again by spyfrog · · Score: 1

      Mister, you are dead wrong!

      Sweden have been the nordic country with the HIGHEST immigration during the last 20 year.

      More than 10% of Swedens population, or about 1 million, is either an immigrant or have at least one immigrant parent.

      So we are really not "100% lily-white". Pay a visit and see for yourself.

    4. Re:look again by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Sweden have been the nordic country with the HIGHEST immigration during the last 20 year.

      Wow. Highest immigration of the nordic countries (at 0.95 per 1000). The US has a rate of 3.5 per 1000.

      More than 10% of Swedens population, or about 1 million, is either an immigrant or have at least one immigrant parent.

      So we are really not "100% lily-white". Pay a visit and see for yourself.

      Not 100%, to be sure, but what then? 10% may be immigrants or children of immigrants, but how many of those are finns, danes, or norwegians (AKA "white europeans")? How about some relevant statistics, like what percentage are nordic/european and what percent are not?
      The US population is 77% of european descent.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    5. Re:look again by spyfrog · · Score: 1

      Exactly what are you looking for? Sweden happends to have one of the most comprehensive statistic of all nations and it is rather hard to break it down.
      You can check it out yourself on www.scb.se (this is the official statistic of Sweden).

      Total Swedish citizen 31 mars 2003: 8 946 304.

      According to SCB so is 12% of the population in Sweden born outside Sweden. 6 percent is born with one swedish parent and 3% is born in Sweden with both parents born outside Sweden.
      Totaly there was 1 027 974 people 31 dec. 2001 that was born outside Sweden. This seams to include non swedish citizen living in Sweden.

      2001 we where 8 433 142 Swedish citizen. Of these so had 1 395 735 persons at least one parent with foregin citizienship. These parents where of almost 300 nations.
      The most frequent nation was Finland (193 465), second was Yogoslavia with 73 274 and third was Iraq with 55 696. After this come Bosnien-Hercegovina and then Iran.

      You can check this out for yourself http://www.scb.se/publkat/Filer/BE51ST0204.pdf

      Of course, I am sure this don't impress you much. Unfortenaly I can't give you the statistic that you ask for since I can't find it. I am sure it is there but it drowns in all other statistic.

      It isn't directly suprising that Finland has a big population in Sweden. Many started to work here during the 70is and they don't need to change citizenship. It isn't suprising that Yogoslavian and former Yogoslavian states is frequent either, you have perhaps heard of the war on Balkan?

      Exactly what are you implying anyway? That we don't take our share of refuges or that we are white only soceity because we have more than 77% european descents? Can this perhaps be because we are europeans?
      To compare with USA isn't really fare since USA is almost 100% immigrants - it is easier to get a high percentage non europeans that way then start with 100% europeans and then add other continents.

      Besides, what does this change the discussion anyway? Do you mean that people with other origin than europeans is harder to learn to read?
      Most foregin people I know read just fine. Perhaps they don't speak Swedish fluently but they usually understand it good and can read it without a problem. I don't see why it should be harder for a Somailian guy to learn Swedish than a Polish guy either - both languages isn't closley realated to swedish. Both have to learn it the same way.

    6. Re:look again by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Exactly what are you implying anyway? That we don't take our share of refuges or that we are white only soceity because we have more than 77% european descents? Can this perhaps be because we are europeans? To compare with USA isn't really fare since USA is almost 100% immigrants - it is easier to get a high percentage non europeans that way then start with 100% europeans and then add other continents.

      Well yes, Sweden is mostly white for the same reason the US is mostly white. I'm not saying it's a bad thing or a good thing. I only point out that it has an effect on the assimilation of immigrants in that white/european culture predominates. I only point this out to balance the argument that somehow Sweden is better because its literacy rate is 99% vs. the US at 97%. We have more immigrants, and they therefore live in larger clusters, which results in significantly more people who have to learn to speak english before they can even begin to learn to read it.

      Besides, what does this change the discussion anyway? Do you mean that people with other origin than europeans is harder to learn to read?

      When they don't already speak english, learning to read english is much more difficult, yes. Even more so when they come from a poor country where they never learned to read their native language. A Norwegian who already speaks and reads Norwegian has a distinct advantage in learning Swedish over someone who speaks only Tagalog and can't read or write at all.

      Most foregin people I know read just fine. Perhaps they don't speak Swedish fluently but they usually understand it good and can read it without a problem.

      Where I live (Los Angeles), there are large neighborhoods where no english is spoken. A child can be born there and grow to age five without ever learning any english. The child then shows up at the local school for classes and is in a class full of other children which speak the same language but don't speak english. Around here it's mostly spanish-speakers, but there are so many other languages that simply "teaching them english" isn't so simple.

      I don't see why it should be harder for a Somailian guy to learn Swedish than a Polish guy either - both languages isn't closley realated to swedish. Both have to learn it the same way.

      Learning to speak Swedish, perhaps, is not much different for a Pole vs. a Somali, but reading and writing (LITERACY)? That's different. They use essentially the same alphabet in Poland and I suspect Polish has more common traits with Swedish than Somali or Arabic (Somalia's "elite" language-- like latin for scholars in europe). Given that if a Somali has learned to read an write, he has probably learned Arabic, I'd say that he'd have a harder time learning Swedish, yes.

      All I'm saying is that literacy and such aren't necessarilly accurate means of gauging the effectiveness of government. Also, what works in one country will not necessarily work in another.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    7. Re:look again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a look at your own national hockey league to find more names that are on the top.

  96. War on Recession by Stodgy1 · · Score: 1

    This is my first post, and I hope I don't get flamed for it. As a US citizen who is in a world of financial; hurt right now, I would like to advocate to all concerned that they, on every possible occassion, BOYCOTT 1)the mega-stores that are destroying our way of life and our small businesses 2)any company that has moved production out of country (where can you find a list?) 3)all Chinese products We absolutely must save our small businesses. Maybe you have thoughts on a grassroots effort. What can we do to stop China and other Asians from buying our hi-techs? Complaining doesn't accomplish much, but I live by the 3 rules that I wrote as much as possible, no matter that it hurts. Is there anything you do that helps?

    1. Re:War on Recession by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      What can we do to stop China and other Asians from buying our hi-techs?

      Nothing. It's called capitalism. If Chinese companies/workers can do things cheaper/better, they'll get the work. Legislation and boycotts to prevent this kind of thing happening don't work (look up protectionism and the depression). If you want to have a job then be employable and irreplaceable- learn skills to differentiate yourself. It's now a global job market - you're not just competing against local workers, you have to compete against the rest of the world.

    2. Re:War on Recession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to have a job then be employable and irreplaceable-learn skills to differentiate yourself.

      Shape of...employable! Form of..irreplaceable! Wondertwin powers activate!

      Funny how guys like you toss this advice around so casually. Do current conditions make concepts like "employable" or "irreplaceable" variables that can be controlled by the average person?

      If there is someone available who will work for 1$/hr instead of you, how in the fuck can you become employable or irreplaceable?

      You can take your "let them eat cake" attitude and shove it up your ass.

    3. Re:War on Recession by sabecon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, it does not work that way. Whether we like the idea or not, we have a worldwide economy.

      Personally, I would rather give my business to some "underdeveloped" country with a good product than worry about "Buy USA" with the business practices that we have here. Remember, all this outourcing overseas is not being done by foreign companies. The biggest problem was when we decided that corporations had the same rights as people. People are often bound by morality or at least fear of reprisal. We now have corporations that are a mechanism to do things that we as individuals would be outraged or afraid to do ourselves. As long as our investments are getting good returns, we look the other way at what the company is doing. We diversify our portfolios so that the odds of losing are less if one gets caught with their pants down. If they want to do something that is against the laws in one country, they just move that portion offshore.

      If you want to boycott somethng, make it a general principle to not deal with companies that do things you disagree with. If you just flock to the company with the best bottom line, you get the likes of Enron and Worldcom. As long as these companies can lobby and otherwise subvert the system they can look good on some ledger (the public one) and make a quick buck, even if it is a scam. Making the executives of the company liable is a good start. It should however go much deeper into all levels of management.

    4. Re:War on Recession by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      What's your alternative? If a guy in India (or wherever) is equally skilled as you and is prepared to work for half the wages you expect because of his lower expectations of quality of living, how the hell else do you keep a job? You learn to do something new that the guy in India can't do. Then, when he catches up again, you do it again.

      This has happened in the chemical industry (which I'm in). All the 'simple' production processes can be done more cheaply in China etc, so production in the west is switching to more complex products and more advanced production processes that the eastern companies can't make yet.

      You can't only preach capitalism when it suits you.

    5. Re:War on Recession by antirename · · Score: 1

      Simple... learn to do something no one else can, and charge what the market will bear. Work for yourself, and not a corporation. If you need startup money and have to give someone or a corporation a cut, do it. Make your own money, take your own risks... only other option I see.

    6. Re:War on Recession by Bull999999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that many pepople on /. has excellent ideas for how other people's businesses should be run but are too lazy and/or unwilling to take the risk of running their own business.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    7. Re:War on Recession by antirename · · Score: 1

      I am moving to working for myself, and it's working so far. Never be bet on anything but yourself, and then look at the odds real careful:)

    8. Re:War on Recession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Amen brother

    9. Re:War on Recession by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Best of luck to you! I started a side business myself and although it's time consuming and the risk is high, the thing that motivates me is the fact that Michael Dell only started out with $1000.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  97. Re:US National Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me add my wife's comments to my post.

    It's the end of private employment in Michigan if these health care increases really happen.

    The fix is for the US to accept the global economy, and pay our school teachers and govt workers on the global scale, and return health coverage to 50s levels, or get rid of it entirely and go with pay-as-you-go.

    Wrenching change is ahead in the near term.

  98. non-fiction by js7a · · Score: 1
    There were no riots facing George Bush senior.

    On the contrary, there were devastating riots in Los Angeles in late April, 1992.

    1. Re:non-fiction by antirename · · Score: 1

      Those riots had nothing to do with the economy. In the past 100 years, most riots in this country have been either motivated by race or been anti-war. The LA riots were race, pure and simple. We're not as advanced a society as we think we are when one group of have-nots (who never tried very hard to be anything else, and don't give me any bullshit about "roadblocks") attack a group who are percieved as being rich. To fix the problem you need to reduce the number of have-nots, and you won't do that with government money and programs. You need fucking culture change in the housing projects. A friend of mine did a gig with National Geographic documenting life in those aforementioned projects here in Savannah. A 16 year old girl told her that she was TRYING to get pregnant because she was mad at her mom and wanted her own apartment. THAT'S what you need to fucking change. And you won't make those people change by making excuses for their culture (which the liberal welfare society helped create) or by giving them more money. I don't even know that it CAN be fixed.

    2. Re:non-fiction by aussersterne · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you think that the riots in 1992 were about race, you have never visited south central Los Angeles for any period of time. The povery and hoplessness in these areas in the early '90s was mind-boggling. I'll never forget my first visit to the area and the sense of utter decline and economic hoplelessness in this part of the city.

      It doesn't matter what the trigger was. It could have been anything... but the tension that made riots possible was the direct result of the lack of availability any sort of productive activity in which to engage, ecnomic or otherwise.

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    3. Re:non-fiction by js7a · · Score: 1
      Those riots had nothing to do with the economy.... To fix the problem you need to reduce the number of have-nots....

      The capacity of the human mind to accommodate contradiction never ceases to amaze me.

  99. Companies also take increased risk by outsourcing by Danathar · · Score: 1

    People should also remember that with reduced wages of workers overseas, the company that uses them also takes on the risk of doing buisness in that country. All it takes is a dictator to come to power, a war or a hurricane to take out your cheep labor force. One thing the U.S. does provide is a stable government and stable country. Also, communication and shipping becomes more expensive and critical. If you ship your manufacturing over to Asia, then west coast ports become critical. There are other risks as well.

    All it will take is one Major catastrophy to hit one of these places where our corporations have set up their remote locations and you'll be seeing them start to think twice about using cheap labor! Hopefully...

  100. This is inevitable by BenjyD · · Score: 1

    Things change. The 'developing' world catches up - the Western world doesn't have some god-given right to be rich.

    It reminds me of that Armando Iannucci program (BBC) where the animals take over the world because the humans are complacent and spend their whole time thinking they are superior and playing golf.

  101. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by ragnar · · Score: 1

    This may sound pompous, but I disagree about doing manual labor. Have you spent much time listening to the way most manual laborers talk and present themselves? If you think you can be around that without picking up some bad habits (grammar, cursing and general dialect) you are probably wrong. We are social beings, and it is natural to pick up habits from those we are around.

    In my opinion, language discrimination is one of the most common forms that holds people back. You never know if you got passed over for an interview because on the phone you sounded like a construction worker or a poor person. No matter how unfair it may be, the bottom line is that people who talk and act like professionals generally want their own kind in their midst.

    Therefore, construction or any blue collar work is the last thing I would do if I had any intention of getting back into professional work long term.

    --
    -- Solaris Central - http://w
  102. Why Outsourcing is Good by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

    I don't claim to have all the answers to unemployment, but I do know that you should stop whining about outsourcing.

    How many people still paint cars for Ford or GM? Very few. Robots do most of that now. How many "human computers" do financial institutions hire today? Very few. Computers have taken it over. It is a natural progression from an old paridigm to a new one.

    I once worked for a company that made athletic clothing. When I started, there were 6 teams of ladies that sewed shirts. There were about 50 people per team and they worked in 8 hour shifts 24/7. My team of about 4 people took shit out of big boxes and put it in smaller boxes. These smaller boxes went to Mexico to be put together there for about a quarter of the cost of doing it here. Before I left, my team had grown to 12 people and all the teams of sewing ladies had been moved somewhere else. Many had been laid off.

    Their children learned an important lesson. Learn a new skill, the old ones are being outsourced.

    I feel sorry for you programmers. I really do. But programming is bitchwork. The hours are long and the ammount of crap you put up with is unbearable. Why do you insist on learning a skill that has no real future? If Asians have placed themselves into the position of doing our bitchwork for less than us, we should be happy. Go find something else to do.

    There will always be a job for sewers, painters, and programmers in this country. But not many. If you love programming, then contribute to a GPL project or become a program manager. You guys always bitch that managment doesn't undrestand you, so replace them. Look for smaller jobs like code auditing or consulting. Basicly, find something else to love.

    My point is, there has to be a progression from a country of people doing bitchwork to some kind of golden age. Think about everyone in america still working in factories or mines or docks. There is going to be a progression with or without your help. Eventually, I'd like to see some new industry for us to perfet. Then we can outsource that and find another.

    --
    I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
  103. debt != good by js7a · · Score: 4, Interesting
    That $44 trillion of US Federal debt provides a tremendious amount of liquidity to world financial markets....

    Like $20,000 of consumer debt provides tremendous liquidity to Visa and MasterCard? No way; the national debt is simply a means of passing the buck to the next generation. If the U.S. wasn't selling debt, then that $7 trillion that U.S. common stocks lost since 1999 would likely still be in people's pension and college funds.

    It wasn't too long ago that our leaders in the U.S. prided themselves that "the buck stops here." It wasn't too long ago that we had a budget surplus. These days, we have neither.

    Eliminating it or even reducing it below certain levels wouldn't be a good thing.

    A good thing for who? Osama bin Laden? Every dollar Uncle Sam pays off the debt is several cents per year saved in interest.

    Both social security and medicare are in need of massive reform.

    You can say that again. Next time, please try it without the pathetic rationalizations.

    1. Re:debt != good by edwdig · · Score: 1

      We only had a budget surplus because of creative accounting. Money Social Security collected - money Social Security paid out = budget surplus. There would've been a deficit if the Social Security money actually stayed where it belonged. Instead, we're just going to spend the extra it takes in, and then in a few years we're going to bitch there isn't enough money for Social Security.

    2. Re:debt != good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong -- when the money from Social Security is spent, it becomes "non-marketable" debt. I.E., it is owed to the Social Security trust fund and is included in the national debt. Worrying about Congress shortchanging Social Security is like using your credit card and worrying that you're shortchanging VISA. Were it not for this, it would be difficult to predict when Social Security was going down the tubes (which we can do: around 2018 it starts to run a deficit, and around 2033 the fund is depleted).

      The surplus was a true surplus. And you may remember a couple years back when the economy started to go sour and tax revenues were down, Congress made a big deal about "not touching the Social Security money." This has nothing to do with the state of Social Security (though they're content to let people infer that since it plays well politically). Rather, it simply means that if we spend that money, we no longer have a surplus.

    3. Re:debt != good by goodhell · · Score: 1

      "Both social security and medicare are in need of massive reform.

      You can say that again. Next time, please try it without the pathetic rationalizations."


      Yes Social Security and Medicare need to be reformed, a lot. They said earlier on that they wanted to put Social Security on a Stock Market type of thing. (Well, we see what has happened to the Stock Market, and what has happened to many people of retirement age who lost most of their retirement savings on it.)

      Medicare especially needs to be reformed. They are the standard by which all other insurance companies base their claims and reimbursements. If Medicare decides today that it won't cover insulin, you could bet that in 7 minutes all other insurance companies would not cover insulin (this is just a hypothetical situation). In fact if you want a good analysis of Medicare, ask any Medical Treatment Professional who has to bill Medicare and fight for reimbursement.

      Many people say that we need Health Care Reform. Our health care is great, what we need is Insurance Reform. They can do pretty much a lot of things and get away with it.

      I know a little OT, but still an important thing to consider.

    4. Re:debt != good by ces · · Score: 1

      Like $20,000 of consumer debt provides tremendous liquidity to Visa and MasterCard? No way; the national debt is simply a means of passing the buck to the next generation. If the U.S. wasn't selling debt, then that $7 trillion that U.S. common stocks lost since 1999 would likely still be in people's pension and college funds.

      Sorry wrong. The US Federal debt is not like a credit card balance. For one thing the lenders have a hell of a lot more faith that the US government is going to pay up than you or I or even GE.

      The US government issuing debt has absolutely nothing to do with the decline in the stock market. Ironicly enough if the people who had invested in the stock market had bought money market securities (composed primarily of various Treasury department securities) instead of stock they would still have that $7 trillion and even be a little ahead on inflation.

      It wasn't too long ago that our leaders in the U.S. prided themselves that "the buck stops here." It wasn't too long ago that we had a budget surplus. These days, we have neither.

      "The buck stops here" went out with the Truman administration in 1952. The budget surplus was a bit of creative accounting involving the Social Security trust fund. Note that while the US government may have been running a year-to-year surplus for a couple of years it didn't really make a dent in the total federal debt.

      A good thing for who? Osama bin Laden? Every dollar Uncle Sam pays off the debt is several cents per year saved in interest.

      Remember those "money market securities" I mentioned above? If the US debt was paid off it would remove a key component of one of the safest investments in the world financial markets. All of those money market savings accounts, money market mutual funds, and the "cash" item in corprate balance sheets is made up in large part of US Treasury securities. To eliminate this would take away a key way individuals and companies set aside money for later use.

      A common error many people make is to assume that debt in any form for any individual, company, or government is a bad thing. This is not always the case, it usually isn't considered bad to use debt to finance capital goods and projects. For instance for an individual to take out a student loan or a mortgage; for a company to issue bonds to buy a factory, build an office building, or lay fiber; or for a local or state government to issue bonds to pay for libraries, schools, roads, or transit systems can be an effective use of debt to finance items or projects that would not be affordable if the entire cost had to be paid up front. In fact debt is one of the key components of capitalism.

      Usually when experts are referring to poor uses of debt they are talking about using debt to finance non-durable goods or day-to-day operating expenses. Most consumer credit card debt falls into this category. Companies and state and local governments who do the same thing tend to get punished with higher intrest rates than they would on debt to finance capital spending.

      Unfortunately the US Treasury Department doesn't separate capital spending from operating expenses when is issues US Government debt. For most years where there has been a deficit you could probably find at least that much nondefense capital spending by the Federal Government but you would have to dig for it as the Federal government doesn't keep it's books in a way that makes it easy to find. Fortunately the US government is considered to have one of the best "ablilities to pay" of any entity on the planet so they still get among the lowest intrest rates.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    5. Re:debt != good by js7a · · Score: 1
      if the people who had invested in the stock market had bought money market securities (composed primarily of various Treasury department securities) instead of stock they would still have that $7 trillion and even be a little ahead on inflation.

      And under that scenario, it would have been very difficult for companies to raise capital investment, and just as easy for Bush to slash veteran's benefits.

      The financial industries don't need Treasury securities. If they become more scarce (expensive), then the same low risk capital flows into funds based on certificates of deposit and high quality corporate debt, and local communities and corporations respectivly benefit, unlike the situation with Treasury securities, where taxpayers have to foot the interest bill.

      If lenders have so much faith in the U.S., why are currency traders dumping dollars for euros?

  104. Re:OK. Enuff worrying. Let us look at some solutio by JohnFred · · Score: 1

    Of course, if it was that simple and you could devalue your way to wealth, Burkina Faso would be the richest country in the world..

    --
    /usr/games/fortune > ~/.signature
  105. First ask yourself this..... by eugene_t00ms · · Score: 2, Informative

    Before you start comparing the United States to other 1st world nations you have to ask yourself a few questions to make absolutely sure you have some idea what you are talking about...

    A) Have you ever lived outside the United States for longer than one Month?

    B) If Yes, Have you ever had to deal with a Non-U.S. Gov for anything important?

    C) If Yes, Do you know anyone that was born and raised within this country?

    D) If Yes, What does this person think about their system of government/taxation/health care/social services?

    If you've answered yes to questions A through C, have a positive response to question D and still think you have a case...then proceed to quote your statistics and post links that support your line of thinking.

    HOWEVER, if you are someone that has done nothing but read a few blurbs on random websites about Swedish adventures in bureaucracy, there's a small possibility you have no idea what you're speaking of.

    I was born and raised in Southwest Missouri. I also used to complain about the state of America's economy/tax system/foriegn policy...and then i moved to Europe, married a Dutch girl, and had personal experience dealing with European Authorities. After a time, I realized that America may not be perfect, but its loads better than the various ad-hoc systems of europe. Sweden's system may look good on paper, but if you haven't experienced it for yourself, you have no clue what you're talking about.

    --
    Belief that Perspectives matter more than Facts = Mark of the Truly Ignorant
    1. Re:First ask yourself this..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say that getting a 10mbit connection for 20/month is a lot better than a 512kbit connection for 35. Especially if you, like me, do both your work and play on the net.

    2. Re:First ask yourself this..... by js7a · · Score: 4, Informative
      A) Have you ever lived outside the United States for longer than one Month?

      Yes, in Germany.

      B) If Yes, Have you ever had to deal with a Non-U.S. Gov for anything important?

      Yes, assuming you think having a child, obtaining a birth certificate, etc., is important.

      C) If Yes, Do you know anyone that was born and raised within this country?

      Yes, many people.

      D) If Yes, What does this person think about their system of government/taxation/health care/social services?

      I would be hard pressed to find a single German citizen in a thousand who prefers the U.S. work week and typical vacation schedule. So their taxes are higher, so they get more time off. It's a wash. TANSTAAFL.

    3. Re:First ask yourself this..... by eugene_t00ms · · Score: 1

      Well I say touche sir. Although I didn't really have Germany in mind. Occupied countries have an easier time administrating.

      --
      Belief that Perspectives matter more than Facts = Mark of the Truly Ignorant
    4. Re:First ask yourself this..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha. you're such a fucking dweeb if you rate a country on how much the government subsidizes broadband. Do yourself a favor and kill yourself now mcfly. HAHA. You lose idiot.

    5. Re:First ask yourself this..... by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Running a Welfare socialist state isn't cheap. It helps to have most of your citizens working as much as possible in order to afford all the social services one has. Since Germans don't like to work long weeks and since the unemployment is so high, it will be funny to watch them be forced to dismantle their vaunted socialist economy and force people to pay directly for what they want or increase the power of employers to hire/fire as they please so as to get the economy moving again.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  106. ...but the French say... by eugene_t00ms · · Score: 1

    ...that Greenspan is intentionally doing this to undercut the Euro. I find this doubtful, but I'd like it to be true

    --
    Belief that Perspectives matter more than Facts = Mark of the Truly Ignorant
  107. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a plumber, working in the repair and service end of the field, and pull in about $55k working no more than my 40 hr week. Around here this is plenty to buy a home, feed the family, and support my expensive computer hobby. No stress, no forced overtime, and very little heavy labor. My job mostly involves making little old ladies understand that the noise they are hearing is normal, or fixing leaking toilets with $5 parts. In many ways I am more of a customer rep than a manual laborer.

  108. Why aren't Fortune 500 companies. . . by alizard · · Score: 1
    making major investments in things which will strenghten the US economy and employ people in jobs best done in America? For instance, rebuilding the US into a hydrogen economy (which has to be done, the oil IS running out, taking over Iraq bought us a few years at best)

    US corporate CEOs are rewarded for making or beating quarterly profit targets or stock price targets, if they do, their stock options get triggered and they make serious money. This is a major reason why books are often cooked so the company seems to have a steady increase in profit every quarter, usually by deferring when major sales are posted. Especially helpful when something major goes wrong, the money that they've stashed can reappear magically... and the company seems to have made their profits grow miraculously again.

    Anyone with the remotest clue about business knows that NO revenue stream grows constantly all the time, companies have good quarters and bad ones. But that's not what reports on profits will generally show. .

    This means that if they outsource core business profits and get a short-term bump in profits, they will do this even knowing that they are funding new competition in Bangalore in a few years that understands their business better than they do and have their customer lists.. They figure that they won't be at the company by then and their successors can clean up the mess, or go bankrupt. Not a problem for the current CEO generation either way, they'll already have cashed out.

    Conversely, if they are offered a venture that'll cost the corporation major money NOW but will guarantee it major profits starting 5-10 years out and into the indefinite future, they will NOT bother. Why should they? There's nothing in it for them and the negative reaction of industry analysts also looking for short-term profit bumps will mean. . . NO stock options.

    1. Re:Why aren't Fortune 500 companies. . . by RGRistroph · · Score: 1

      Until Scotty finally invents dilithium crystals, the cheapest way to get hydrogen is to take it out of oil, or fuel the splitting of water with oil.

  109. $ is falling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because there's just too much US debt out there. An oversupply of anything will cause a fall in prices.

    We've been borrowing like mad through the Clinton admin, and George 2 picked up where the Skirtgrabber left off.

  110. Your Economics Professor was Wrong! by dbretton · · Score: 1

    Typically, housing/real estate is the last thing to recover from a recession. The housing market typically lags 6-10 months behind the economy.

    This time around, however, it seems as though it is actually leading the market. I've never seen this before. Then again, I've never seen an economic growth period like the one we recently had.

    1. Re:Your Economics Professor was Wrong! by Izeickl · · Score: 1

      Record low mortgage rates are fuelling the housing market, not a good economy. If rates go higher then boom goes your nice comfy home. If rates go lower, real estate continues to go higher to unsustainable levels. Real estate is actually the next bubble, not the sign of recovery.

  111. 70% top-bracket rate by js7a · · Score: 1

    Yes, right, for the few years that there was a 70% top bracket in the U.S. (for mostly corporate incomes over $500,000, IIRC), there were also lots of deductions, shelters, and other loopholes, so that the tax rate as a fraction of GDP was around 18%.

  112. so which is more american? by 512k · · Score: 1

    a Honda assembled in the US
    a Ford assembled in Canada
    a Daimler-Chrylser made in the US

    --
    ------ Work is so much easier when you don't
  113. Your Country's Working Hard to Generalize This by mkc · · Score: 2, Informative
    According to the WTO, 140 countries, probably including yours, are working to render it even easier for companies to move service jobs from one country to another. Probably not so they can pay you more locally for a job more cheaply performed elsewhere.

    It's called GATS, the service sector counterpart of GATT. The WTO GATS homepage (see the above link), "recognizes the right of Members to regulate the supply of services in pursuit of their own policy objectives, and does not seek to influence these objectives." But if you think that means your representatives are aiming to save your white collar job, well PT Barnum was probably right. Think about it some more. Which service sector jobs are going to move? The waitress serving coffee at the local diner. The guy standing behind the counter ringing up your gas and soft drink? Your hairdresser? Or the folks writing software? The people handling support calls?

  114. George W Bush trying to ride a Segway! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the Segway needs more gyros to be G.W.B. compatible?

    Maybe he should stick to horses?

  115. Re:US National Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is where living in europe really has its benefits, I can loose my job tomorrow and i'm still entitled to health care of the same standard and cost (well actually it goes from cheap to free if I loose my job).

  116. Re:OK. Enuff worrying. Let us look at some solutio by MKalus · · Score: 1
    (3) Work for an out-sourcing /off-shoring business or start one of your own! Heck, if the companies will export 3 million jobs in the next few years to save money, I'd say there is money to be made in helping companies save money. Like they say, if you can't beat 'em , join 'em.


    I would like to see how you are actually going to start an outsourcing business for example in India.

    For once do you speak the language(s)? Do you understand the mentality? Do you have the contacts? No? I guess your SOL then.

    How about China then? Well, all of the above etc. etc.

    Or let me put it different: I doubt very much that you could start your own business offshore without having lived in the country you want to outsource to, and if it is just because of the language barrier.
    --
    If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  117. Powerpoint by colin_n · · Score: 1

    As an intern, I was of the understanding that all of the creation of powerpoint presentations went to me. I am equally disgusted with this new information

    --

    --------- I have no signature
    1. Re:Powerpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For extra fun and amusment: Put in a fake "This presentation has finished" slide. Make the next slide Goats.cx or Tubgirl, and have it come up after two or three minutes. Hilarity ensues!

  118. Pop Quix, hotshot. by xdroop · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Here is a quiz for your wife.

    You have two programmers. One is just out of college, and costs you $x per year. One has been working in the industry for fifteen years, and costs you lets say $3x per year.

    You give both programmers the same assignment.

    • Your young guy jumps on it and produces a tool to meet the assignments in two weeks. Your older guy takes four weeks. Who is more productive?

    • Your young guy's program is y lines. Your older guy's program is y/3 lines. Who is more productive now?

    • Your young guys's program has no documentation. Your older guy's program comes with complete internal commenting, a design document rationalized from the user requirements doc (which he pestered you for before he started), and a notation that he is waiting for you to assign a technical writer to the project so that the user documentation can be written. Who is more productive now?

    • Your young guy's program handles the data set in z seconds. Your older guy's program handles the data set in z/4 seconds. Who is more productive now?

    • Problems with your young guy's program require him to go back into the thing to fix them every so often. Most of the time, these seemingly small problems require him to spend a large amount of time poking through his program looking for the problem, and then re-architect large parts of the program in order to effect a fix. Meanwhile, your old guy's program has problems opened against it one tenth as often, and it takes him less time to locate the problem and make a fix. Now which programmer is more productive?

    • Both programmers leave. Which program would you want to be stuck with?

    Most managers look at stupid metrics like number of lines of code produced, number of bugs fixed, that kind of thing. Younger programmers can crank crap out by the dumptruck, resulting in bugs by the dumptruck. And all that for a lower cost per year. But we all know that the more experienced programmer is the way to go, because he is actually completing more projects -- even though that metric cannot be accurately measured (since you practically never give the same assignment to two separate teams).

    Managers hate this kind of reality, because it is impossible to graph on a powerpoint slide. They may not even know it intellectually, because all the metrics they measure are pointing to the wrong conclusion -- but as they do what the metrics encourage them to do, they wonder if there is a better way than having all these kids grinding all these hours producing all this crap.

    --
    you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
    1. Re:Pop Quix, hotshot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the best real-world example of the problem you describe is Microsoft. Not a lot of greybeards around that shop, and a hell of a lot of crappy code..

    2. Re:Pop Quix, hotshot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You did not mention that during the four weeks, the older guy spent six half-days on legacy applications that he was tasked with. The young guy has not yet "inherited" such burdens. Who is more productive now?

      The older guy is also invited to four weekly, one monthly, and seven random meetings during the four weeks because his opinion on the technical side of future and legacy applications is required. The younger guy only attends one weekly meeting. Who is more productive now?

      The older guy is also seen more often at the fountain and at colleagues' terminals where he discusses and solves his and other programmers' problems. The older guy may also be found surfing the net and browsing books looking for working solutions that he knows must exist. The young guy prefers to do everything from scratch. Who is more productive now?

  119. Teach English Overseas! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would be my advice: say "fuck it", and get a job teaching English overseas. You basically need a 4-year degree in SOMETHING, and you can get a pretty decent job -- especially in Asia. For instance, I work in South Korea.

    PLUSES:

    1. I make about $23,000 a year. Sounds crappy, but you can save about half of that every year if you're not a crazy spend-o-matic (you don't pay any US taxes).

    2. Free apartment!

    3. Free Medical Care!

    4. Cheap booze!

    5. Mountains and temples...and stuff!

    6. Asian girls like foreign guys!

    7. Asian girls like foreign guys!

    8. Asian girls like foreign guys!

    MINUSES:

    1. Uh...you have to go to another country?

    2. Hm...I'll get back to you.

    Well, you know...whatever. You can find out more info about available jobs as sites like http://www.eslcafe.com.

  120. You are dumb [Re:US National Debt] by I+Am+The+Owl · · Score: 0, Troll
    The more ground the dollar loses, the more expensive it becomes for American companies to ship jobs overseas. Besides, the foreign exchange market is not indicitive of the economic health of a country.

    The budget surplus - yeah, that's pretty stupid too. The ability of Congress to curtail spending is pretty much independent of the economic health of the country. Find more money? OH BOY, LET'S SPEND MORE ON WORTHLESS SOCIAL PROGRAMS!

    As for outsourcing - why don't you just go back to school and educate yourself into a position that is too specialized to be outsourced? Or at least find a way to capitalize on substandard work churned out by Indian code sweatshops.

    --

    --sdem
    1. Re:You are dumb [Re:US National Debt] by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 1
      As for outsourcing - why don't you just go back to school and educate yourself into a position that is too specialized to be outsourced?

      The majority of us don't work with computers because we ant to make money. At least the best of us don't. The best of us do this because we love working with computers. The only people who do ANY job to make lots of money are just greedy bastards with no original thought, talent or intelligence. In general, I refer to those kind of people as "sheeple".

    2. Re:You are dumb [Re:US National Debt] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a cult leader preaching 'one love' only to screw the first person over when a dollar falls on your lap. Money is not the ultimate goal but it is the result of production and effort by those willing to work for it.

    3. Re:You are dumb [Re:US National Debt] by deaddrunk · · Score: 1

      As for outsourcing - why don't you just go back to school and educate yourself into a position that is too specialized to be outsourced?

      Sorry, I'm too poor to do that, my career has been shipped off to Bangalore so I need to work myself into a mental ward in order to pay my bills.

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
    4. Re:You are dumb [Re:US National Debt] by I+Am+The+Owl · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with my statement?

      --

      --sdem
    5. Re:You are dumb [Re:US National Debt] by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 1

      Money is only incidental to what I do. I love working with computers primarly. Making money just happens to be a happy accident. I am not opposed to making a REASONABLE amount of money for what I do. I just have no plans to get rich. That has never been, and never will be my goal. Ever.

    6. Re:You are dumb [Re:US National Debt] by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 1

      Your original statement implies that changing a career to attain some sense of security is a good idea. However, I would never want to do anything else other than work with computers (except possibly compose music, make movies or be a professional photographer). It might be "wiser" for me to be a lawyer or a "suit", but I would hate that. I could do it, but I would hate it with a passion that no one has ever seen before because I hate business.

    7. Re:You are dumb [Re:US National Debt] by I+Am+The+Owl · · Score: 1
      I was talking about the unemployed, or the people who were evicted from their careers because of layoffs and have to work shitty jobs just to pay the bills now.

      And obviously you must have a rather low opinion of your profession if you don't think you can go back to school for additional degrees in Computer Science-related fields.

      --

      --sdem
    8. Re:You are dumb [Re:US National Debt] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is only so far you can go with degrees and in general, they really don't make someone better at computers than natural apptitude. That's why we had the big influx of paper MCSEs who didn't know much more than Office, but were claiming that they could design and run a network. I'm glad that's done with. Sure another degree will get your foot in the door, but does that foot deserve to be there? A lot of those people were laid off because the people at the top pulled some nasty tricks to make a profit. Another group of those people were laid off because of their employer's hubris. And there was a sizable group who were laid off because they didn't know what they were doing (even though they had degrees, paper certs, etc...)

      The only people who do well and go far in this business are those with the natural ability to work with computers on an almost metaphysical level. The people who can walk into a room and do nothing, but the computer mysteriously starts working. I've seen it over and over. Those are the people who SHOULD rise to the top, but often stay at the bottom or middle because they don't have the degree or paper. But as soon as they go get the degree or paper, their abilities seem to go away.

      I had to work shitty jobs out of college just to get where I am. Crawling through mud pits, hanging from 60 foot ladders above boiling vats of oil, working in freezing conditions for hours, etc... And getting paid $6.00 and hour with no insurance. It shouldn't have happened. But the economy was horrible after I graduated. I was lucky that the whole internet boom of the 90s happened because it got my foot in the door WITHOUT a degree. I'm also lucky in that my expectations are realistic and I don't expect to get a six figure salary like a lot of people do. That's all I saw in the article was people whining about how they will probably never make those six figure salaries again. Boohoo. No one should make six figure salaries to begin with. But the world isn't a fair place.

  121. boo hoo! you should have been there in the 70s! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - my heart pumps purple piss for all the white-collar whiners out of work...

    - there's no reason to be out of work

    - today's 20-30 year-olds have no work ethic (lazy, chip-on-the-shoulder, the world-owes-me attitudes, etc.)

    - stories about folks out of work for six months are stories about losers who who don't want to work in the first place...

    - i'm glad to see industry trim the fat off its rolls and get rid of these over-promoted pimply faced oafs who do nothing to contribute to the bottom line...

    - need money? get a job! that means *any* job to bring in income...

    - don't expect to get a 30-hour work week, a BMW, executive compensation, and four weeks of vacation a year right out of college or even after five years on the job (although you can get three out of the four if you join the military, something most eligible, able-bodied but losers with a "slacker ethic" are unwilling to do)...

    - more liberal crap here on Slashdot...

    - how about a nice cup of "shut the f*ck up and go to work"???

    - cut back on the lattes at Starbucks, hit the sidewalks, and even [shudder] push a broom for a living if you have to...

    - whiners...

    1. Re:boo hoo! you should have been there in the 70s! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I know your type. You still wet the bed. Get a diaper, pissboy. And stop reading slashdot if you hate the community so much.

      dickwad.

  122. You think _that's_ sobering... by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    From an AP wire story in the Washington Post:
    "But even if the economy improves later this year, as economists hope, the jobless rate still is expected to move higher - to as high as 6.5 percent."
    Huh? The weird definition of "unemployment" used by the government and the press is implicit in the following sentence of that article:
    "Job growth probably won't be strong enough to accommodate all the additional job seekers who would enter the market, attracted by an improved climate, analysts say. That would contribute to a rise in the unemployment rate, which happened last month."
    I don't care how you spin your definitions -- any definition of "unemployment" that increases when the percent of the population that is employed increases -- particularly if their special skills are being more greatly utilized -- is bizzare and fundamentally misleading.

    Here, from the computer consultants Usenet newsgroup is a more realistic definition of "unemployment" that is closer to "underutilization" and historic definitions of "unemployment" that we intuitively think of, and it is _damn_ sobering:

    About 20% -- or in other words approaching the same order as the Great Depression of 1930s -- with the caveat that we must remember a lot of people in the 1930s were still close relatives to someone who had a farm -- and that provided a much more benign "safety net" than a potentially hostile government bureaucrat.

    1. Re:You think _that's_ sobering... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      While I agree that underemployment is a more meaningful indicator of the pain that is going in in the job market, you are on pretty shaky ground when you try to equate unemployment in the 30s to underemployment in the 21st century. In the 30's underemployment reached estimated levels of 80%.

      Sure there were many more farms in that period of time. They were going bust too. Didn't you ever read Grapes of Wrath? And then there were the bank failures. Now banks are far safer. Now we have Social Security. No such thing in the 30's. Ditto unemployment insurance. Today most families have two wage earners - not so in the 30's.

      Even more telling is what happened to GDP. In the 1929 - 1933 the US GDP fell a staggering 33 percent. That is a horrific number by any standard.

      If we compare GDP changes we get something like:

      1927-1931 = -33% (the big one)
      1972-1975 = -4.9% (biggest postwar recession)
      2000-2003 = +6.5% (because of GDP drops in 2001 have been wiped out by ecomomic growth since then)

      People are complaining now that about 1/2 of college grads are not getting offers. Well, you know what? I graduated from college during the 70's recession. At the time we were seeing numbers like 10% of the graduating class getting job offers.

      What we have here is tough times for job seekers, not a great depression.

      Oh, btw I am underemployed, and my wife is unemployed. Is it a real problem? I'm having a tough time seeing it. SUre the car won't be new this year, and no HDTV with digital cable, and few nights out in restaurants. But the bills are getting paid, and the retirement account is being funded.

      Compared to what my grandparents went through in the 30's I have no problems at all.

  123. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by TheSync · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but I am seeing some "modern interior" interior redesigns in closer-in areas such as Cheverly and Hyattsville, MD, trying to be the next Takoma Park, MD or Alexandria, VA. People who aren't making .COM money any more are getting sick of spending 4+ hours per day commuting from $500k McMansions in the distant suburbs, and are retruning to $250k-$350k old houses in the close-in suburbs, or even DC itself as far east as 14th street NW.

    While there certainly will be a general new housing slowdown in the US, Washington,DC should exepct to see a lot of interior redos since the area is actually adding jobs (as happened in San Francisco and Manhattan during the 90's)

    There are also all kinds of new houses going up in Southern PG County (MD) along the Potomac. I've seen $450k waterfront houses there, which would be over $1m across the river in Virginia.

  124. Re:Most companies arent listed - small/med busines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the case of mobile phones, you're exactly wrong. In the US, the mantra was "let the market decide" while in the rest of the world the systems to be used were dictated by governments. In that particular case, the free market approach you're advocating, along with a low population densitity, has left the US system quite far behind.

    As to the rest... I'm not qualified to comment.

  125. Why I think the rate drops didn't work by Orne · · Score: 1

    One thing I've noticed from the business shows is that the recent dropping of the interest rates have had a completely unexpected effect compared to historical rate drops.

    The idea is that dropping the interest rates makes stocks more desireable, as opposed to bonds. As the rate drops, bonds become less valuable, and fund managers are inclined to move money from the bond markets into the stock markets. Right now, bonds will get you 3%, whereas the stock market may have a 5% short-term gain. Alternately, lowering the rates will lower your monthly loan payments, which leaves more spare money to spend in other sectors of the economy.

    But there were problems with these assumptions. First, too many people have a short-term investment mentality (those who only got into the market in '98), and seeing a 3 year drop in average prices does make reinvesting in the stock market undesireable. Then they looked at bonds, and figured that the rates were to poor of an investment which is the point). Then, a low interest rate makes your savings account interest pitiful (what, 0.5%?) which discourages savings, encouraging spending. Last, I would add a cultural change -- the current old population is obsessed with "image" and status symbols. What bigger generational symbol is there than a bigger house?

    A lower rate for the same value loan makes a lower monthly payment, but that's half of what people were thinking... Because the same formulas give a different result -- a lower rate for a larger value loan makes the same monthly payment.

    Personally, I believe that many people were comfortable with their monthly payments (the 90's made people too comfortable with carrying debt), and instead of buying the same value house and having cash left over (to invest in the economy), they instead bought a more expensive house (which at the lower interest rate equalled the payment they were making before). For evidence, look at the mid-atlantic USA -- housing prices have really jumped in the last year and a half, matching the drops in the prime rate.

    So, I think that is why the housing market is booming, yet the other sectors of the economy are slower in recovering. People tied their money up in monthly payments for more expensive houses rather than spending it in the local economies.

    1. Re:Why I think the rate drops didn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, explain this then. For every house bought there's a house sold. So if housing prices are getting inflated, someone is making a lot of money by selling their houses. Where does all that money go?

  126. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by Roblimo · · Score: 1

    Excuse me.

    I've written one book, co-authored another, and I'm working on yet another one. I speak regularly at technical conferences. I'm sure my English usage is on a par with yours, possibly better.

    And yet, when I was younger I did mostly blue-collar work. I was a soldier, a mechanic, an electronics technician, a cabbie, and a limo driver. And I've done a little short-order cooking and dishwashing "in between," too.

    In my off hours, back then, I wrote a little fiction, which got me some awards and ego strokes but never really paid the bills. (I "turned pro" as a writer only after I switched to non-fiction, which tends to pay far better than fiction, on average.)

    Jack London worked on fishing boats off and on, and no sane person complains about how he spoke or wrote. He's just one example. There are thousands, of others. And not just writers.... remember a guy named Abe Lincoln? He did labor work before he got into the lawyer business, and later into politics.

    Don't knock blue-collar work. There's nothing wrong with having a trade, and there's no reason you can't go home from your job doing front end alignments and compose music, create abstract sculpture or write (hopefully free/open) software.

    Writing and editing are already global. I compete with peers all over the world. The U.S. and Europe are the big consumers, but my work has appeared in publications elsewhere, including India, Africa, and the Middle East.

    Some of us "make it" as writers, and most don't. Some write for free -- or nearly so -- because they love to write.

    If I lost my job, and didn't want to take another editing job or put out the energy it takes to make a living freelancing full-time, I'd go back to "real work" (probably cab driving) without thinking any less of myself -- or giving up any of my vocabulary or language skills.

    I would still write, and I might write better and more interesting stories at that, because I wouldn't be faced with constant deadlines, and I could pick and choose my subject matter instead of sticking to a particular publication's specialty or area of interest.

    As it is with writers today, so it will be with programmers tomorrow. So don't knock tradesmen and other hands-on workers. One day you might be one yourself. (And you would probably still program on the side, wouldn't you?)

    - Robin

  127. A correction by haxor.dk · · Score: 1

    I'm Danish, from where I live I can look over to Sweden.

    Danish taxes are very like those is Sweden, apart from the fact that we pay a 105 -180% tax on our cars.

    The claim that average production workers do not pay income tax is nonsense. It's try that there is a an excemption limit, under which you dont pay taxes (socialist politicians here in Denmark curcumvented that by the way :p) but it's only about 34.000 Dkr (Dkr â 1/6 $). I'm unsure of the swedish bottom limit, but it's not much different, I believe.

    The problem of the socalled "welfare" states, is that it does not pay to work. Denmark has a tax level on 50,4% of the GNP, Sweden's is 50,3%. This, however, does not tell the story, that marginal taxes for hig income groups are well above 60% if your income. In short, you are punished for working!

    I agree that the US state debt can only be paid off by raising taxes, but to pull out a scandinavian country as a role model is misguided.

    1. Re:A correction by js7a · · Score: 1
      marginal taxes for big income groups are well above 60% if your income. In short, you are punished for working!

      Even with a multi-bracket system, there is never any situation where earning more money results in less take-home income. There was a problem with that in Sweden several years ago (some famous writer ended up with a 105% tax rate due to a law quirk) but they simplified their laws and now the top bracket rate sits at 57% on income over the exemption limit.

      to pull out a scandinavian country as a role model is misguided.

      What do you think would make a better role model?

  128. Its time to Blame George W Bush. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1


    People have been putting it off for a long time, making excuses for him.

    You can blame 911, Enron, anything you want, but ultimately the reason our economy is terrible is because of George W Bush. Perhaps if our government actually promoted businesses hiring Americans, by using tax incentives instead of just giving a Trillion dollars directly to the Indian economy, we'd see more jobs created.

    Tax cuts to big businesses will not create jobs, we need to punish businesses who dont hire Americans, if they hire Indian workers we should boycott them, I mean we boycott the french over some stupid crap, but we cant get Bush to go on TV and tell us to boycott other companies?

    Come on people, even the so called conservatives are selling us out.

    Theres no fix for Globalization, but we certainly can slow it down, and make ourselves immune to it long enough so we can create our next big industries.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Its time to Blame George W Bush. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit fucko, why are you such an idiot?

    2. Re:Its time to Blame George W Bush. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...just giving a Trillion dollars directly to the Indian economy...

      Just pulled that out of your ass, didn't you? Man you guys are incredible! I guess we have to be thankful for the generosity of americans.

  129. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    It sounds like you have been unemployed for a couple of years. Inside offices their can be just the same amount of Potty mouth that their is on a construction site. The only exception is when their are a lot of people on the telephone. Sure working in an area with a lot of bad habbits you will normally pick up the habits while talking to the people. But most people can quickly change back when their in different environments.
    The main difference between a Blue Collar worker who has always been dooing blue coller work vs. A White collar worker who started a blue collar job. Is that most Blue Collar workers never really got much past highschool and probably just bearly passed. While most white collar workers have at least a 2 year degree and got an average 2.8-3.2 GPA. The White collar workers generally have a better vocabulary and express themself without useing curse words. And when in a different situation they can still work without the vocabulary.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  130. Surely a programmer isn't considered white collar by CrazyJim0 · · Score: 1

    White collars have been traditionally reserved for organization and management roles. I'd assume programmers would be blue collar.

    But I am dot-bomb. I just graduated CMU, I've been programming on computer since I was like 6, and I've played more video games than most.

    I like computers just because they're computers, and I come up with actually good ideas that could make money if people funded them. I even have an idea now that'd kick ass.

  131. Taxes help the country. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    So yes they are fair, the majority of the people in this country have kids in public school, the majority want healthcare, the majority WANT higher taxes.

    Cant you see this? People want the rich to pay most of the taxes if not all the taxes, and you cant think of a reason why they shouldnt, I mean they are rich and they wont even notice.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Taxes help the country. by sniggly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can see that people want that security but that security is a socialist security and goes right against the grain of what the USA was founded for.

      Bush & his republican buddies supposedly favor small government but ever since 9/11 some of the largest concentrations of bureaucratic power ever have been taking place. Americans want socialist controls and there are govt bureaucracies that are starting to rival their historic Soviet counterparts..

      The US once was a proud nation, over the last decades it won the most massive conflict ever between industrial modes of organisation. State controlled fascism & socialism lost to state guided capitalism. But now americans are afraid of anything, loosing jobs, crime, drugs, foreign whatevers.

      People who earn a lot of money usually are positive empowered people who have drive and initiative and yet they have to pay to cater for the ones that might prefer the soviet union over the US?

      --
      Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
    2. Re:Taxes help the country. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      You have to understand that absolute Capitalism cannot work in this world. Just because you think it can doesnt mean it can, if you think you can live in world with no taxes, and no cities have fun, I dont want to stay in the USA if thats where its going.

      People earn alot of money do have drive, but they arent always the hardest working, the CEO may have more drive than the peon but the peon does all the work for the CEO.

      You see, people dont get paid on merit or based on how hard they work, you live in a fantasy world where perfect Capitalism can exist. You are as stupid as the soviets who thought perfect Socialism could exist.

      Some people in this world are greedy (such as yourself) and would never allow perfect Socialism.

      Theres also just as many people who arent greedy and who work to improve the world, people who arent motivated by money dont fit into your Capitalist world. The only way society can work is to have places for people who want to work for non profits and do work to improve society, we also need places for people who want to save lives, like policemen, firemen, and others, we NEED places for these people and these people have no place in the private sector.

      This is why we need socialism, I myself hate the corperate world, you love the corperate world, the USA was not founded so one group of Americans can decide for all of us how to live, the USA was founded on FREEDOM, and this means FREEDOM through DEMOCRACY, if we vote on it and people want bigger more socialist government the people should have it.

      If we want universal healthcare, more police, bigger schools, and afterschool programs for our kids, we should have it. People who work in these fields dont do it for the money, you cannot understand what motivates a teacher, a fireman etc because you act out on greed.

      Not everyone is competiting to earn money, some people just want to earn enough money to pay their bills, and do a job which they feel good about doing, which they believe will benefit the world, alot of people would prefer to feel useless working as a teacher, than feel like a useless peon as an office manager for a nameless faceless private company.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    3. Re:Taxes help the country. by GenSolo · · Score: 1

      The United States is not a democracy. It never was, and I pray it never will be. The United States is a Republic. The Constitution even calls it that. The people don't make the decisions about big socialist government or not. The people elect officials to make those decisions. Why does it matter? It matters because people are idiots. The people don't know what's best for them. Granted, the people they elect often don't either, but the goal is for them to elect people who they trust to make the right choice with all the information. Universal healthcare would fuck our entire healthcare system. Canadians come to the US to work in the medical field because under their socialized health care system they don't make a decent living. Having more police isn't socialist, it's just the government doing the job it's been assigned properly. Bigger schools falls under the same category. As for afterschool programs, that's slight socialization, but the people who want that probably wouldn't if they had to pay a fair tax rate instead of leeching off of the rest of us. Just because people want something doesn't mean they should get it. If it conflicts with a need, they need to be told to shut the fuck u

    4. Re:Taxes help the country. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

      America wasnt designed to be a plutocracy either. "Why does it matter? It matters because people are idiots"

      So are politicians and rich millionaires who control them. How would the world be any different if the idiot masses controlled the world instead of the idiot monarchy/capitalists?

      "The people don't know what's best for them." Ah and who does know whats best for them? You sound like Adolph Hitler .I guess you want to live in a 1984 style world, why didnt you move to Iraq where the Iraqis didnt/dont know whats best for them? How about China? They dont even let their people use the net because the gov knows what the people need to see and what they dont.

      "Granted, the people they elect often don't either, but the goal is for them to elect people who they trust to make the right choice with all the information. Universal healthcare would fuck our entire healthcare system. Canadians come to the US to work in the medical field because under their socialized health care system they don't make a decent living."

      Yes but the rest of us dont make a decent living, Teachers dont make a decent living either but are expected to help every child. Whats your point? Should we end public schools so teachers can all make a decent living? Alot of kids wouldnt be educated at all, our world would be less educated. This is bad for our society.

      Having more police isn't socialist, it's just the government doing the job it's been assigned properly.

      I dont need the government to provide police, it says in the original plan that there arent supposed to be ANY government police.We are supposed to form militias, We are supposed to form our own police, the government has nothing to do with it. We are supposed to be able to form our own private groups, buy our guns, bombs, and whatever else. Why cant we buy a tank? Why cant we buy military weapons? Why cant we build a nuclear bomb? I mean if the government was supposed to be exactly like the constitution says, what the hell is gun control? What the hell are these laws saying you cant buy certain weapons or use bullet proof vests? Why cant we build nuclear weapons if we want? Why cant we buy tanks, jets, etc?

      "Bigger schools falls under the same category. As for afterschool programs, that's slight socialization, but the people who want that probably wouldn't if they had to pay a fair tax rate instead of leeching off of the rest of us."

      Consider the fact that people have to work harder and longer hours. Also consider the fact that single parents exist, people divorce, and alot of kids come home to empty houses. Kids need places to go after school, afterschool programs are a MUST! This isnt to benefit a single guy like me, or someone like you, this is to protect and improve society.

      " Just because people want something doesn't mean they should get it. If it conflicts with a need, they need to be told to shut the fuck up"

      Your needs are not as important as societies need. You dont need after school programs, too bad, the majority of the people in this country do. You dont need universal healthcare? Guess what, most people need this, when people grow old they dont have any way to pay their medical bills, college students dont have any way to pay their medical bills, with the job market getting more competitive we need universal healthcare to keep society from collapsing.

      We need better schools and we need to keep our kids safe and off the streets, we do not want to breed criminals and prostitutes, we want to breed lawyers, doctors and scientists, you NEED to keep these kids out of trouble and properly educate them. Kids today no longer grow up in 2 parent homes, this is not the 1950s, soon the majority of kids in this country will come home to an empty house, with no parents, and no supervision. How are we supposed to protect the kids without socialism? These kids need libraries, computer centers, afterschool

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    5. Re:Taxes help the country. by GenSolo · · Score: 1

      "The people don't know what's best for them." Ah and who does know whats[sic] best for them?
      Let me explain that a little bit since you took it totally the wrong way. To know what's best for you, you have to understand an issue. You have to understand all sides of said issue. Even for intelligent people, there is no time to understand every side of every issue, especially when you have to work to provide for your family. Now, who does know what's best for them? Well, we do elect officials just for that purpose! They learn about a few of the issues, educate each other, and then make a decision based on the information (well, they would if we didn't fuck up our job of electing them). I'm not saying it's perfect. The simple fact though is that democracy does not work in our society. There will always be stupid people to make bad decisions even with all the information. It is impossible to have all the information, so even smart people will make bad decisions. Therefore, you put smart people in power and dedicate them to getting all the information. Then we might have a chance of making a good decision instead of by chance making the right decision.

      You sound like Adolph Hitler.
      Thanks, you lose.

      I mean if the government was supposed to be exactly like the constitution says, what the hell is gun control?
      You miss the point of the Constitution. The government is empowered by it and constrained by it. On the other hand, if the Constitution doesn't mention it, it's up to the Congress to decide (with checks and balances and whatever so that they don't break the rules of course). Gun control is perfectly constitutional so long as the right to bear arms isn't infringed upon. Controlling the guns is fine, controlling the people (to say they can't have guns) isn't. Furthermore, the police (as referenced here) are state or local entities. It could be argued that a group of citizens working on a local level to control crime and the like (ie, the police) is actually a militia as provided for in the Constitution. More police is just the local government (ie, city/county) doing its job. I pay city taxes so that my city cops stop the burglars and murderers. (Which they should spend more time doing instead of writing traffic tickets, but that's another issue.) Police, fire protection, education, roads, and water are why people form cities in the first place.

      You dont need after school programs, too bad, the majority of the people in this country do.
      Then they can get it from the private sector instead of me paying for it for them.

      Guess what, most people need this,
      No, they don't! They want it, but they don't need it.

      when people grow old they dont have any way to pay their medical bills,
      Old people's medical bills are paid through Medicare and through a Medicare Supplement insurance policy, which is plenty affordable on a Social Security Benefits income. Old people already have somewhat socialized healthcare, and it works like it is.

      college students dont have any way to pay their medical bills,
      My college provides health care for its students through its medical school. Aside from that, college students are covered under their parents' health insurance generally, and otherwise they can take out their own insurance. Why should I pay for it for them?

      with the job market getting more competitive we need universal healthcare to keep society from collapsing.
      Howso? People are out of work because jobs are being shipped overseas (and accross borders) due to corporate greed. This is not remedied by universal health care. This is remedied by..erm...convincing companies in this country to employ people in this country. Under socialized health care, doctors are given patients and paid a salary. Where is their incentive to be the best? Where is their incentive to do their job quickly? A private doctor is paid by the

    6. Re:Taxes help the country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucko, you're not even remotely making sense. What the fuck does your last paragraph even mean?

    7. Re:Taxes help the country. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

      "To know what's best for you, you have to understand an issue. You have to understand all sides of said issue. Even for intelligent people, there is no time to understand every side of every issue, especially when you have to work to provide for your family. "


      Here you go assuming alot of things. Not everyone in this country has a family to provide to. Not everyone in this country is married with children, we have alot of college studnents, and single people who have plenty of free time. We have old people who also have free time. The internet exists so people can vote on alot more of the issues than before, your point of view is debateable.

      Gun control is perfectly constitutional so long as the right to bear arms isn't infringed upon. Controlling the guns is fine, controlling the people (to say they can't have guns) isn't.

      Did you know stunguns and bullet proof vests are illegal in certain states? When certain weapons are "illegal" it removes our right to defend ourselves.

      Then they can get it from the private sector instead of me paying for it for them.

      The problem with the private sector is quality. Running an afterschool program for profit, usually means the people involved dont give a damn about helping the kids, the people involved are doing it for the money. This is fine for certain types of work but for public service work, these types of things should be a community effort. Imagine if churches were private sector and paid for by corperations via sponserships. Imagine working for Microsoft and being told by Bill Gates you may go to his Church. Theres some things that the private sector can never be good at, Kids arent livestock but the private sector will treat them like livestock because the only thing the private sector cares about is profit.

      No, they don't! They want it, but they don't need it. Alot of people do need healthcare, consider the fact that people are losing their jobs and without a job how do you go to the hospital when sick? The jobs we can get now, temp jobs, do not provide health insurence, the job market is more competitive and the benefits are less. We need a better heath insurence policy to adapt to the new market. In the new economy a person may switch jobs every other week or every few months, people work at temp agencies and as consultants, temp agencies allow them to compete with people overseas, but they miss out on alot, healthcare is one of those benefits.

      My college provides health care for its students through its medical school. Aside from that, college students are covered under their parents' health insurance generally, and otherwise they can take out their own insurance. Why should I pay for it for them?

      College doesnt provide it, you have to pay for it. College students have enough to pay for, I dont think people without jobs should be denied healthcare, I think people with jobs should pay for healthcare. BY universal healthcare I'm saying everyone who doesnt have a job, everyone whos in school, and every child should have health care. This is lives we are talking about, I dont want to see people dying from the flu because I was too greedy to pay taxes.

      Howso? People are out of work because jobs are being shipped overseas (and accross borders) due to corporate greed. This is not remedied by universal health care. This is remedied by..erm...convincing companies in this country to employ people in this country.

      Once upon a time, there was a great depression, the economy was shit, how did our government solve it? Social Security, and other programs which gave workers confidence. By providing a safety net workers were more willing to go to work, knowing they will be protected when they retire. We are in a situation now where we have to do something to restore confidence in the America way of life, the way to do this is to add new safety nets, Universal healthcare, this safety net is needed because the economy is getting tough, we have to compete o

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    8. Re:Taxes help the country. by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      We need more than just geeky library hangouts for our kids, we need true afterschool programs, meaning internet cafes, tvs, pool tables, chess, and lots of people who are adults and good rolemodels. We need to do a backround check to make sure they dont have a criminal record, we need to make sure they have a good viewpoint on education and that they have something to teach the kids, then we put these kids around mature successful adults in a safe enviornment it would really help them.

      We have lots of things for kids these days.. Parks.. Public pools.. and while libraries may not be cool, they do usually have the internet.. Personally, I'd rather be seen in a library than a computer cafe as far as the geek factor goes.. TVs.. Well.. You can find at home or friends' homes.. Plus, most if not all schools have junior sports.. There are often local clubs for chess, foreign languages, and even stuff like computers and astronomy for even young children.. All of these places I've mentioned are in my own little area which is out in the middle of no where NC (oh and did I mention farm work as an afterschool hobby? ;P) I KNOW there are many more privately funded resources in the big cities..
      My own "afterschool program" was spending evenings at one of my friends' houses, church, library, baseball, football, a little tennis, yard work, and of course the usual.. Watching tv and playing nintendo..
      The fact is, you can have ALL the after school programs you want, but you can't force kids to go to them. Better role models are required at home, in school, and law enforcement can play a big role in this. My point is, you can almost always find free or charity funded programs out there.. It's the parents' or the kid's fault for not going there. Maybe the kid was led into the underworld so to speak and you can't really blame him for not wanting on the school football team, but then again.. A government subsidized youth center isn't going to change that fact.. I have a habit of rambling, but I think you should understand what I'm saying.

    9. Re:Taxes help the country. by GenSolo · · Score: 1

      Here you go assuming alot of things.
      I didn't assume anything. If you spent 24hrs a day 7 days a week 52.X weeks a year researching, you couldn't get all the information to inform yourself enough to vote on everything. Also, if everyone can't vote it isn't democracy, and if everyone isn't qualified, democracy doesn't work.

      Did you know stunguns and bullet proof vests are illegal in certain states? When certain weapons are "illegal" it removes our right to defend ourselves.
      And the illegalization of firearms is contrary to the second ammendment and therefore unconstitutional.

      The problem with the private sector is quality.
      I find that to be the problem with the public sector.

      Imagine if churches were private sector and paid for by corperations via sponserships.
      They are private sector. The government can't run churches. They're private NPOs.

      Theres some things that the private sector can never be good at, Kids arent livestock but the private sector will treat them like livestock because the only thing the private sector
      cares about is profit.

      Public schools treat them more like livestock than any private afterschool care I've ever heard of. My grandmother and great aunt work for a church-run afterschool care program for elementary school students. They take no money from the government and are funded solely by private donations (and what they charge the parents, which isn't a hell of a lot). Why do they do it? They love kids and want kids to have a safe place to be where they'll be taught good values.

      Alot of people do need healthcare,
      I agree. Everyone needs healthcare.

      consider the fact that people are losing their jobs and without a job how do you go to the hospital when sick?
      It's called health insurance. Trusting your job to provide it is stupid. Actually, trusting your job to provide any insurance is stupid because they can fire you and fuck you over. Buy your own; it's not that expensive.

      College doesnt provide it, you have to pay for it.
      I pay no more tution if I'm sick or healthy. I'm sure it factors in, but they provide it as a service to every student.

      Once upon a time, there was a great depression, the economy was shit, how did our government solve it?
      I believe the answer we're looking for here is World War II. We got involved, kicked up production, and revitalized the economy.

      Social Security, and other programs which gave workers confidence. By providing a safety net workers were more willing to go to work, knowing they will be protected when they retire.
      Riiiiight. They didn't work until we went to war and the military started spending enough money to win it. If people are unwilling to go to work, that's their problem. I'm not paying for them to be lazy with the excuse of distrust.

      You just dont understand. People dont become doctors for the money, so private doctors have no more incentive to be a good doctor than public doctors. If your reason for becoming a doctor was to help people, you'd be motivated to be the best at doing this because you want to be as efficient as possible at helping and curing people. Doctors, Teachers, Firemen, Police, these jobs shouldnt pay alot of money, it should pay enough money for them to get by, doctors make plenty of money.
      You can help people in lots of ways. Doctors choose to be doctors instead of teachers for a reason. One of those reasons is money. I agree that they shouldn't be paid a lot, but they should be paid enough for them to live comfortably, not just to get by. People who do a valuable service to society should be compensated accordingly.

      Paying teachers more money wont make them care about what they are doing.
      No, but when a person cares about teaching kids but also cares about providing for their own kids, they'll more likely choose the latter. I'm not saying to make them rich, but just to

    10. Re:Taxes help the country. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1


      "We have lots of things for kids these days.. Parks.

      People sell drugs in parks, shoot each other in parks, rob people, and do other crazy and stupid shit. So you cant be serious when you tell me you want kids to hang out in parks, what park? Central Park? Theres no safety in a park, not in any city. Drug dealers sell drugs in parks, drug users do drugs in parks, thieves and other criminals live or hang out in parks.

      Public pools Maybe there are public pools, but not many of them, and they arent exactly free.

      while libraries may not be cool, they do usually have the internet

      Yes libraries are a good option, much better option than the park, little kids get kidnapped from parks, older kids get introduced to drugs and crime in parks.

      Personally, I'd rather be seen in a library than a computer cafe as far as the geek factor goes.

      Kids want to play games, Libraries are strict about not allowing quake, we want kids to actually GO to these hang outs, alot of kids dont want to do WORK on the internet, they want to PLAY on the internet, and I'd rather kids play online playing quake, than outside in the real world acting stupid.

      There are often local clubs for chess, foreign languages, and even stuff like computers and astronomy for even young children.

      Why do you assume everyone is as smart as you? Alot of kids arent a genius, alot of them dont like games like chess, they dont want to go to school after coming home from school, these kids want to do something exciting, you know, they want to play, not work. Stop thinking like an adult for a moment and try to think like a kid, reduce your maturity level a bit and tell me if you'd have fun learning foreign languages, doing your homework on the internet, and learning astronomy, if you had fun doing this stuff as a kid you werent an average kid, you were a nerd. Nerds stay out of trouble by nature.

      All of these places I've mentioned are in my own little area which is out in the middle of no where NC

      You live in NC where parks are still safe places for kids to go, Go to New York and or LA, and hang out at the park, not only do you have to worry about kidnappers, you have to worry about drug dealers selling drugs to your kids, you have to worry about your kids being robbed, raped, etc.
      The chess club? The average kid doesnt even play a game like chess, the average kid wants to play Quake, watch MTV, and seek excitement. You arent going to keep kids out of trouble by putting them to sleep in the chess club.

      The fact is, you can have ALL the after school programs you want, but you can't force kids to go to them.

      These same kids who you say dont go to Afterschool programs, they sure go to parties, clubs, raves, etc, they sure know how to get access to drugs, they even sell drugs, you seem like you dont know anything about how our youth has changed.

      Better role models are required at home, in school, and law enforcement can play a big role in this.

      Law Enforcement? Law Enforcement are not role models, most youth, they dont like cops, they dont look up to cops, some of them even hate cops. Parents? Not everyone has perfect parents, just because you did doesnt mean every single kid in this country does.

      My point is, you can almost always find free or charity funded programs out there

      Yes theres some programs out there but they are under funded. Am I the only one who notices that kids are joining gangs, selling drugs, robbing people, using drugs, getting pregnant, getting raped, raping others, shooting and killing people etc? Am I blind?

      If these things are happening, it means we need to put more government funds into protecting our children.

      It's the parents' or the kid's fault for not going there.

      Its societies fault, the parent can only do so much, a parents job is to provide food, a place to live, and a proper education to their kid, its n

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    11. Re:Taxes help the country. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

      Here you go assuming alot of things.
      I didn't assume anything. If you spent 24hrs a day 7 days a week 52.X weeks a year researching, you couldn't get all the information to inform yourself enough to vote on everything. Also, if everyone can't vote it isn't democracy, and if everyone isn't qualified, democracy doesn't work.

      Did you know stunguns and bullet proof vests are illegal in certain states? When certain weapons are "illegal" it removes our right to defend ourselves.
      And the illegalization of firearms is contrary to the second ammendment and therefore unconstitutional.

      The problem with the private sector is quality.
      I find that to be the problem with the public sector.

      Imagine if churches were private sector and paid for by corperations via sponserships.
      They are private sector. The government can't run churches. They're private NPOs.

      Theres some things that the private sector can never be good at, Kids arent livestock but the private sector will treat them like livestock because the only thing the private sector
      cares about is profit.
      Public schools treat them more like livestock than any private afterschool care I've ever heard of. My grandmother and great aunt work for a church-run afterschool care program for elementary school students. They take no money from the government and are funded solely by private donations (and what they charge the parents, which isn't a hell of a lot). Why do they do it? They love kids and want kids to have a safe place to be where they'll be taught good values.

      Alot of people do need healthcare,
      I agree. Everyone needs healthcare.

      consider the fact that people are losing their jobs and without a job how do you go to the hospital when sick?
      It's called health insurance. Trusting your job to provide it is stupid. Actually, trusting your job to provide any insurance is stupid because they can fire you and fuck you over. Buy your own; it's not that expensive.

      College doesnt provide it, you have to pay for it.
      I pay no more tution if I'm sick or healthy. I'm sure it factors in, but they provide it as a service to every student.

      Once upon a time, there was a great depression, the economy was shit, how did our government solve it?
      I believe the answer we're looking for here is World War II. We got involved, kicked up production, and revitalized the economy.

      Social Security, and other programs which gave workers confidence. By providing a safety net workers were more willing to go to work, knowing they will be protected when they retire.
      Riiiiight. They didn't work until we went to war and the military started spending enough money to win it. If people are unwilling to go to work, that's their problem. I'm not paying for them to be lazy with the excuse of distrust.

      You just dont understand. People dont become doctors for the money, so private doctors have no more incentive to be a good doctor than public doctors. If your reason for becoming a doctor was to help people, you'd be motivated to be the best at doing this because you want to be as efficient as possible at helping and curing people. Doctors, Teachers, Firemen, Police, these jobs shouldnt pay alot of money, it should pay enough money for them to get by, doctors make plenty of money.
      You can help people in lots of ways. Doctors choose to be doctors instead of teachers for a reason. One of those reasons is money. I agree that they shouldn't be paid a lot, but they should be paid enough for them to live comfortably, not just to get by. People who do a valuable service to society should be compensated accordingly.

      Paying teachers more money wont make them care about what they are doing.
      No, but when a person cares about teaching kids but also cares about providing for their own kids, they'll more likely choose the latter. I'm not saying to make them rich, but just to pay them in proportion to the service they provide.

      We should provide teachers with job security, meaning it shouldnt be easy to fire the

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    12. Re:Taxes help the country. by GenSolo · · Score: 1

      The problem with private afterschool programs, people who have less money get lower quality. This is unfair, also kids need to know diversity, why would you want your kid to only know other rich kids?
      I disagree. A privately funded Non-Profit Organization (churches, etc.) can provide exactly what you want without the government involved. Kids get quality afterschool care by people who volunteer to help them and they get whatever diversity is available in the area.

      Jail doesnt Rehabilitate, if you put a child in jail, after they get raped, bullied every day, and are forced to become a monster, do you think they will come out better?
      I never said it did. You asked me what my solution was, and I said to rehabilitate juveniles. That's my solution. Juveniles do NOT go to jail. Juveniles go to a juvenile detention center aimed at rehabilitation. Everything you said after that seems to me to be derived from misunderstanding my statement. I don't want kids put in jail. I want kids rehabilitated. I want adults put in jail so they don't put a bad influence on kids and so that they don't hurt kids. If a kid grows up to be a criminal, it's his own fault for choosing to be a criminal. He can go to jail as an adult just like a criminal who came out of a good neighborhood

    13. Re:Taxes help the country. by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      I'm off to bed, but I just wanted to rant.. YOU mentioned chess first, not me. That's why I mentioned the chess club etc.. I was just saying if that was your thing..

      I do live in NC right now and I was naming off some places, but I've lived in other areas with fine parks.. No not NYC or LA, but still.. Anyway if the parks are that bad (and I know places like central park are) I would say more cops could help, otherwise it's out.. Fact is though every day many many people go to central park and such without any problem.. You say that it's bad because people sell drugs in parks.. Well.. In NYC you can get drugs on about every corner, when you walk out of a youth group the dealers will be happy to tempt you. You cannot get rid of this element, it was started long before we were born.. With roots being in places we've never been to.

      You kindof contridict yourself though, I was just pointing out that what you want is already out there.. I never said that all kids have to be geeks or athletes (I consider myself both, including some other things thrown in).. I was only saying what you want can be pretty much found already, and I don't agree that a whole community is responsible for raising children. It's my personal opinion that if you have time to have kids, you should have time to take care of them. Of course I know what you're going to respond to that though so don't bother.. My only question is.. How will you get kids to go to your community centers instead of parties? I've never been much of a party guy myself.. but the ones I've been too were fun for most people, usually plenty of alcohol and sex.. and in America.. You'll be hard pressed to find someone that doesn't love those things =P

      You tell me to have compassion, but you should know from my other posts that it's not that I don't have compassion.. It's just that I enjoy playing devil's advocate and finding holes.. finding motives.. better understanding the opinions..

      Just the thing I had a problem with, was that.. You're saying the people that would go to these groups or whatever are kids that:

      1. Go to parties and raves instead
      2. Buy and sell drugs
      3. Hate cops (authority)

      I'm NOT THAT OLD, I'm a college freshman straight out of HS.. Society hasn't changed that much, I know how it is.. My point wasn't that kids and families are just like leave it to beaver and only 2 or 3 kids are bad and we can deal with them.. No no.. My point is only I don't see people going to the youth group that couldn't already find something else to do.. I'm sure some people want a way out, but those people are going to need more than Hanzo's Local Youth Group opening up in their city.

    14. Re:Taxes help the country. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

      "I disagree. A privately funded Non-Profit Organization (churches, etc.) can provide exactly what you want without the government involved. Kids get quality afterschool care by people who volunteer to help them and they get whatever diversity is available in the area."


      Ok ill take you up on this bet. Would a Church in South Central or Harlem New York have as much money in donations as a Church in Boston, New York City, or Suburban Silicon Valley Cali?

      Your method still wouldnt solve the problem that poor people dont have as much money to donate as rich people do, and rich people will only donate to things in their own Area.

      I never said it did. You asked me what my solution was, and I said to rehabilitate juveniles. That's my solution. Juveniles do NOT go to jail. Juveniles go to a juvenile detention center aimed at rehabilitation.

      Kiddie Jail is even worse than real Jail because alot of people assume that there isnt alot of bad people there. I suggest you talk to some people who went to these jails, alot of them got raped, bullied, etc and are very disturbed people.

      You say a kid chooses to be a criminal, but alot of kids simply make bad choices which lead them into the criminal life. If you get bullied enough you might join a gang, and that gang might start selling drugs and suddenly you are a criminal.

      You see, I consider myself lucky, I didnt have access to guns due to the gun control laws, my schools had metal detectors, I couldnt get a weapon if I wanted to, but alot of kids have parents who just leave a shotgun on the table, you know a kid whos getting bullied constantly in school is going to think about using that shotgun.

      It doesnt make the kid bad or evil, its just a kid who cannot handle the world they are living in, perhaps we need to give kids more options to choose from.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    15. Re:Taxes help the country. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1


      Thats exactly my point, Kids living in New York and other big Cities need help. The reason crime and drugs are so popular in places like this is because kids have no supervision.

      In NYC you can get drugs on about every corner, when you walk out of a youth group the dealers will be happy to tempt you.

      Yes but with good Adult role models and other options availible to you, the average person will decline those offers. But hey if when you go out your house and thats all there is, nothing but the underworld on every corner and theres nothing positive around you, its alot harder.

      "How will you get kids to go to your community centers instead of parties?"

      You design community centers to be as fun as parties, minus the alcohol and drugs. Give the kids what they want so they wont have a reason to party, if the kids want a skate park build an indoor skatepark in the after school center, if they want TV, give them a nice huge screen TV to watch their favorite movies. Give kids access to things kids like and they wont have reasons to go to parties seeking excitement. There are safe ways to bring excitement to kids without drugs being involved, why cant an Adult look at MTV, theres no druggies on MTV, but everyone is having fun, kids want fun with a bit of risk, you can give them extreme sports like skateboarding/blading etc, you can give them video games, you can give them all these great options which dont involve drugs, and you can leave the door open so they can leave so the choice is all theirs.

      No one forces the kids to go it these centers, these centers have to make kids want to hang out there by doing their research.

      This is why we need government money, for the R&D, for the research, and for the actual building of the center. This is a program which would require billions of dollars, clubs, stores, and casinos all spend billions of dollars figuring out what Adults want, the Bar is designed to be the perfect hangout for Adults, pool table, a few video games, drinks, posters of women on the wall, tv with sports playing, some gambling, this is what an Adult wants and alot of R&D along with marketing has made it cool to hang out in places like these.

      Kids need their own drug fee clubs, they need parties which are supervised but Adults should give them they freedom they need. Why cant we build a dancefloor designed for teenagers, put all the adult features into it, minus the alcohol and drugs.

      "I'm sure some people want a way out, but those people are going to need more than Hanzo's Local Youth Group opening up in their city."


      You have to start somewhere. Currently alot of places dont have any youth center, they have nothing. The places which do have youth centers dont spend enough money on them, or they design them as an afterschool instead of a hangout.

      Youth Centers are the first step, the second step is to provide saftey in school from bullies. When kids get bullied in school they are more likely to join gangs. We should expell kids who bully other kids and put these bullies into a school with other bullies like them. This would solve the problem to some extent or at least it would break the problem down in an attempt to solving it, then we can focus on helping these bullies fix their own mental problems which causes them to be a bully.

      I find it hard to understand or believe why if a kid has ADD or ADHD(whatever we call this now), that these kids get put into special classes or special schools, and get put on all these drugs, they great treated like somethings wrong with them, while bullies on the other hand we just ignore them, we dont seperate them from the general population, we just let them bully our kids and when our kids go to the teacher we do nothing about it?

      It doesnt make any sense, bullies should be seperated from the regular students. If we can seperate people with ADHD, why are we so kind to bullies who are FAR worse?

      Bullies should be spotted in first-fifth grade, then put i

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    16. Re:Taxes help the country. by GenSolo · · Score: 1

      Your method still wouldnt solve the problem that poor people dont have as much money to donate as rich people do, and rich people will only donate to things in their own Area.
      It doesn't take that much if you have volunteers to staff the place. Also, I wouldn't be opposed to the government having grants for NPOs who offer this type of service so that poorer areas can get funding based on need.

      Kiddie Jail is even worse than real Jail because alot of people assume that there isnt alot of bad people there.
      Again you miss my point. You asked for my solution which is to rehabilitate juveniles. If the current facilities don't do this, they need to be changed along with the adult facilities. Sure there are terrible people there, but the facilities can be managed to keep them away from others. I propose to teach the kids why what they did was wrong, and to educate them so that they can come out as productive members of society.

      You say a kid chooses to be a criminal,
      No, I said a kid grows up to be an adult who chooses to be a criminal. The kids often don't know any better, but once they become adults they're supposed to be able to think for themselves. This is why they can vote afterall.

      you know a kid whos getting bullied constantly in school is going to think about using that shotgun.
      Can you blame him?

      It doesnt make the kid bad or evil, its just a kid who cannot handle the world they are living in, perhaps we need to give kids more options to choose from.
      Agreed. I just think those options need to come from someone other than Uncle Sam.

      Also, I forgot to respond to this last night, but you made a comment about companies only caring about profits. Not all companies are corporations, not all corporations are publicly traded corproations, and only publicly traded corporations have to worry about keeping shareholders happy through widening profit margins. I do realize that any for-profit business is out to make money, but many of them exist to provide a service, and to make enough money for the proprieter to get by. Not everyone who owns/runs a business is evil and greedy, just far too many of them.

    17. Re:Taxes help the country. by GenSolo · · Score: 1

      You live in NC where parks are still safe places for kids to go, Go to New York and or LA, and hang out at the park, not only do you have to worry about kidnappers, you have to worry about drug dealers selling drugs to your kids, you have to worry about your kids being robbed, raped, etc.
      If you don't like your kids growing up in New York or LA, move. Also, I wouldn't have to worry about kidnappers, drug dealers, robbers, and rapists because by the teenage years, the kid would be carrying a gun in a place like that, know damn well how to use it, and know damn well when to use it.

      Law Enforcement? Law Enforcement are not role models, most youth, they dont like cops, they dont look up to cops, some of them even hate cops. Parents? Not everyone has perfect parents, just because you did doesnt mean every single kid in this country does.
      He never said that. He said that better role models are required. People have to take responsibility and be role models for their children. You don't have to be there 24/7 to set a good example when you're at home. Parents doing drugs and getting drunk off their ass every night don't help this situation at all.

      Yes theres some programs out there but they are under funded. Am I the only one who notices that kids are joining gangs, selling drugs, robbing people, using drugs, getting pregnant, getting raped, raping others, shooting and killing people etc? Am I blind?
      You're not blind. Nobody ever said you were even wrong about your observation. You just take every proposed solution as a misobservation of the current state of things. Also, I'd like to know what you suggest for a non-athletic non-geeky person to do with their afternoon at a government sponsored center that would give them a reason to do so instead of going to get stoned at a party

    18. Re:Taxes help the country. by GenSolo · · Score: 1

      The reason crime and drugs are so popular in places like this is because kids have no supervision.
      No, the reason drugs are so popular anywhere in this country is because we allow them to get into this country. If you want to win the war on drugs, you have to keep the drugs out. This means the Cost Guard has to be strengthened to prevent shipments. This means the borders have to be secured to prevent overground smuggling. This means dealers and providers need to be punished (see previous posts on deterring crime) but also that they have to be kept from continuing their drug dealing in prison.

      You design community centers to be as fun as parties, minus the alcohol and drugs. Give the kids what they want so they wont have a reason to party,
      A lot of these kids go to parties for the sole purpose of getting drunk and high. Maybe it's you who overestimates our youth.

      Kids need their own drug fee clubs, they need parties which are supervised but Adults should give them they freedom they need.
      Exactly! But, why should a club be run by the government? Adult clubs are all for-profit organizations run by private individuals or companies. Why can't kids clubs do the same thing? They'd make money if they could get the kids in there!

      We should expell kids who bully other kids and put these bullies into a school with other bullies like them. This would solve the problem to some extent or at least it would break the problem down in an attempt to solving it, then we can focus on helping these bullies fix their own mental problems which causes them to be a bully.
      Or, we could stick with what's always worked with bullies. If a bully starts shit with you, punch him as hard as you can in the face. or If you prefer nonviolence, go to a teacher and have them explain to him that if he touches you again, you'll have him arrested for assault and battery. Most bullies are nonconfrontational. They don't want to fight, they want to feel powerful. If you stand up to them, they'll leave you alone. It does work.

      If we can seperate people with ADHD, why are we so kind to bullies who are FAR worse?
      <RANT>ADHD is bullshit. All the "symptoms" of ADHD are really just "symptoms" of being a kid. Kids don't focus. Kids don't pay attention. Kids get energetic and like to move around. The answer isn't drugs, the answer is learning to teach without being so damned boring. ADHD kids aren't disruptive. ADHD kids don't cause problems. Sometimes they don't do their homework, but that's usually because the homework was bullshit to start with.</RANT>
      Bullies on the other hand need to learn to function in society and as such can't just be plucked out of society. They need consequences for their actions. However, I do agree that if they refuse to stop their menacing, we should send them to a "special" school where they can either learn to behave or learn to do road work (because in "special" school, you don't advance in grades)

  132. [OT] From the Article - My Medical Info Overseas ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indian radiologists now analyze CT scans and chest X-rays for American patients in an office park in Bangalore, not far from where Ernst & Young has 200 accountants processing U.S. tax returns.

    Now what want to know is WTF is my personal information doing overseas? Is this legal? If I use E&Y as my Tax Accountant, I should think they would provide full disclosure that my identity is going to be sent offshore. What if one of these offshore accountants decides to take a stack of folders and sell them for identity fraud? They would be outside of US jurisdiction for prosecution. I'm going to look into this further, this can't be correct.

  133. Theres more than just cars. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Why dont buy American made clothes, American made computers, American made oh wait I know why, because your salary isnt going up and American made costs American dollars.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  134. That's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I graduated as an EE two years ago and I was only able to grab an assistant job for an IT department for $33,000. You seem to forget "2 years ago" was right around September 11. College graduates were lucky to get $40,000 out of the gate.

  135. Re:Surely a programmer isn't considered white coll by jimbolaya · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Get started on that kick ass idea. One of the nice things about software development is that the cost of entry is actually quite low in most circumstances. Since you're posting here, you've obviously already got the computer. You don't need tremendous capital equipment, so get started. My advice would be to spend equal amounts of time working on your kick ass idea, job hunting, and a part time job.

    You can pitch a prototype of this kick-ass idea and try to get funding for it. Or, you can demo it to prospective employers as proof of your talents. Just make sure that if you do get a job offer, that you take actions to retain the rights to your idea. That's a slippery slope right there.

    --

    There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.

  136. Bullshit. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Food costs the same, Rent goes up, and you are without a job. How can your quality of life go up just because certain devices and toys you dont really need are cheaper? With no job or with a mc donalds job you'll be struggling to pay your rent.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Bullshit. by forii · · Score: 1
      Food costs the same


      Many food costs are higher than they would be otherwise because of artificial price supports. The same kind of price supports that many people here think are a good idea.


      Rent goes up, and you are without a job.


      Rent is extremely flexible. In any extended downturn rents will drop dramatically. So if you're out of a job but rents are going up, it means that there are lots of jobs, but you are just looking for the wrong ones.

  137. Thats exactly what I was saying. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1, Troll


    Everyone wants to blame everyone and everything but the President when its HIS job to solve this problem.

    He ignored the ecnoomy for 4 years, now our economy is absolute shit, its almost a great depression type situation here. Whats Bush going to do about it? Give tax cuts? Microsoft will use the extra money to hire more Indians, Thanks alot Mr. Bush for giving more jobs away using tax money.

    If the gov wants to create jobs they need to invest in R&D, and give tax cuts to small businesses who hire a certain percentage of American employees while raising the taxes of businesses who hire mostly overseas.

    Why should you give a taxcut to a sellout traitor business? If Microsoft wants to hire 70% Indian workers, they shouldnt get a tax cut, instead restrict tax cuts to companies who hire 90% American workers or above.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Thats exactly what I was saying. by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Actually the States are raising taxes and fees which will pretty much wipe out the federal tax cut so we'll neven be able to find out if the Bush tax cut will be effective or not.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    2. Re:Thats exactly what I was saying. by Pave+Low · · Score: 1
      He ignored the ecnoomy for 4 years,
      Umm..you realize that President Bush hasn't even been in office that long, right? He was sworn into office on January 20, 2001. Any nitwit spewing shit should at least know that much.

      But the moderators seem to be blind while modding all 'Bush is teh worst! posts.

      --
      SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
    3. Re:Thats exactly what I was saying. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      The hell you say?!

      Clinton wasn't the only one saying that the economy was in trouble. I seem to remember Greenspan talking about "irrational exuberance" beginning in 98.

      As for your conspiracy theories about the Hillary... why do you think she would be worse for democracy than GWB?! She would definately be better for civil liberties...

    4. Re:Thats exactly what I was saying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me, fucko, how many years did Bush ignore the economy for?

    5. Re:Thats exactly what I was saying. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      What does George Bush have to do with Democracy? Bush is not pro Democracy, he got put in through the supreme court, he has not passed any laws to give more people to the people, I dont see how hes pro democracy.

      His Anti Terrorism laws actually rob us of freedom.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    6. Re:Thats exactly what I was saying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucko, we know you're a fucking idiot. You don't need to prove it to us anymore.

  138. Only slightly exaggerated... by hprotagonist0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    By many accounts, we've never had it harder...

    Geez, it might not be wonderful right now, but it's not exaclty the Great Depression. Have any of your friends started jumping out of windows? Living in shantytowns? Try to keep just a little perspective.

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." --Voltaire
    1. Re:Only slightly exaggerated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were more people living in shanty towns in the US a decade ago than there were in the great depression. If you remove the shanty towns built near works sites (like the Hoover Dam site), there are far more people living in shanty towns now than ever before.

    2. Re:Only slightly exaggerated... by Savatte · · Score: 1

      were you alive during the great depression?

  139. Chicken Little strikes again... by eugene_t00ms · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that most people are speaking a little too soon. The economy rests on one key factor. The mindset of consumers.

    For the average American Worker/Consumer, it's business as usual these days. The guy on the national news talking about the falling stock markets and currency exchange rates doesn't mean a damn thing to Joe Blow the Car Mechanic. His car payment, house payment, medical bills, and trips to the grocery/electronics/warehouse/wholesale club/golf/porno store, and his requests for services on his car/house/computer/toaster/TV are what DRIVE the american economy. IT is one very small facet of a much larger system.

    If you look at the general situation that America is in, you might feel different about the future. A few points...

    A) America is now in position to guide (control) the development of the most oil-rich regions of the planet (Major Diplomatic/Military presence in Kazakhstan, Successful Invasion of Iraq, Veiled threats directed at Syria, Uprisings and Pro-American/Reform demonstrations in Iran)

    B) After consolidation of US control in the Middle-East, America's Economy will spring upward reminding all of a time circa 1996.

    C) Examine the resources, infrastructure, technological base, skilled labor pool, military power, research and development capabilities, and the sheer volume of money changing hands within the borders of the United States.

    and finally....

    D) Bush's Reign is finite...

    So in short, while things might appear to be quite bad right this moment because the euro's up on the dollar, it still doesn't take away from point C (see above)

    America's economy will continue to run in cycles for the forseeable future. So just pray this is the worst before it gets better.

    --
    Belief that Perspectives matter more than Facts = Mark of the Truly Ignorant
  140. Contrarian Indicator: New Boom Around the Corner! by sgt_sloth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Folks either have really short memories, or else it goes to show the young age of most Slashdot readers, but these same exact complaints about poor ol' unemployable white collar workers were being made in '93,'94 as the U.S. was coming out of another (mild) recession following (another) war with Iraq. The figure of the IBM executive whose COBOL programming skills are no longer valued and has to go to a C++ training class (now it would be Java, I guess) with pimply-faced teenagers has alredy appeared before in Douglas Coupland's "Microserfs" (published in '96, but written around '94/'95). Sure hope Mr. COBOL-programming IBM executive didn't hang himself as the economic misery increased in the late '90's :P . Now where's my day-trading account...

  141. Too bad you'll have to buy your house in China by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    I mean if you expect to have a place to live, sure if your dollar is worth alot you can buy toys, but people dont need toys to live, they need a house.

    So now what? Perhaps you can buy a house in China, Japan or some other country, have your family live there while you work in the USA? Is that it?

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Too bad you'll have to buy your house in China by guybarr · · Score: 1

      Aren't real-estate prices in the US dropping ?

      The way I see it, (most of the) people will always be able to obtain
      housing (to rent or buy), but they may lose on real-estate investments.

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    2. Re:Too bad you'll have to buy your house in China by pianophile · · Score: 1

      Aren't real-estate prices in the US dropping ?

      This the first time I've heard this. Man, I wish you were right. Do you have any links to back this up?

      --

      'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
    3. Re:Too bad you'll have to buy your house in China by Imperator · · Score: 1

      The value of the dollar has jack shit to do with the cost of housing in America. Construction materials are heavy: if they come from abroad, it's from Canada. The labor is also all paid in dollars of course. What really affects housing costs are interest rates, which are actually very low right now. That means more people can afford mortgages, and this is driving up the prices of housing.

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    4. Re:Too bad you'll have to buy your house in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. At least in New York city the real-estate prices have actually gone up. 1BDR apartment with approximately 1000 sq.ft was sold at $325K two years ago. Now, the same apartment is priced at $475K. A lot of people have pulled out their money from stocks and have been investing in real-estate instead. Although, indeed mortgage rates have fallen to 5.25%, prices for real-estate have gone up. So, I guess, there is no win-win situation for me...

    5. Re:Too bad you'll have to buy your house in China by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      hahahahahaha no they are RISING. Houses cost more now in MA than they ever had, rent and apartment prices for a studio are over $1000 a month, heres what will happen, people will either live with roomates, or they will move to China. I do not see the average person paying $2000 a month rent while they make $1500 a month.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    6. Re:Too bad you'll have to buy your house in China by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      Dude we arent even talking about housing, houses cost $300,000 on average, the average person who isnt a white colar worker cannot afford a house. I cannot afford a house, unless I'm making over $60,70k a year I wont be able to afford a house, PERIOD.

      We are talking about apartments, condos, and things such as this. The price on apartments ALWAYS go up and never go down, the price on condos are rising and not going down.

      Who cares about interest rates if the house costs $500,000? You can blame it on anything you want. Houses cost too much because we arent buildinng enough of them, the demand is too high for the supply.

      Apartments are too expensive because people want to actually profit off the land they own, they charge high prices for rent because the taxes to own the land are high, the solution for the apartment problem is lower taxes.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    7. Re:Too bad you'll have to buy your house in China by Imperator · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's because you're looking for housing in the middle of a city where it's expensive. Get further away where land prices are cheaper and you'll get cheaper housing.

      And yes, housing costs keep rising. It's called inflation. It happens to everything, even if temporary price drops obscure it.

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    8. Re:Too bad you'll have to buy your house in China by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      Uhh.. Dude.. I live not far from the city I work/shop/play in =p It's in NC, but I have 20 acres and a *new* house.. The land and house together were just under $100,000.. You just need to learn how to shop around buddy..

    9. Re:Too bad you'll have to buy your house in China by guybarr · · Score: 1

      This the first time I've heard this. Man, I wish you were right. Do you have any links to back this up?

      It was a question, not an assertion (though poorly stated).

      In my country - this is exactly what happens: public's buying power decreased, and with it real-estate prices.

      If this hasn't happend in the US, either the crisis is not very severe, or it's going to happen, or something else besides market-economy is at play.

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    10. Re:Too bad you'll have to buy your house in China by guybarr · · Score: 1

      no they are RISING. Houses cost more now in MA than they ever had, rent and apartment prices for a studio are over $1000 a month,

      OK, I accept the correction, but it doesn't make sense to me at all. How can the house-owners find tenants able to pay the same (average) rent?

      heres what will happen, people will either live with roomates, or they will move to China. I do not see the average person paying $2000 a month rent while they make $1500 a month.

      In the long-term, a large population sharing rent should have the effect of reducing rent; more appartments will remain empty; and an owner is better off with 75% rent than 0.

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
  142. Not dot-commers by dachshund · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I've noticed that lots of people who were highly paid during the dotcom boom are not recovering well, despite the existence of jobs

    This isn't just about dot-commers. They can generally land on their feet, or at least survive-- frequently they don't have families. The problem I've seen is that 50 yr. old, experienced engineers are being laid off left and right.

  143. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

    Feeding your family or hanging around "those types of people"?

    Yes, you do sound pompous.

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
  144. These companies should be taxed to death. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1


    We should tax the hell out of Microsoft and all these other companies who want to hire mostly overseas. Why the hell give them tax cuts? So we can create more jobs for the Indian economy?

    I'm not against tax cuts but we should give these tax cuts to businesses which hire 90% or above US workforce. Bush's tax cut should have been more targetted so it could combat Globalism.

    Who do I blame? George W Bush, because hes the only one with the power to fix this problem and all he is doing is making it worse by just blindly throwing money at the problem. You dont give Nike and Microsoft more money, I mean sure it creates jobs but where will these jobs be created? Not here, so hows it help our economy?

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  145. Dollar peg by dachshund · · Score: 1
    International inbalance in supply and demand is mostly solved through exchange rate fluctuations. When jobs and investment are move out of the US, the American exchange rate is drops.

    Problem is, many countries now peg their currencies to the dollar. This includes China, as well as a number of other export/labor-export nations. So when the US dollar drops in value, we don't get a damn bit of help when it comes to exports or salaries.

    Of course, if the US dollar really goes into free-fall, those nations might de-couple their currencies and go with something more reliable, like the Euro. Of course, there will be major economic consequences for the US should such a currency crash occur; consequences that could more than wipe out any advantage we get. Think about our government deficit for a second when you contemplate this.

  146. The good jobs are there... by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

    >The good jobs are gone.

    But are there a $30/hr jobs?

    $125/hr is just insane for some positions. Its not a "good job", its a "this can't last forever" job.

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
  147. Insightful???!! by Pave+Low · · Score: 0, Troll
    No surprise this comment makes it to the top with the help of the loony lefty moderators.

    Despite what you wackos still believe, the President WAS elected according to the Constitution.

    I'd also like to know what rights you had that were taken away after Bush's election. Remember kids, the evil DMCA was passed under Clinton's watch.

    Disproportionate tax cuts? Why not? Since they pay a disproportionate share of the taxes?

    Some servants we are, all these people from other countries are still coming in to be join us and be enslaved. You must know something the rest of the world doesn't.

    --
    SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
    1. Re:Insightful???!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No surprise this comment makes it to the top with the help of the loony lefty moderators.

      yup, that's it blame the left.

      > Despite what you wackos still believe, the President WAS elected according to the Constitution.

      and against the laws of Fl. hmmm.

      > I'd also like to know what rights you had that were taken away after Bush's election. Remember kids, the evil DMCA was passed under Clinton's watch.

      Yup. blame clinton. yer' on a roll now. Its probably a stretch, but I'm betting you didn't read (like those who made it law) any of the PatAct crap with a critical eye.

      > Disproportionate tax cuts? Why not? Since they pay a disproportionate share of the taxes?

      And reap a disprportionate amount of the benefits. My local mid-sized town is in the process of turning the 'ghetto' into a gulaq.

      > Some servants we are,

      But, you are a good one.

      >all these people from other countries

      'cept the ones we don't like (or those who don't look like us).

      > You must know something the rest of the world doesn't.

      You may want to look around (you know, besides what's on the TeeVee). The USA is pissing away whatever good will/opinion it once had.

    2. Re:Insightful???!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      clinton passing the dmca doesn't matter the dmca had soo much support in congress if he veto'd it it would have went back to congress and they would have pushed it though anyways with or without clinton

  148. No wait- it gets even better. by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

    Not only is your "friend" buying expensive cars, a new house, stereo, and "whatever",-

    He's also buying the latest and greatest weaponry in the world, and threatening anyone who tries to get close to his level of armaments!

  149. Oh boo-hoo by drix · · Score: 1

    By many accounts, we've never had it harder--the slump in the 80's primarily hit blue-collar workers.

    Then go get a blue collar job. The very fact that you have a computer, Internet access, and are a Slashdot reader probably places you somewhere north of the 95th percentile of material wealth in this world. Trust me--things could be much worse.

    --

    I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
  150. I saw this trend 3 years ago after graduation... by zerofoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I worked for an IT consulting firm during college. We actually went to the client and made sure their systems worked, secured them, and installed new systems. That was very "hands-on" work that could not be done by someone overseas (try having an IT guy in Bangalore replace a failed switch or router).

    During my last year in college I handed in most of my programming projects via e-mail. That made me realize that I (or some other low-paid code monkey) could do my job from anywhere on the planet. Any good or service that can travel a wire can easily be "offshored" or outsourced.

    After college I got a job as a network administrator for a school. Sure, I was earning 20k/yr less than my "programming friends" but I knew I had a job that could not easily be replaced. If you are looking for job security, get one that REQUIRES client contact. That makes you much harder to replace.

    -ted

  151. Re:Fuck white collars by dentar · · Score: 0

    Dude, if I had mod points I'd mod you down.

    It ain't the white collar workers who are screwing the working class, because white collar workers ARE the working class. It's the C[ETIF]Os and accountants that are doing the screwing.

    --
    -- I am. Therefore, I think!
  152. These are companies, money is the bottom line. by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

    >people who interview candidates are not allowed to ask them about their legal status

    But they can make a great guess from what information their resume/employement history.

    >Hence there is pretty little room to hire "for cheap", you just hire the best. Period.

    Um. For many many companies "best" involves the person's going rate. If you had two equal people for a job and one was double the rate of the other, which one would you hire?

    For a CEO/HR person, which is the "best" person?

    There is no "Period" here. There is a subjective review of a person on a huge number of issues. The "best" person, how ever you define it, does not always get hired.

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
  153. Re:OK. Enuff worrying. Let us look at some solutio by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 1

    (2) Work in Defense. If you are writing software for the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, administering the UNIX cluster at the local Air Force Base or cranking out Code for the F-22 at Boeing/Lockheed Martin, rest assured, your job isn't going to be outsourced to a shop in Bangalore - even if they promise to do it for free!

    Nope. My former employer has/had lots of defense customers and they aren't buying squat either. I'm not sure whats going on. I'm guessing that there's been no big pickup in defense orders and the civilian sections of those companies are getting hammered from the mess the airline industry is in (terrorism, SARS hype).

  154. don't you have clearance?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh. My. God. Dude, you were just in the military? DID YOU GET CLEARANCE? Employers are SALAVATING for people with clearance. Seriously. You have no idea. It's like 1999 all over again if you have secret clearance.

    GET TO NORTHERN VIRGINIA POST HASTE! Or maybe San Diego. Or hell, maybe your old base. A long-term career with a big defense/homeland security contractor awaits!

  155. A challenge and questions for all /.ers by Bull999999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. Many of you are complaining that you are putting in 60+ hours at work for low pay. May of you also have ideas on how a business should be run. Why not combine your willingness to put in great number of hours and great business ideas and run your own business?

    2. We as consumers put mom and pop stores out of business because it is cheaper to shop at Wal-Mart, Costco, etc. Then why are we suprised that businesses are laying people off for cheaper labor overseas?

    3. If we tax the shit out of businesses, won't they encourage them to cut costs by laying more people off?

    4. For people who invest, do you not invest with hope that you'll make money off of your investment? Since share holders elect board members who in turn hires CEOs, why are you suprised when CEOs act in the interests of the shareholds?

    --
    1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    1. Re:A challenge and questions for all /.ers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all good ideas...

      in the many People's Republics (state/counties run by tax-and-spend liberals), the self-employed are taxed out of business... for example, in Northern Virginia in the People's Republic of Arlington, not only are self-employed tech workers forced to pay taxes on business property (and repeatedly so for 100-percent depreciated items such as computers), but also for items such as hard drives, computer monitors and so on, which are deemed 'programmable devices'...

      and to add insult to injury, one is also taxed on one's TYPE of business!

      if you run a landscaping business using gasoline mowers, weed-whackers, and pickup trucks with trailers which pollute the air, foul the streets with oil, and add to the Chesapeake Bay drainage pollution, you only pay $0.27 per hundred dollars gross (over $100,000) county tax...

      on the other hand, if you are a high-tech SEP working out of the house using broadband access, low-energy devices, etc., don't drive a car, directly add to local pollution, etc., you pay nearly TWICE as much tax ($0.57 per $100 gross over $100,000 annual earnings) on your earnings...

      the net effect? a redistribution of wealth system penalizing higher-wage income earners, with the aim of inducement to earn lower incomes...

      and that's one rease why people cheat on tax filings... besides, the money will just go (at least in this country) to ESL programs and bigger county administrative staffs...

      and don't get me started on the local real-estate assessment schemes designed to wring additional monies out of hard-working folks...

    2. Re:A challenge and questions for all /.ers by micron · · Score: 1

      "3. If we tax the shit out of businesses, won't they encourage them to cut costs by laying more people off?" .. and go overseas to avoid the taxes and take advantage of cheaper labor

    3. Re:A challenge and questions for all /.ers by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Many of you are complaining that you are putting in 60+ hours at work for low pay. May of you also have ideas on how a business should be run. Why not combine your willingness to put in great number of hours and great business ideas and run your own business?

      I have tried this multiple times without success. The problem is that Marketing Marketing Marketing is the key. If I was a good marketer to begin with, I wouldn't be in this mess.

      I wish schools taught the fine art of bullshitting and shmoozing. Instead they look down upon such courses, thinking something like Calculus is the savior. They are out-of-touch dolts. Brains are becomming a cheap commodity. Marketing is not because it requires personal contact and knowledge of local culture.

    4. Re:A challenge and questions for all /.ers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      correction: the first paragraph should be in italics.

    5. Re:A challenge and questions for all /.ers by AtariEric · · Score: 1

      1. I don't have the capital; and I can't get the capital because the only people with enough capital are the people I'd be competing against.

      2. Eh, true enough. I try to shop at mom&pop stores when I can.

      3. The Ultimate problem with U.S. business is that each company is an "artifical person" with all the rights of a person, but none of the penalties, i.e. being mortal, etc. This gives them too loose of a leash to run wild all over anything they wish.

      4. I invest with hopes that the company won't screw up my country and my society in order to make a profit. Needless to say, I own few shares - not because I can't afford them, but because I can't find many companies that satisfy my ethical requirements.

      --
      Don't trust any concentration of power.
  156. Welcome to the Global Economy.-Flat spot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey! But at least there's a bright spot. "There is an upside to offshoring. As companies increase profits and become more competitive, they are likely to reinvest in other areas--and that could mean new jobs back in the States. E&Y's Kline insists that his firm has actually hired more higher-paid execs in the U.S. to supervise the new accountants in India. "As we grow the business, we need more midlevel people," he says." We get more higher-paid executives. Now what economy doesn't need more of those? :('

  157. You miss the point by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1
    I don't say that they get more of a tax benefit. But, I am saying that they still have a tax benefit.

    This sounds like my aunt, take out a home loan so I can get a tax deduction.

  158. Snake oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we need is more snake oil salesmen.

    A New Economy!

    Ridiculous market valuations!

    Sales of very expensive products where only 20% work!

    This is a major hangover folks. We had a serious trash-the-house party, drank way too much.

    Derek

  159. Sorry if this sounds cynical, but... by YllabianBitPipe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having lived the tale so to speak (I'm in the Bay Area, worked for startups and corporations, through boom times and now slacksville):

    We as workers need to adapt. Get used to the idea that you will likely not have your job for a lifetime, let alone five years. Get used to the idea that you will not have a sustainable career, either. You might have to totally change gears every ten years, and get into something related but completely different. The days of job security are over. Companies simply don't give a shit about their workers. Many of the benefits enjoyed by previous generations like pensions and unions are now gone, thanks to the largely empty promises of stock options and equity in the company. Yeah, when times are good, those things can be worth something but the people running the companies always gave themselves more anyways. The disparity between the execs and the workers is shocking to behold. And they will ship your job to whatever country is cheaper so they can save a dime. They don't give a crap about us. That's life, that's business, and it sucks, but we gotta eat, so every day I suck it up and go to work but in the back of my head I'm preparing an exit strategy ... just in case.

    It sounds harsh, but we all gotta do it. No matter what job you have, no matter how secure you think it is, you gotta pay off your debts, get six months of expenses saved up, and just imagine "what if"... because I've already lived through a layoff where you go to work one day and the next day your out on your ass, a security guard watching you pack up your cube. And you have to learn from this.

    I'm saying, in addition to thinking about what you'd do if you lose your job, we all have to think about what else we can do as a career. The reason why recessions are so hard on people is because they think whatever they did at their last job is all they can do. We all have got to come up with other careers to fall back on just in case.

  160. I remember way back when I had a job.-No you don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was watching a story on the building of Boulder Dam. Back in the day (Great Depression era) people made about $5.00/Hr and companies didn't give a shit what happened to you because they could replace you with another $5.00 person. A lot of workers died from carbon monoxide poisoning (which the six companies knew about) during the building of the diversionary tunnels. The environment was a fucking desert. Safety guards on moving machinery? OSHA? Forget that. Companies take advantage of their workers, then and now, and will continue to do so in the future. The only difference is that some white-collar worker will never get chewed up in a tape drive, maimed for life with no recourse. And no worker LIKED IT, but when faced with the line between life and death we all know which side will be picked.

  161. Globalization by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

    What will happen to the "magic bullet" of offshoring when the Indian programmers realize they are being paid half of what the American programmers are? Moving resources into another country will only go on so long as it's profitable; sooner or later there will be a break-even point, it will no longer be advantageous to do so, and the jobs will stay in America.

    1. Re:Globalization by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
      Easy. The employers then move to China, Africa, and Russia. Its already happening.

      India is literally viewed as expensive! I read it here on slashdot a month ago.

      $200 a month is what a Russian or Euthopian is worth and an Indian is now worth about $1200 a month while an American is worth $2000 a month.

      Its a no brainer. Globalization sucks and it only benefits the top %2 of the wealthies Americans. Its really hurting our overall economy but making the campain contributers rich.

    2. Re:Globalization by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      So the Chinese, Africans and Russians raise their price... Once the cost of switching countries is no longer a barrier to doing so, the prices will equalize everywhere. Unfortunately for us unemployed folks, this will take decades.

  162. Does capitalism suck? by pdjohe · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but what I get out of the article is that capitalism sucks. Companies are going to other countries where work is cheaper and therefore more profitable for them. That takes American jobs away.

    A quote from the article:
    6.1%, the unemployment rate is still well below the 7.4% it averaged in the 1980s and early '90s. The stock market has gained 13% since January, while corporate profits are up 15% from last year's levels. And for all the talk of double dips and deflation, the economy is growing--by 1.9% in the first quarter, according to just-released government numbers.

    It makes it sound like the American economy isn't that bad. I think it's simply about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer - in so much that those who have Master's degress and Bachelor's degress can fall on the 'poor' side and continue to go poorer.

    1. Re:Does capitalism suck? by Courageous · · Score: 1

      I think it's simply about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer ...
      ----
      The poor are not getting poorer. That's a myth. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer.

      Source: THE US CENSUS.

      C//

    2. Re:Does capitalism suck? by NineNine · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but what I get out of the article is that capitalism sucks. Companies are going to other countries where work is cheaper and therefore more profitable for them. That takes American jobs away.

      Capitalism sucks because the US is losing jobs? That makes no fucking sense. That's like saying that Ford cars suck because I don't like red cars. Completely irrelevant.

  163. Vote Republican ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    H-1B PRESS RELEASE
    STATEMENT BY GOVERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH ON
    THE CLINTON-GORE ADMINISTRATION'S REFUSAL
    TO RAISE THE H1-B IMMIGRANT VISA CAP
    "America has the best industries in the world. And that means we need the best workers
    in the world. By failing to support legislation to increase the number of highly-skilled,
    highly-trained immigrants, the Clinton-Gore administration is standing in the way of
    continued economic growth.
    "I urge the administration to unequivocally support bipartisan efforts in Congress to raise
    the number of highly-skilled, highly-trained immigrants who can enter the country each
    year. By increasing the number of these H1-B Visas, we can increase the chances that
    our economy will continue to grow.
    "Still, H1-B visas are a short term solution to a long term problem. As America's need
    for highly-trained specialists continues to grow, the solution will be better education. I
    have laid out an agenda based on the types of education reforms we passed in Texas,
    placing a renewed emphasis on science and technology training.
    "I urge the Clinton-Gore administration to put the public's interests ahead of union
    bosses and special interests who oppose legal immigration. Let's raise our sights. And
    let's raise the number of H1-B Visas."

  164. US has progressive taxation now by Helevius · · Score: 1
    The United States already has progressive taxation:

    "According to preliminary data released by the Internal Revenue Service and a new Tax Foundation Special Report, the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers earned more than two-thirds of the nation's income (67.3%) and paid more than five out of every six dollars collected by the federal income tax (84%) in 2000. There were 32 million tax returns in the top 25 percent, all with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) over $55,225.

    The top one percent of U.S. taxpayers (annual income over $313,469) made 20.8 percent of the income earned in 2000 and paid 37.4 percent of the total federal individual income taxes collected that year. This fraction of the tax burden paid by the top one percent - well over a third of the total - is up from 25.1 percent ten years earlier in tax year 1990.

    At the other end of the income spectrum, the bottom 50 percent of the nation's taxpayers earned only 13.0 percent of all income in 2000, but they paid an even smaller fraction of the federal individual income taxes collected - 3.9 percent."

    Here are the latest tax rates just signed into law.

    If you like Sweden's system, don't bother living in the US!

    Helevius

    1. Re:US has progressive taxation now by js7a · · Score: 1
      The top one percent of U.S. taxpayers (annual income over $313,469) made 20.8 percent of the income earned in 2000 and paid 37.4 percent of the total federal individual income taxes collected that year. This fraction of the tax burden paid by the top one percent - well over a third of the total - is up from 25.1 percent ten years earlier in tax year 1990.

      That analysis completely ignores corporate income taxes.

    2. Re:US has progressive taxation now by Helevius · · Score: 1
      Corporate income is taxed by the federal government, and then dividends paid by corporations to shareholders are taxed again. How does double taxation of that sort support your argument?

      Helevius

    3. Re:US has progressive taxation now by js7a · · Score: 1
      Corporate income is taxed by the federal government, and then dividends paid by corporations to shareholders are taxed again. How does double taxation of that sort support your argument?

      Funny you should ask.

  165. Solution? Try a different career...Handicapped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "All those jobs you mention are good for people who are good with their hands. I have no coordination or strength lol."

    You know all this ADVICE, doesn't take into account the handicapped unemployed. For them a white-collar job is a much better fit. Hey we can help carry your lumber on our wheelchairs. Be right there to fix your leaky roof. Someone give me a boost.

  166. Obvious reason why this is disagreeable to many by YllabianBitPipe · · Score: 1

    Say you went to college to get a degree in Computer Science, went $50K in debt via student loans to do so, and are now out on your ass with no work, and someone offers you a great job in construction work. Will you take it?

    The poster might, but most people will not. reason being, human nature. To take a job that has nothing to do with what they studied in college (and likely went massively into debt for), is like admitting they made a stupid mistake, and that college education was practically worthless and they are afraid the inevitable question: well, if you were going to be a construction worker, why'd you blow 50K in college, hardy har har?

    So a recent college graduate is instead, going to suffer along for a few years, applying to tech jobs in vain, getting contract work that pays barely enough to eat (let alone pay back those loans), move in with room-mates, or their parents, getting more and more discouraged, and then finally has to take some job "that doesn't have anything to do with my major (oh the crying shame!)" just to get by.

    That's what most people end up doing, and I think it's pretty sad. We have to be adaptable these days, be prepared to totally change our jobs, our careers, our view of ourselves to get by in these terrible economic times. And I think far too many people are unwilling to do this because they are under the mistaken belief that whatever they studied in college is a ticket to employment success.

    1. Re:Obvious reason why this is disagreeable to many by il_diablo · · Score: 1

      And I think far too many people are unwilling to do this because they are under the mistaken belief that whatever they studied in college is a ticket to employment success.

      The technical name for this is cognitive dissonance. It's when you make a decision on something based on how you want it to be, because the truth would make other choices you made seem foolish.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
  167. Trickle Down Economics - How to Make it Work by SilentMajority · · Score: 1

    The wealthly are NOT LEGALLY OBLIGATED to spend their tax cuts and corporate welfare in ways that create jobs or help the middle-class.

    What do you think happens in the business world when one party gives up something and the other party is not LEGALLY BOUND to return something of similar value? You guessed it.

    Look at Ford Motor Company--they recently announced profits yet they announced that more layoffs are coming. This should give you a clue that profits don't always lead to new jobs or preventing layoffs.

    I'm not saying Ford's action is good, evil, right or wrong--I'm simply citing a specific example that shows the PURE BULLSHIT of politicians claiming tax cuts & loopholes for the ultra rich will help the rest of us.

    The foundation of trickle down economics is based on the naive belief that new tax breaks given to the rich will be spent in ways that help the stupid working bastards subsidizing the deal.

    We MUST treat tax cuts as it would be handled in the business world. Both parties must be legally bound to receive something of similar value in return for giving something. Right now, we are giving something of value (huge tax breaks) and receiving BULLSHIT promises in return (how much are promises worth? How much was "read my lips, no new taxes" worth to you?).

    The ultra wealthy and companies should be allowed to spend their money as they please--but if they want the middle-class to subsidize their new tax cuts & loopholes, then the rich should be HELD ACCOUNTABLE to spend those subsidies in ways that benefit the middle-class because that was the FOUNDATION of the arguments used to persuade the public.

    If we can ask high school kids to pass an exam before they receive their diplomas, we can sure as hell ask the rich to show exactly how they'll spend the new tax breaks--and require that they pay it back with full interest + penalties if they do not do so.

    For more info:
    http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm

    1. Re:Trickle Down Economics - How to Make it Work by certsoft · · Score: 1
      The foundation of trickle down economics is based on the naive belief that new tax breaks given to the rich will be spent in ways that help the stupid working bastards subsidizing the deal.

      Trickle Down Economics may actually work, but the key word here is "trickle". Now, if they could come up with "Gush Down Economics", I'd be happy.

    2. Re:Trickle Down Economics - How to Make it Work by Valerie_the_Awesome · · Score: 1

      Trickle Down Economics has never seemed like a justifiable reason to create a tax cut for the rich, to me. The wealthy got wealthy by scrimping, saving, and being frugal, didn't they? Wealth is measured by how much money one has stored in investments, right? Not by how many curvy little cars and outlandish pipe organs one owns. It is my belief that the wealthy don't necessarily buy huge, expensive things when they get a tax break. It isn't characteristic, it seems. So, why does the government seem to support Trickle Down Economics? Trickle Up Economics would be more beneficial, I think. If middle class workers had extra money in their pockets, it wouldn't automatically go into savings bonds, or wherever. It'd go into the grocery bill or towards Disney World or tuition. Shouldn't the people spending money be the people getting tax breaks?

  168. Except they didn't triple by Von+Rex · · Score: 1

    They actually decreased when Reagan gave his tax cut for the rich.

    Table of tax collections in the 80's given in current and constant dollars

    This data is from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1996.

  169. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by ragnar · · Score: 1

    You bring up some good points, and I probably should have stated the standard disclaimer about exceptions to the rule, but I still think I bring up a valid concern. People operate in social groups and there isn't a lot of mobility outside of those groups. It simply makes sense that by doing your best to keep within professional circles you will stand a better chance of hearing about future work that interests you. Work for the construction company and you will find out about all sorts of other common labor opportunities.

    Seriously, no offense was intended. I think I'm just observing a social dynamic and offering a warning about the downside to taking a blue collar job.

    --
    -- Solaris Central - http://w
  170. Please stop all the whining!! by SiliconJesus101 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Jesus f'ing christ people!!!! You are all whining like there is nothing that can be done for these poor unemployed white collar people. News flash, get a blue collar job!!!

    The way I grew up you did what you had to do to keep a roof over your head and put food on the table. It seems like todays generation are a bunch of prissy ass whiners who refuse to do anything that might involve getting their hands dirty or breaking a sweat. No, it's not the job you want....but damnit....it WILL keep a roof over your head and food in the mouths of your family!!!

    As a current blue collar man myself (field tech for a cable company) it really pisses me off to drive down the road every day and see literally 20 to 30 job opportunities a day on the sides of buildings or in the store window with no takers. Hell, the manager at the local Circle-K was pulling double shifts beacause he was unable to find any applicants....let alone employees!! It might be a job as head chicken boy at KFC or lead burger flipper at Mickey D's....but it's a job!!! Tighten up that belt, stop buying expensive dinner out and quit buying those geek gadgets that you so cherish until you get back on your feet.

    It's pretty sad that we have an unemployment rate at all with all of these open jobs that people would rather collect welfare than take. It's even more sad that we have a government that would take (steal) my hard earned money to give to people that REFUSE to accept one of these many jobs that are available. Learn the meaning of "Ramen Noodles".....then come back and talk to me about a handout.

    --

    "The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
    -Thucydides

    1. Re:Please stop all the whining!! by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Because it's easier to bitch than flip burgers.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    2. Re:Please stop all the whining!! by /dev/trash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Easy to say, not so hard to do. I've given up on finding a white-collar job. I apply to every blue collar job I can find. Nothing. Apparently I am too qualified for a blue collar job. People get the impression that with my degree, I'll be out the door once a better opportunity comes along.

    3. Re:Please stop all the whining!! by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
      Hey I make 6 f*ckin dollars an hour and barely work 30 hrs a week so my employer can make more money. Blue collar working = rape!

      I am 26 and how the hell can I move out of my parents apartment with these redicolous wages?

      I would be happy to make 20k a year doing help desk again. No one is hiring because Indians can do it for $2.75 an hour!

    4. Re:Please stop all the whining!! by SiliconJesus101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to be an ass or anything, but I personally have at least 6 different resumes' to cover various types of work I can/have done. Also, you don't exactly have to fill out on your application that your previous job was some high end white collar gig that you were paid obnoxious amounts of money for. C'mon man, haven't you at least delivered pizza or done something blue collar in the past?? From the end of that job until now you have been a student. Works every time.

      --

      "The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
      -Thucydides

    5. Re:Please stop all the whining!! by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Yep I have. I've been out of college for 10 years. Maing up jobs to look like I'm a blue collar worker is just not feasible.

    6. Re:Please stop all the whining!! by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just abandon the IT industry completely and focus on another field?

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  171. March on Wash DC and HANG Globalists! by cryofan2 · · Score: 1

    problem solved!

  172. Re:And it was foolish...Sharing the NIMBY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "People flocked to the programs for the money. There's no money now, and there are a lot of trained people who are very upset about not being able to make a five year career on a four year education. This is one fad that died."

    You know this is one of the silliest things that anyone could say. Exactly what did you expect people to flock to? What you really ment is for these people to flock to some profession, OTHER than the one you're in. Can't be depressing your standard of living now can we? This is just another silly American example of NIMBY. What if they all flocked to the "butter and cheese" industry? Poor cheese and butter workers. Oh well, at least it isn't happening to you.

  173. Mod Parent Up Bigtime by namespan · · Score: 1

    Managers hate this kind of reality, because it is impossible to graph on a powerpoint slide. They may not even know it intellectually, because all the metrics they measure are pointing to the wrong conclusion -- but as they do what the metrics encourage them to do

    Bin-go. This is seriously one of the largest problems I've seen everywhere I've worked, not just in software. People come up with these metrics, these indicators of performance -- and then assume that to increase performance, they can just focus on goosing their scores on the metrics.

    I worked helping to manage an intranet at a call center once. One favorite call center metric?
    Average time spent on a call. So you get the floor manager out there trying to get everybody to get those call times down. Knowledgeable and skilled customer service and tech support people will, of course, be processing most calls more quickly, but there's so many ways to process calls quickly that don't involved good support/service that the metric fails if you try to focus on it.

    It should be reflexive, drilled into suit-heads during business school, to think, when considering any metric: how many ways are there to make this number go up w/o actually improving our business?

    --
    Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
  174. I'm just a mechanic with clean hands. by crovira · · Score: 1

    White collar. HA!

    To anybody with a good grasp of topology, and of the finite fundamentals, computing is all BS.

    I have no idea how technies managed to convince themselves or their PHBs that they were any better or worth anymore per hour than gocery shelf re-stockers.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:I'm just a mechanic with clean hands. by forkboy · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't go as far to say that techies are on the same level as grocery store clerks. I'd categorize us with car mechanics, plumbers, electricians and the like. It's specialized knowledge, but it certainly doesn't require an advanced degree to be competent at it. However, keep in mind that plumbers and mechanics still command a fairly decent wage...there's no reason that network administrators, desktop support, or even helpdesk goons should be making minimum wage just because you deem it to be "easy." I think plumbing is pretty fucking easy, but I'm willing to shell out $50 / hr because I don't have the time or the desire to do it myself.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  175. Outsourcing by CaptainAx · · Score: 1

    With companies outsource real human jobs to India, it's no wonder we are having trouble here in the US. What jobs are gonna be left here in the US besides restaurant jobs? I bet in the future they will figure out how to man drive thru places like White Castle and McDonalds completely by robots.

  176. averages and balances by zogger · · Score: 1

    Maybe your hamburger won't be assembled in malaysia, but it sure might be "packaged" in some place like argentina and shipped in. All you might get here is the "presentation" of it. In case (anyone, generally speaking throughout this post)you haven't noticed, agriculture here is collapsing pretty fast now. It's not totally gone,no way, but being based on resource costs being static -fuel, machinery, fertilisers, etc), it's destroyed now,just finishing the shaking-out, no way to sustain it except the very largest international corporate farms, and very small hobby niche farms. And the corporate farms wil be moving to third world nations eventually as well, and probably pretty soon. You can see all the trends, it's going to become very marginalised in the US. It's existing by inertia now more than anything else, farms are being consolidated or abandoned to other purposes, and for most farmers, there is very, very little if any profit any more, and almost all new laws and regulations and taxes are designed to drive them out of existance. Some mid level thinkers spout "subsidies" on the television and elsewheres,but reality is, hardly no real "old fashioned" type farmers receive those,in any true meaningful way that really helps out, they go way way more to corporate CEOS once you follow the buck around to wherever it stops.

    All the jobs (and who really owns the valuable tangibles) are rearranging, it's the great leveling combined with the shift to a master/serf planet,based completely on the social goal of the very higher levels of the globalists, which can be termed technofuedalism. Both parts of that descriptive word are important to consider.

    Economics are only one factor-techno- they also want power and control beyond which they have now-feudalism. It is very, very important to always remember that, it is NOT only about money, it's also about raw power over other humans. It is 50/50 in that perspective to them.

    A rough model to compare is mainland china, which is really their poster boy style of nation, hence all the international very high level globalist interest. An industrious but thorughly controlled and cowed population, 1% master, 99% techno and traditional serf, full tech available to the elite, some bones thrown here and there to those beneath them. Just enough carrots and sticks to keep things running smoothly, in a technofeudal fashion. Now imagine that on a global scale. It's not hard to imagine that either, 1/3th of the planet is like this now already, population-wise.

    The only way to level is to run the highs and lows together. That's the easy definitionand what leveling means. Unfortunately, the historical past US vast middle class,both white collar and blue collar, represent a significant chunk of the highs on a planetary scale. There's hardly any way whatsoever they will escape a general over all loss in income and quality of life as determind by economics with globalization and this leveling. Balance of trade proves it, unemployment rates (The real rates of over 10%, not the lied about cooked rates they quote) prove it, interest levels prove it, instances of bankruptcy prove it, debt load proves it, and socially it's past being proven, we are more chaotic and un-social now than at any time previous in our history short of the revolutionary wars 1 and 2.

    Globalization will result in turning the planet into one giant "second world" type nation, with all this re arranging and leveling out, first world nations level go down, third world levels go up, that's the over all big picture. That's the leveled middle ground. Once that's achieved, a very slow rise in general up is a possibility and even a probability, EXCEPT if major technological wars break out merely one single order of magnitude larger than what we are seeing today with all the various wars going on. Then, no one knows or can predict, too many wild cards. If no major global devastating wars or plagues,(I sincerely doubt we will avoid them) by around mid century there *might* be a good general ri

  177. White collars are for sissy boys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, personally, feel no more sympathy for the so-called 'white collar workers' than I do for the equally so-called 'blue collar workers.' The whole nation is in a slump right now, not just the business people. And, you know, a teacher (not my own) once told me that college graduates, people with degrees, make up approximately 5% of the population. And only 6.1% of them are currently unemployed. That's not a big number. To the people who are out of work, it matters, sure. But to the economy, well...surely it isn't helping, but it isn't plunging us into debt, either. So. Good luck to all.

  178. Both Hilarious and Truthful--I like it! by cryofan2 · · Score: 1

    this should not have been modded as troll

  179. Re:Companies also take increased risk by outsourci by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is true. But the US has a powerful military that can be used to keep dictators inline or provide humanitarian aid. I would expect to see this type of use in the future.

  180. Statistics are for liars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, personally, feel no more sympathy for the so-called 'slashdot poster' than I do for the equally so-called 'used car salesman.' The whole nation is lying to each other right now, not just the slashdot posters. And, you know, a teacher (obviously an unimpeachable source) once told me that only 5% of the population had a college degree, partly in an effort to scare me somehow but mostly to justify her worthless career which earned less than pizza dilivery, and I never bothered to go to the goddamn fucking source and find out the the true number was at least 27.5 percent, maybe more if you count people over 34. That's not a big difference. To the people who care about truth, it matters, sure. But to me, well . . . surely I'm an uninformed idiot, but since when did that ever hold anyone back in America ?

  181. Gut Reaction by insanechemist · · Score: 1

    I have to say that the sourcing of jobs overseas could have some beneficial effect on the prices we pay for services, however - that assumes that corporations would pass the savings along. Highly doubtful in this climate. They'll hold onto any increase in margin they can squeeze out, so there really isn't any silver lining to this cloud right now. In this case jobs that pay very well are being lost. Its not like when a blue-collar worker loses his/her job. Often they can get vocational training and make similar money or better. An accountant/engineer/scientist who spent 4-8 years getting an education doesn't want to get more "vocational" training. They did that already...we'd become a nation of professional students.

    The remedy?

    1) Laws? Tax corporations that "oversource" jobs?
    2) Accept lower salaries?
    3) Grass roots activisim?

    I don't know - but at this point I've read several articles about this trend and would like to know which companies are doing this type of thing. For example - Capital One credit of moving a chunk of its call center to India. I don't really want to deal with someone in India when I have a problem, I mean I'm sure everyone is well trained and all, but I feel more warm and fuzzy talking to someone here...I guess its just personal preference.

  182. more like 20% of workforce aew college grads by cryofan2 · · Score: 1

    idiot

  183. Pizza delivery is a noble pro...fession... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for correcting me. Let's be best friends.

  184. Re:OK. Enuff worrying. Let us look at some solutio by Courageous · · Score: 1

    I think there is probably a lot of money to be had for American proxies willing to act as local representation to foreign outsource. 'Course, the problem, as you pointed out, is that you have to be able to communicate with the locals. India wouldn't be so hard, as they speak English. Most other countries, you'd have to know the foreign language...

    C//

  185. Young people learning faster by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    From my experience, I would agree that younger people learn something completely new faster than older people. (I'm 31.) The interesting caveat is that to older people, very little is completely different.

    Mastery and discipline are different than "learning" something in this sense. While there is always a place for new blood, bringing in people that can hit the ground running (and do their work in 40 hours a week) is more productive. The new blood only serves to create a management position above them in the short-term.

  186. Economies as water by droper · · Score: 1

    globalization is showing us the true vision of the worldâ(TM)s freer economy. Education is up all over and its effects on new channel building,loses and gains are emerging clearer and clearer. All the pooled wealth is flowing free from these channels into the nations that build them best. It leaves the greatest overflowing consintrations fastest and in the end evens out based on the volume of all the pools. how much is spilled,lost, produced or pooled depends on the innovative architects and engineers of those pools.

  187. solution torte reform by Nf1nk · · Score: 1

    or as i prefer killing all the lawyers
    truth be known the goverment really does bend over backwards to help small business. If thy want the help, however many small busin3ss ownrs do not want to deal with the paperwork nessisary to get the small business grants that are out there. I was looking at one setup that would provide a low intrest $100k loan (2%) but I needed to submit a viable business plan, since right now my ideas for these plans all look like this
    1. provide service
    2.???
    3. profit
    I am staying away from it and staying in school untill I get my BS

    --
    I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
  188. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    We're desparate to hire people (architectural engineering) for Richmond, VA... just two hours south. San Francisco has more vacant office space... something like 30%. DC has the benefit of government contracts, which tend to be stable at worst, and growing now with the homeland security crap.

  189. Well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tend to agree with you, that middle-to-lower class workers don't necessarily feel the brunt of sudden unemployment the way their wealthier counterparts do. A factory my mother worked at, Texas Instruments, moved to Mexico several years ago and left her out of work--left much of our town out of work, actually. However, the company reimbursed her by sending her to college, and she is now better off than she's ever been. For blue collar workers, there really isn't anything for them to do but either stay put or improve themselves. For the 'money-makers,' though, it's the equivelant of being in a slump, and I suppose there isn't anything they can do about it except take a job they're overqualified for.

  190. ....and "something for nothing" profits mentality by zogger · · Score: 1

    I can think of one simple change in the trading laws that might actually work to help the real economy and to knock down the skimmers back to levels they should be at, and not prominent either like they are now.

    I would put a minimum time limit holding law on stocks, and make it realistic, at least one year and ideally two years. In other words, no pumping and dumping, no short term trades or daily trades, you buy it, you buy it because you believe company x makes good products or services so you sit on the stock. If I had another dictatorial wish to make the market "work" better, stocks would have to pay dividends, at a credible % level based on gross income(that will help set limits on CEO pay, etc), within a few years, say 5 maximum, or the corporation gets dissolved by law, they lose their "of the public benefit" status, their granted charter. The first one though is vital, time limits on exchanges of stock. Right now it has nothing(to be fair just little) to do with what a company does or makes or anything, it's done with "waves" and charts and rumors and shilling and other associated economic astrological-esque voodoo just as much or more as whether or not the company actually does good profitable business and makes and services and markets widgets.

  191. So easy to say by /dev/zero · · Score: 1

    But that 50K *has* to be repaid. How can a person do that on $10-$15/hr, and still have a roof over his head and food in his belly?

    Remember that student loans generally can't be discharged via bankruptcy, so that's not even an option.

    So it's not just "foolish pride", it's the reality of being faced with a crushing debt burden that can only be paid off with a good job.

    Gordon.

    --

    He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
    -- J.R.R. Tolkien
    1. Re:So easy to say by YllabianBitPipe · · Score: 1

      Tip for you: You'll pay that 50K off sooner if you take a lower paying job that is steady and stable instead of be unemployed for several years waiting for a job that doesn't exist.

  192. Re:but whos to say the recession is over? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    This is nothing. Wait til the real estate market collapses. THAT is going to really hurt the economy.

  193. We need to make our own stuff by tjstork · · Score: 0, Troll


    Manufacturing is not just about national pride, it is about involving citizens and craft together in a process which improves their own sense of destiny.

    America does not make anything any more, because our lazy and stupid CEOs are more worry wart busy bodies than they are the dynamic and visionary leaders they project themselves to be. They send projects overseas, to anyone but their own companies, solely because they do not want to take any risks themselves.

    The cure is very simple:

    a) Shoot everyone who is a senior level manager or above. If they wanted to really lead, or were really good at it, they would have their own business.

    b) Bar sales people and lawyers from becoming CEOs and politicians, respectively.

    c) Educate people to realize that buying foreign products is a kind of treason. Really, half the reason the Japanese and Europeans do so well is that they are culturally disinclined to buy foreign stuff. They don't view trade as an equal exchange, they view it as an opportunity to screw America and get rich doing it. So, fuck them and free trade.

    --
    This is my sig.
  194. Actually, I lied and so did you. by Baldrson · · Score: 0
    In the 30's underemployment reached estimated levels of 80%.
    That is contradicted by this statistic:

    " ...During the worst years of the Depression, 1933-34, the overall jobless rate was twenty-five precent with another twenty-five percent of breadwinners having their wages and hours cut. Effecvtively, then, almost one out of every two U.S. households directly experienced unemployment or underemployment..."

    Furthermore, I had said:

    Here, from the computer consultants Usenet newsgroup is a more realistic definition of "unemployment" that is closer to "underutilization" and historic definitions of "unemployment" that we intuitively think of
    That was misleadingly optimistic. In reality, that post estimated "unemployment" according to historically acceptable definitions -- and did not account for "underemployment" as you and I would have preferred.

    Sure there were many more farms in that period of time. They were going bust ...too.
    Either not generally speaking or not relevant to the issue at hand. "The Grapes of Wrath" was about victims of the "dust bowl" which was a weather pattern than tragically hit some rural families -- primarily in the south central US. The dust bowl problem was blown out of proportion for political purposes when it was convenient to get rural constituents behind labor movements and the New Deal. Furthermore, "going bust" in the sense of not making any money is very different if you are in an environment that supplies all your essential needs and you aren't in any debt. Most of the farming families still had pioneer land from their ancestors and had not yet been conned into leveraging that land in a big way to buy huge combines, hybrid seed, pesticides and chemical fertilizer. You tried that lie on the wrong guy, slicker -- my dad won the national clean plowing championship two years running and grew up on a farm during the Great Depression and my mother grew up in a small town but had no agricultural relatives. Their experiences of the depression were like night and day.

    Furthermore, there weren't just "more farms in that period" the population was still largely farm-based. That means all of the rest of the social safety-nets you are talking about are discounted. Not having yet monetized everything from food to women they existed in a different form then -- they were based on friends and family not government. The world based on clans as social safety net is actually vastly preferable to government for a lot of reasons, regardless of how you may have perceived the economic situation of the 1930s through the eyes of others.

    Even more telling is what happened to GDP
    Sorry ... that's even less telling than looking at politically overblown stories of what happened to a minority of the farms. If you have a majority of your population who can get their essential needs filled by their own land and labor you have a huge "domestic product" that isn't in the figures you cite -- more importantly -- it is distributed where it is needed the most in time of crisis.

    You don't have to be a well-adapted parasite to extract that social safety-net.

    If you think just anyone can get the benefits needed from the government you should try looking at Oregon sometime. It is #1 in hunger in the United States. It also happens to be #1 in heroin deaths percapita. Go to the social services centers in Portland and look at the people running them. Go look at the people who are going to bed hungry in the rural areas and the people who are showing up dead at the emergency room. You'll notice a big difference: race.

    1. Re:Actually, I lied and so did you. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      the overall jobless rate was twenty-five precent with another twenty-five percent of breadwinners having their wages and hours cut.

      That does not include the population of people who while employed had jobs that were below their skill level, nor does it include people who had dropped out of the labor market and stopped looking for jobs.

      The dust bowl problem was blown out of proportion for political purposes

      That could be said about almost anything that happens in the US.

      the population was still largely farm-based

      Not so. The farm based population in the US at this time was at 20%.

      Most of the farming families still had pioneer land from their ancestors and had not yet been conned into leveraging that land in a big way to buy huge combines

      A large number farms by that period of time were using some mechanized equipment, often purchased on credit. By this time new crops, tractors capable of both plowing and harvesting were in wide use. This led to cultivation practices and overplanting that caused a large oversupply of farm produce and numbers of bankruptcies large enough to cause bank failures. One of the causes of the dust bowl was in fact this mechanization.

      The fact of the matter is that farm prices and income were extremely depressed during this period of time, and did not recover until WW II. Farm income fell 66% from 1920 to 1932. Starting in 1920 per acre land prices started dropping severely to the point were they were less than half their 1920 value in 1932. The all-time record for farm bankruptcies occured in 1925.

      Nor was the US economy at that time anything like agrarian. The US populatation was NOT 'largely farm based', far from it. Farm income in 1929 was only 9% of the total national income, and the per capita farm income was 1/3 that of the national per capita income. There is no way that this provided any sort of buffer to the economy.

      If you have a majority of your population who can get their essential needs filled by their own land

      20% is NOT the majority of the population.

      you have a huge "domestic product" that isn't in the figures you cite

      GDP is a composite number that includes farm output.

      I am sorry, but your premise that current economic conditions somehow are as bad as the great depression are totally off the wall. The fact is that by real historical measurements what we have now barely qualifies as a recession. When I see things like increases in outbreaks of diseases like tuberculosis, malaria and yellow fever like in the Great Depression, or numbers like 65% of the population is living below the poverty line, THEN you would have an argument. Right now there is no such thing.

    2. Re:Actually, I lied and so did you. by Baldrson · · Score: 1
      The all-time record for farm bankruptcies occured in 1925.

      And that's the thing that actually caused the great depression. If you take a huge portion of your populationa and remove its livelihood by centralizing assets, consumer demand drops while everyone is in an acquisition binge. Yes, that does characterize the years leading up to the crash quite well -- then and now.

      I had said: the population was still largely farm-based

      You said: Not so. The farm based population in the US at this time was at 20%.

      That depends on what I meant by "farm-based". The standard I've been using so far is that someone in your (functional) extended family had enough net assets (ie: debt free) that they could, in exchange for labor under their direction, give you food and shelter. I know this is an alien concept now, which is why you keep bringing up things like "total national income" having only 9% generated by farms -- and inferring that extended families don't really function (ie: 20% on the farms means 20% can rely on farms as social safety-net via kin altruism). GDP does not include subsistence food and shelter that is produced and consumed by the extended family -- and that missing "GDP" dominates the "social services" when you have 20% of the population in nuclear families that own or have sufficient control of farms to provide nonmonetized subsistence jobs to their extended family.

  195. good for you! by zogger · · Score: 1

    You've just independently invented what was put into words a few thousand years ago as part of biblical economic and social laws/guidelines, laws which make great sense, whether a believer or not. One of the laws is to have "just weights and measures" for example, and to use real money and to not engage in usury. Another is admonitions to be productive, and because of the nature of the world, that resulted in most people having more than one specific sort of job, to not grossly over specialise to the detriment of your human-ness.

    And to be more specific, in your post you have outlined the "tithing" concept, and are hinting around the "jubilee" concept a little as well. Where you missed it was granting too many powers to the "priest" class, in your example substitute government, as in the old days they were the government, and had strict but very limited authority and powers, and really could not lawfully "demand" a tithe except as outlined in some other rules, and if they did they became non-priests quickly.

    Human nature really doesn't change all that much, and nor do basic simple realities of work, trade, economy, wealth creation as opposed to wealth re-arrangement, and social interaction.

  196. Re:OK. Enuff worrying. Let us look at some solutio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (5) I can't emphasize this enough, whenever and wherever possible follow the jobs! 40k is a decent salary in Bangalore and much of the E.U. enjoys far more humane working conditions than anywhere between New York and San Jose. U.S. employees are the most productive in the world, but U.S. businesses must also pay for our high cost of living, high insurance and liability costs, high medical costs, complex tax, labor, business and environmental laws... You can live a more comfortable and happy life working for an overseas branch of a U.S. company. Only tariffs and visa laws prevent a truly free economy where employees flow to where they find the best lifestyle/work balance.

  197. Blue collar workers drive the USA! by SaDan · · Score: 1

    Literally.

    Get off your high horse, and thank the people who support the infrastructure you couldn't live without. Electricity, telecommunications, freight, plumbing, road repair, auto mechanics... All the way down to the neighborhood kid you pay $10 to mow your lawn every week.

    The experiences I had growing up on a farm, working as a janitor, mowing grass for the Army Corps of engineers, doing CAD work for a manufacturing facility as well as QA, delivering pizza, and automotive repair have served me well now that I'm working full-time as a systems engineer. I don't see how I could have a more well rounded education!

    Don't you dare look down on today's blue collar workers. Any one of them could be your boss tomorrow.

    1. Re:Blue collar workers drive the USA! by ragnar · · Score: 1

      Get off your high horse, and thank the people who support the infrastructure you couldn't live without.

      You will be happy to know that I not only thank my painter and have referred him to others. I actually do respect his talent and have learned good things from him. I just don't want to talk like him in my next job interview, so I won't be taking a side job doing painting any time soon.

      I'm getting a lot of flack from people who once painted a fence or layed a brick. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put down manual labor. Society needs a diverse labor pool, including manual labor. I just think it is a bad idea for professionals to do manual labor between professional jobs.

      As an example, do you think that a lawyer or banker would do roofing or construction between jobs? Of course not, and if they did, I can guarantee you that they will avoid talking about it in their next professional interview. Why? Because they know that it is a bad move to step outside of the professional circle. People start to question if you are really "in" the club.

      I'm not telling anyone to like the world we live in. I'm just calling it as I see it.

      --
      -- Solaris Central - http://w
    2. Re:Blue collar workers drive the USA! by SaDan · · Score: 1

      Just because you do manual labor doesn't mean you can't be considered "in". I know several "office professionals" that restore old cars, tool around on their boat (that they fixed up themselves), do their own home repairs and improvements, etc. They obviously don't have a problem with these types of tasks interfering with their social status.

      Manual labor is a good distraction for some people too. Working outside on the weekends or after work during the week can help with stress and clear your mind.

      You have entirely the wrong attitude regarding non-office jobs, which is why you're receiving so much "flack" from people. I'd rather be blue collar the rest of my life than have your attitude.

    3. Re:Blue collar workers drive the USA! by ragnar · · Score: 1

      I know several "office professionals" that restore old cars, tool around on their boat (that they fixed up themselves), do their own home repairs and improvements, etc.

      I do too. One of them is me, but then I think we are talking about what you do for 40+ hours a week professionally. All I'm saying (poorly, I'll add, because I seem to cause more confusion with each post) is that I think it is a bad career move for a professional to do manual labor between jobs.

      (for the record, I don't have anything against manual laborers)

      --
      -- Solaris Central - http://w
    4. Re:Blue collar workers drive the USA! by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      If each statement you make continues to cause confusion then perhaps you should simply drop the subject and work on your communication skills.

      Perhaps you've been spending too much time talking to white collar collegues. That may be why you are unable to "speak clear English".

      Delioite and Touche recently came out with a program that enables investors to remove the BUZZWORDS from quarterly reports. You might want look into it.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  198. Because it's not that hard! by SaDan · · Score: 1

    Student loans have to be the easiest of loans to pay off. Where else are you going to get such a great interest rate, and low monthly payments?

    If you can't afford to support yourself on $10-15 an hour, you're doing something seriously wrong. Time for a lifestyle adjustment, pal.

    People live on $10 an hour or less every day. Some support families on that kind of pay. Suck it up, and have a dose of reality.

  199. Capital v. labor by erf · · Score: 1

    Globalization seeks infinite mobility of capital. Labor is screwed, since workers can't follow capital and jobs.

    India will continue to grow for sometime until wages increase, then they will be shafted as their jobs are exported to Uganda or Peru or somewhere where wages are cheaper, and they will follow the US into its downward spiral.

    Globalization as it exists is designed to maximize profits for US-based multinational firms. At last, the middle-class white collar folks (like me) are feeling the pinch. I don't know what the solution is, but I guarantee it's going to get a lot worse for the US worker before it gets better...

    Expect a serious decline in living standards in the US over the next 10-20 years if nothing is done.

  200. Re:OK. Enuff worrying. Let us look at some solutio by evilviper · · Score: 1

    Your (2) has always been an interesting one...

    Why doesn't everyone work for the government?
    Where does the government get their money?
    From the people.
    Where do the people get their money?
    From the government!

    I believe it was Ben Stein that wrote a very good article talking about how our "service enconomy" is really doomed to fail unless we also keep our manufacturing and producing economics as well. Shaking money around doesn't make more of it.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  201. sneakers? by zogger · · Score: 1

    I never owned a foreign made pair of sneaks until I was in my 30's. Nor a car, nor any electrical or mechanical appliance I can think of, or a tool of any sort. We used to do all that stuff,vertically manufactured,and the people who made them could all afford them. Plus a home, plus vacations, plus retirement nest eggs plus could send kids to school and etc, etc. I used to fill my gas tank for 2.50$, and the 50 cents was silver, and the two dollar bills said silver certificate on them, not "federal reserve (debt) note". And everything else cost similar.

    What we DIDN'T have was near as many high level multi-multi-multi millionaires and billionaires, or near as many people who existed and "made their living" by skimming other's wealth as opposed to producing their own wealth.

    And that's what happened, and those gents control the mass media and politics now, and it's why the middle class is getting hammered and will continue to get hammered. It's much easier for high level thieves to steal when they go by "color of law" and it's not classed as theft and they set the rules and they control the media and public schooling mass conditioning and indoctrinational efforts.

    Greed always sells,or promising the impossible, it's the magic beans for the cow scam theory, it's a great advertising tool because it's based on almost universal human nature. You promise enough people the impossible, eventually more and more will believe it.

    Have doubts?

    Ever see spam, wonder why it still exists?

  202. cold war dollars by js7a · · Score: 1
    The amount that the US delivered to Sweeden was to the tune of about $5 billion a year till the fall of the USSR.

    Which therefore stopped a decade ago.

    What about Ikea? A U.S.-backed plot to help introduce brightly-painted modular furniture into drab Soviet homes and offices?

  203. Wrong! The US is a net IMPORTER, not EXPORTER by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 1
    Your argument may have held water if the US was actually an exporter of note.

    It is not. The US is in actuality the world's largest importer. The strong dollar is what put BMW's into the hands of the middle class, and it is what put foreign investment (the $2 bill a DAY needed to keep the current accounts deficit in any sort of balance) in US equity markets.

    The US is the largest debtor in the world. We need to attract capital to prop up the account deficit. The weak dollar is only useful as a temporary measure to export our recession to Europe (can't export it to China, they already tie to the greenback). The strong dollar policy will be back because it is the only thing keeping the US solvent.

  204. Bubba Says Bigger Debt Due by Arbogast_II · · Score: 1

    For 3 decades the Upper and Middle class in America has sat and watched the goring of the working class. This is a debt that the white collar workers now must pay. It is bigger than a debt of dollars, it is a bill for letting the foundation of the structure of a modern economy rot.

    (All American Rant, Bubba aint familliar with overseas) Globalization is where the upper and middle classes of 1st world nations ignorantly stand by and watch 3rd World living standards be imposed by the elite.;

    Now, as a lifelong Blue Collar worker ( Gardening and a little construction), it is hard to sympathize with white collar workers. White collar workers have stood around the last 3 decades while blue collar workers were gored. Blue collar workers have lost decent wages, access to health care, etc etc. White collar workers have systematically undermined a whole class of vital, hard working Americans. Illegal Latin American workers have gored the working class. There is nothing wrong with latino immigrants, until they are brought in to ruin benefits and wages for Americans through a shadow economy. Likewise, blue collar workers were gored (at a great cost to quality workmanship) by reducing any job possible to a temporary McJob.

    Of course, this undermines the whole economy (long term rot for short term gain). So I am confused as to why after watching the whole bottom of the economy collapse under them, there is surprise it is now unable to bear the weight of a strong middle class

    PS, this is not a statement for either politcial party in US, both are equally guilty poor economic policy to protect the foundation of the economy. It isn't rocket science, a modern economy needs:
    Prosperous, productive working class
    A well educated, white collar class
    A wisely regulated, upper class, that CAREFULLY balances protecting the interests of the lower classes. At the same time, it must foster an environment where the upper class is free to pursue the extremely profitable business methods that create wealth.
    But when public policy does not protect all 3 classes, all three classes ultimately end up poorer. (The richest class will not reach maximum long term wealth in a world with weak lower classes, look at any 3rd world nation)
    The solution is to restore the foundation of the pyramid if America is to remain a great nation to live and work in. America became a powerful nation through decades of strong corporations carefully regulated by a wise government. Not enough regulation to stifle the corporation, but enough to keep the corporations from devouring the economy. It is a careful balancing act the nation no longer does with foresight.

    --


    HenryJamesFeltus.com
  205. Why the dollar is temporarily devaluing by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 1

    It is to export our recession to Europe. Keynes called this the "beggar thy neighbor" approach. When the greenback devalues, it makes it more expensive to produce elsewhere. In this case elsewhere means Europe, as Japan is already in the toilet and China pegs to the greenback. The parent poster's analysis was on the level correct but utterly simplistic rehash from an economics text with no understanding of our current situation.

  206. standards of living by js7a · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Sweden's standard of living is below that of the lowest standard of living of any US state.

    On the contrary, the suitability index for child rearing is designed to be a big aggregate standard of living measure, with some extra woman's issues mixed in, published every Mothers' Day. This year, Sweden was 1st, and the U.S. was 11th.

    No matter how you slice it -- life expectancy (+2.4 years), unemployment (2% less), literacy (from 2% to 14% more, depending on whether you belive U.S. statistics ignoring undocumented workers), median purchasing power ($8,000 more per capita) -- Sweden's standard of living is superior to that of the U.S.

  207. Quality AND Quantity by dogfart · · Score: 1
    It not just eh amount spent on defense, it's where the money was spent. During WWII, money was spent on mass production that could easily be converted to civilian use after the war. As the military has shofted more towards highly specialized weaponry, there have been fewer civilian spin-offs. Also the fact that technology regulation is much stricter now, means items built for military purposes (e.g., GPS) have a much harder time being made available for civilian use, given that the most innovative stuff is classified, and even the stuff that isn't is subject to export restrictions.

    I believe the book Mary Kaldor, The Baroque Arsenal, Hill and Wang, 1981 (See Amazon.com) advanced this theory.

    --

    "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

  208. The myth of coporate loyalty by micron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The thing that cracks me up about all of this is the whole statement about "Overqualified folks will look for a new position faster than 'just' qualified folks" Duh! They also get a hell of a lot more done in the short time that they are there!

    We are dealing in a corporate America that cannot see past the end of the coming quarter. I make it a habit of hiring the most qualified people that I can, and I don't expect them to stick around for more than two years. As a manager, I would be absolutely stupid not to do that. Most of my projects need to be done within three quarters, because management is usually not around to fund anything longer than that. The "over qualified" folks that I hire have traditionally been professional enough to stick it out to the end of a project. Once a new project starts, I am ok with new heads.

    I work in a fortune 100 company as a manager, or more appropriately a technical lead. I am short staffed. The more experience my new hires have, the better off I am. When I look at my career, I have 1) never been unemployed, 2) never finished college, 3) been at Fortune 100 companies for my entire career since 18, 4) I am 33, my shortest tenure at any company has been 4 years, 5)I am usually one of the first to jump ship when things start going south. One thing that I have noticed is that the good people are usually the first to jump on their own terms.

    I am also amazed at how my "top 10 best places to work" employer goes out of their way to remind people that this is a "work at will" environment. If you keep telling your folks that they can be terminated at any time, then don't be suprised when the good ones start walking out the door. It is a two way street. The hypocracy of expecting loyalty from employees without the employer offering any security is amazing.

  209. Delta Careers by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The reason that "professional" jobs get hit harder is because our jobs depend on change and investment. I have dubbed this "delta work". If things don't change, then there is less need for us; and when budgets get tight, change tends to slow down. Software does not "break" like machinery, so programmers are not needed as much if you don't change it. Software can run forever without programmers being on call. Similarly, if you are a professional amusement park designer, then your services are less needed during downturns because nobody is building new parks and cutting back on changes to existing ones.

    However, many blue-collar operations continue. You still need janitors, cash register workers, etc. These are "production" careers, not "investment" careers. These are people who run stuff, not build stuff, and companies must keep the front lines up and running for survival.

    This delta trend only seems to get deeper on each recession. I am thinking of getting a plumbing certificate or something because this trend may get worse, and I need a back-up career. Higher education is becoming the road to bigger bumps and valleys. Higher education may earn you more money over the long run, but may not contribute to career stability like it used to.

    Further, globalization may result in "commodity brains". Brain-intensive work can be purchased on the global market for less and less.

  210. Re:....and "something for nothing" profits mentali by erixtark · · Score: 1


    I would put a minimum time limit holding law on stocks, and make it realistic, at least one year and ideally two years


    Then you would have to have _much_ harder regulations on the kind of information a company puts out as well as what kind of advice investment advisors give. Sorry, but I just don't think that's realistic.

  211. PureCapitalism != Equality by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    No, you know what happens? Goods become cheaper and better. I don't have to pay through the nose because some guy thinks he should get $40/hour just to enter numbers into some data base or make a powerpoint presentation. Things become more affordable, more people can afford them, and everyone's quality of life goes up. THAT is what happens.

    Pure capitalism does NOT guarentee equality. Capitalism Hell in England about 100 years ago is what led to popular communist revolts.

    Cheap labor may simply make the rich richer and rid the middle class. (It depends on which assumptions of human behavior you emphasize in your model.)

    Globalism making a higher standard of living for the "masses" is a right-wing myth. There is no proof. It is only a theory. (And, there are left-wing myths too, but that is another topic.)

  212. Sweden and the U.S. by js7a · · Score: 1
    if you start including the people who have been given early retirement because they were deemed unemployable, or those in different government reeducation or temporary placement programs, the unemployment rate is closer to 15%.

    The U.S. does exactly the same thing, with about the same difference between the sizes of the population and the labor force.

    there are hidden taxes on labour, in the form of taxes on companies for employing people

    Again, the U.S. has very similar "hidden" employment taxes (e.g., FICA, Unemployment, Social Security.)

    the justice system has been on the brink of collapse for 15 years. A minority of all crimes even get investigated.

    Again, exactly the same in the U.S.

    There is state health care, but it involves long waiting lines, deteriorating service, and is in a constant state of crisis.

    Here, of course, is where the U.S. and Sweden part company. Perhaps this difference is why Swedes enjoy, on average, 2.4 years of additional life expectancy at birth.

    the education is sub par compared to the rest of the EU.

    Below average at the pinacle, eh? Your 99% literacy rate is a lot higher than that of the U.S., which refuses to even publish a correct literacy rate accounting for our undocumented immigrants.

    If you want this so bad, then please take it.

    I wish.

  213. population cohorts by hlee · · Score: 1

    A few years ago I helped my dad out, who is an urban planner, in calculating some population cohorts, which is usually a good indicator of the level of development of a country.

    Developing countries have cohorts that look like pyramids - a lot of young people, and much less older people. Developed countries tend to look like chimney stacks since health care is better so there are almost as many older people as there are young.

    The problem we have these days is that most HR management don't seem to know how to manage cohorts for the mid to long term. But I suspect the largest, and most successful companies do in fact have guidelines to ensure there is good balance of new and old blood - seems like common sense really.

  214. George Ohr!!!! by Arbogast_II · · Score: 1

    Now there is a visionary of how America should be!!!

    --


    HenryJamesFeltus.com
  215. Another perspective... by ChilyWily · · Score: 1

    A lot of posters have made some good points about how the wages are lower etc... I personally think that some of that is a myth - I know that back in the days during the dot-com bust just as people were beginning to get laid off due to economic conditions at my company's US locations, the folks in Bangalore were receiving bonuses on the order of 80%-100% of their wages! And...people were quitting because some of them *only* received a bonus of 75%!

    Currency exchange rates are one thing but giving someone a bonus equivalent to his yearly salary is quite another - and these folks that I mention were at comprable rank levels to the people who got laid off in the US!

    No I think that management is to blame - some 'guru' comes up and says that layoffs and bangalore are the thing to do and the rest of the pack follows. Who do the laid off people turn to? Eventually its the government's responsibility to intervene and look out for the people. Oh wait not here not ever...*sigh*

  216. mod parent up by cryofan2 · · Score: 1

    just keep putting out the word. We Americans will get the idea eventually.

  217. Things that cannot be outsourced by YllabianBitPipe · · Score: 1

    Just think of things that absolutely need a physical presense, that cannot be done through email.

    Service industry jobs. Retail. Sales. People can't get their coffee served to them by some guy in India.

    Anything to do with real estate and the housing industry. Construction. Selling homes. Mortgage broker. Real Estate Agent. Plumber. Interior Decorator.

    Government jobs. Senator. Defense industry.

    Health care industry. All the baby boomers retiring are gonna need a lot of care. Nurse, hospital administrator, retirement home orderly etc.

    If any of these jobs sound unappealing or exciting to you, that's your perception. But we all gotta eat.

    I would argue one could even turn a service industry type job into something interesting. Consider upscale marketing ... selling over priced crap to rich people. For example, auto mechanic might sound very unimpressive until you consider how many newer cars have complex computers inside of them. They have to be serviced at the dealer. So, take some classes with your computer skills, get certified at a BMW dealership. That's not exactly a "low class" gig.

  218. Rush Limbaugh: patron of the little guy? No. by js7a · · Score: 1

    I'll see those (raw, unsummarized, and poorly formatted) rushlimbaugh.com figures, and raise you this easy-to-read analysis of the recent cuts.

    1. Re:Rush Limbaugh: patron of the little guy? No. by dubious9 · · Score: 1

      I hate statistics. They say whatever you want them to say. Yes, the top 1% will keep tens of thousands of dollars more per year, but you forget that the top 1% pays vastly more taxes than eveybody else and in effect fund programs like welfare. A person earing 2 million dollars a year will get 25k even on a one percent reduction in tax rate.

      Are rich americans not entitled to tax cuts? They did, after all, earn their money. They will, in turn go out and spend that money further stimulating the economy.

      I'm not saying I agree with the cut, because I don't, but there is solid economic theory behind it. I just don't agree with the notion that rich people don't deserve tax breaks. Everybody deserves tax breaks. And because rich people earn more money left wing radicals will always be able to spin numbers that say that the tax cut benefits mostly the rich.

      The fact that the bottom 60% will recieve under $100 dollars a years is a statisical evquivocation. People on the very bottom pay almost no tax at all and thus can't recieve much back, this will in effect throw the curve off. Averages are falicies unless you have the numbers also. There is no average american. People earning 50k will recieve substaintially more than $100 back per year (probably closer to $500 which is not chump change).

      --
      Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
    2. Re:Rush Limbaugh: patron of the little guy? No. by js7a · · Score: 1
      I'm not saying I agree with the cut, because I don't, but there is solid economic theory behind it.

      Trickle down, supply-side economics is so solid that Ronald Reagan's original budget director, David Stockman, called it, "a torjan horse," designed to put so much deficit pressure on the budget that programs unwanted by the right-wing administration would be forced into cuts without debate.

      The president's own father called it, "voodoo economics," when he ran against Reagan in 1980.

      The only people who benefit from supply-side economics, other than the ultra-rich, are the P.R. flacks the Republicans hire to write ads and op-eds to convince you it is actually good for the economy.

      Look at the unemployment rate, at a nine-year high. Trickle down is not working, because it is not solid. It is the grossest form of mass political deceit.

  219. Oh, the horror by Sloppy · · Score: 1
    We're waking up to the fact that, Yes, someone is willing to sit on their ass for less money than us. So we either have to compete to see who will sit on their ass the cheapest, or get a job where we actually do .. *shudder* work!

    Oh well, it was nice while it lasted. :-) I'm not happy that my cushy job will eventually go away, but it sure as hell isn't some kind of horrible unfair injustice.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  220. Martinis by ari_j · · Score: 1

    Ah, yes...the martini. Its definition is so far lost to most people now that a dead rat in a cocktail glass can be called a "martini".

    On a side note, the interesting bit about martinis is that, although most consider gin to be "correct" for one, and that is indeed what will go into a "martini" if you just order it by name, the earliest martinis were made with vodka, as it was around for many a long year before gin came about.

    90% of the time? I was in a bar two nights ago that had nothing but beer. Their sole form of advertising outside is a dated lit-up PBR sign (their name is not even visible from outside), and as I do not drink beer the best they could do for me was a can of Pepsi, which I believe may have been the bartender's personal for-lunch can.

    But what I prefer is a bar with some good rock music, maybe live bands a night or two a week, and that part of the college-and-on crowd that, like me, never did like the techno/DJ/other-abuse-of-the-word-"music" places. A place where you can call the bartender by name the second time you go in, and he knows you like your Jack & Cokes a little on the strong side because you're only mixing 'em to avoid looking like the alcoholic you are.

    1. Re:Martinis by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      A place where you can call the bartender by name the second time you go in, and he knows you like your Jack & Cokes a little on the strong side because you're only mixing 'em to avoid looking like the alcoholic you are.

      To be honest I think working in a pub has put me off them a little bit. I must be incredibly antiosocial cause I hate the customers who want you to be on first name terms and remember their drink, like I fvcking care. But I have to admit if I was the customer it might be the other way round, just glad that publican isn't my choosen profession.

  221. Re:Surely a programmer isn't considered white coll by MikeFM · · Score: 1

    I've always heard of IT/programming folks as white collar except maybe the lowest ranks. I always figured if you made an hourly rate you were blue collar and if you worked on salary you were white collar. Of course sometimes you can make more money on the hourly rate. :)

    Good luck at finding funding. If you can afford to live I'd say just go ahead and do the projects and if they are good enough somebody will be interested. That's what I do. Except I don't like looking for funding. :)

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  222. Re:OK. Enuff worrying. Let us look at some solutio by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Get into Sales and customer-facing jobs. I know y'all like to work in T-shirts with ketchup and coffee stains but may be it's time to get a makeover, buy a suit and start honing up on your people-skills.

    Join PHB Suit-Hell? aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh!

  223. Volvo by js7a · · Score: 1
    [Volvo] is owned by Ford Motors.

    On the contrary, Volvo is independent with nobody other than insiders owning more than 0.44%.

    1. Re:Volvo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Volvo cars was bought by Ford a few years ago for 50 billion SEK in cash. The rest of Volvo (trucks, buses, engines for boats and rockets etc) is still a separate company.

      But whether Volvo is owned by Ford or not is not actually relevant in this discussion. Volvo still develops and manufactures a great deal in Sweden, and Volvo is one of the more profitable parts of Ford.

    2. Re:Volvo by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Ditto what the AC said. Meant to say 'Volvo cars'.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  224. Now the geeky kids are going to have no hope... by Gandhian_Rage · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Be nice to geeks one day, for you may be competing for the same job.

  225. Talk to some BA's and you'll get the picture by YllabianBitPipe · · Score: 1

    Other college degrees have been used to these job prospects for quite some time now. I'm sure you know some people who've gotten degrees in English, Sociology, Philosophy, Music, Art ... what are a lot of them doing? Most likely they went to graduate school or got a job having absolutely nothing to do with whatever they studied in college.

    So just because you got a degree that doesn't automatically lead right into the job of your dreams, who cares. Times are just that a CS degree, for example, might just be the new English major. Chalk it up to "oh well" and life goes on. Or apply to graduate school and become a teacher.

  226. Re:Contrarian Indicator: New Boom Around the Corne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, two things: the last recession really felt like one: big job losses, big house price falls, a depressed culture. Recessions feel horrible for everyone. This one doesn't yet, there has been and still is a lot of optimism around, which implies it hasn't bottomed yet.

    The white collar execs you mention in your post included IBM (caught out by the collapse in mainframe sales as everyone went for PCs), the end of the cold war meaning a shrinking in the defence industry. Those were big structural changes. This time, it is the slow sucking sound of jobs not being lost, but shifted overseas. Very different process.

  227. people are owed the opportunity to earn a living by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

    Good.

    I predicted at least 6 years ago that the loss of jobs would rise up past the manual-laborers and blue-collars, and start to impact the degreed, the certified, and the professional. For many years before that, job losses primarily affected those who don't matter to the hidden plutocracy ... the blue-collars and the Midwesterners. So here and now we all are, and the "important people" are being hoist by their own petards.

    Pardon me for not shedding a tear for these folks, who expected to be paid a lot of money for doing very little productive work. I find myself giggly over the hiring-freezes and outright layoffs affecting the blue-collar city-worker set of people, who are equally as bad about performing their moral duty to work for their wages.

    At the same time, I find the Young Republican set running around and saying things like "no one owes you a living". I can't agree with that considering that it must be further narrowed into my favorite saying: "people are owed the opportunity to earn a living". In our own nations, we owe it to the blue-collar and white-collar workers to establish and maintain businesses that keep them gainfully employed.

    --
    [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  228. I Keep Telling You People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Govt Jobs!

    I work for a county agency.

    I can't be outsourced, downsized or H1-B'ed. I'm home by 4:30 every day. I used to tell people that the pay isn't top dollar but that's not true anymore!

    And oh, by the way, I currently have 6 weeks of vacation I haven't used and 12 weeks of sick time.

    Govt grows every year and there's no selling.

    Fsck the private sector! Yes, I know they're necessary but that doesn't mean I have to slave for 'em!

    How's your 401(k) looking these days? We get one of those too plus a Federally Insured Pension (remember those?)!

    Good luck!

  229. Learn to Weld. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Learn to weld metals in a shop. You'll have a backup job, and guess what! If the boss comes around to get in your way, just light up an arc! (Off he goes)

  230. Re:but whos to say the recession is over? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I'm waiting for the real estate bubble to burst. So then I can laugh at all my fucktard friends, who got insane mortgages for overpriced average homes, and buy their homes out from under them for pennies on the dollar. I still fail to see the 'wisdom' (created by banks and lending institutions) of portraying non-commercial real estate as 'investement'. It's not. Never was. Protection against inflation and collateral for more loans AT BEST.

  231. "... remember to vote in 2004." by Infonaut · · Score: 1
    I think it would be quite interesting to see how many of the people bitching about the economy actually vote every year (not just every four years, but in the local and state elections).

    How many Americans know who represents them at the state level? How many Americans know who represents them in the US House and Senate?

    GenXers (and I am one) often characterize the Internet economy as something that was spawned wholly by free enterprise. That was fine with people in the boom, but now everyone is yelping that big business is bad. The truth is, business never operates in a vacuum.

    Get involved in politics. Learn the issues. Vote, and encourage others to vote. If you want a society (and by extension an economy) that works, you have to make it yourself.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  232. Re:US National Debt -the fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vote Bush out! He is looting America!

  233. Re:....and "something for nothing" profits mentali by zogger · · Score: 1

    What's the matter, got accounting criminality to hide? That's my first impression.

    Obviously tax and accounting rules have to change radically for that to be effective. I'll give you that one. They would have to be pretty simple, the bulk of the tax code scrapped, and assets really had to be assets, debits had to be debits, and so on. And yes, I could care less if it puts a huge number of traders and investment "advisors" and media astroturfer shills and brokerages and newsletter writers out of work and makes companies compete on merit of what they do long term, if they really have a business plan they work at or are they paper work shufflers and schemers and scammers.

    Any more, take it up with warren buffet, he has similar-not identical-but similar styled views, he's also even rougher on the scammers and government than I am, and I guarantee is richer and more successful than any random poster on slashdot. He buys companies, he doesn't specialise in "waving" voodoo theories of trading stocks. He doesn't always nail it, but has been *rather* successful at it.

    And yes, I agree, what I proposed is not even remotely likely to even ever be considered, another one I'll grant you. I just think they are dandy ideas if "the market" was truly interested in reform. there's zero about any reform to benefit them or their skimmed profits, all they ("they" being the so called private market and the so called public government) will do is run the latest version of "See, we're doing something about it, we're cleaning it up and cracking down on abuse! Really and truly this time, we are!" like they've been doing as long as I have been looking at it. I know it's not, and so does everyone else, so the point is moot, I was just daydreaming a little on a couple of "what ifs".
    I stay out of it,I like to look at it but stay out of it, I only have any truck with tangibles of any sorts.

  234. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by SaDan · · Score: 1

    I think I'm just observing a social dynamic and offering a warning about the downside to taking a blue collar job.

    What is that? That by taking a blue collar job, you'll end up sounding ignorant?

    You already sound ignorant. Find another excuse.

  235. real source of the bloodsucking: banking system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    when will humans get a clue about the origin of the bloodsucking and worldwide economic slavery system? Ive posted this several times to slashdot but the editors have not passed it on.

    read about the REAL matrix.. 60 page scientific paper, meticulously researched: FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING AS ECONOMIC PARASITISM

  236. What the Greeks said by sgt101 · · Score: 1
    Democracy can only last until the people realise that they can vote themselves bounty from the state. This is not a good thing, people vote for the guy who says he'll be best for them; it's game theory really. The idiots who vote for the guy who'll be best for everyone always get screwed...



    In the future people will shake their heads about this. They won't laugh though.

    --
    --------------------------------------------- "In the end, we're all just water and old stars."
  237. Don't forget about investment and capital by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Investment dollars are important too, though. If the value of the dollare falls, investors, American and foreign, stop investing in US securities and take their money overseas. That means less much-needed capital for US companies.

  238. Re:Because it's not that hard!-Grow up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Student loans have to be the easiest of loans to pay off. Where else are you going to get such a great interest rate, and low monthly payments?"

    There's limits to how far down they will go. Don't believe me? Call them up yourself and find out.

    "If you can't afford to support yourself on $10-15 an hour, you're doing something seriously wrong. Time for a lifestyle adjustment, pal."

    By your logic all these statements will hold true: If you can't afford to support yourself on $5.00-7.00 an hour, you're doing something seriously wrong. Time for a lifestyle adjustment, pal. OR If you can't afford to support yourself on $3.00-5.00 an hour, you're doing something seriously wrong. Time for a lifestyle adjustment, pal.

    "People live on $10 an hour or less every day. Some support families on that kind of pay. Suck it up, and have a dose of reality."

    People live on $5.00-7.00 an hour or less every day. Some support families on that kind of pay. Suck it up, and have a dose of reality. OR People live on $3.00-5.00 an hour or less every day. Some support families on that kind of pay. Suck it up, and have a dose of reality.

    In other words you need to get out from under your parents roof, and get a real dose of reality, instead of pretending to be a know it all.

  239. The US IS a net exporter NOT importer! by rustin_ross · · Score: 1

    Consider the export of dollars and US debt when you calculate our balance of trade. It puts an entirely different spin on the issue.

    When the US borrows, it does so not just against its future output, but against the world's existing and future consumption of dollars and US debt as a store of value, as a measure of risk, and as a black-market acceptable currency.

    It's that inherent value (meta-stored value if you will) of our currency that makes it acceptable for us to borrow in excess of our own capacity; and to claim we are a NET exporter IMHO.

    --
    www.hiredinsight.com
  240. I have more than one kick ass idea though by CrazyJim0 · · Score: 1

    I'm working on my MMORPG right now, but this other idea would be boring to code, so I'll let someone else do it, unless someone comes to me with funding for this multi billion over a few years idea.

    Basically its an agent that job searches ALL the net for a position. Like ebay agents. To develop it, all you need to do is parse every website out there :) Good for 10 workers over 2-6 months. Not good for one coder.

    1. Re:I have more than one kick ass idea though by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1

      stay out of management, dude. screen scraping job: one programmer, one assistent, one month delivery, one month customer training (or alternatively, a N-year service contract). oops, i forgot, one year patent-search unless it is completely free software. :-/

    2. Re:I have more than one kick ass idea though by BiteMeFanboy · · Score: 1

      Take a look at his site, and the problems he has attempting to write ANYTHING. It would take ten of him and a year to get a screen scraper done.

    3. Re:I have more than one kick ass idea though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe WhizBang already did this and went out of business.

  241. Thats because Bush did the tax cut wrong by HanzoSan · · Score: 1


    Bush didnt properly cut taxes like Clinton did. When you cut taxes you want to also increase federal funding to the states so states dont raise taxes. Otherwise cutting taxes isnt doing anything but transfering money from the city to the rural communities.

    The city needs taxes to function, rural communities dont.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Thats because Bush did the tax cut wrong by jamesmrankinjr · · Score: 1

      The city needs taxes to function, rural communities dont.

      Then shouldn't we abolish our cities and move everyone into rural communities?

      Best,
      -jimbo

  242. Its 2003 now. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Bush has 1 year left. Hes been president from 2001-2003. In 2004 its the new election, so ok it wasnt exactly 4 years, maybe it was more like 3, but hes still been in office almost an entire term, what has he done? He has 1 year left, unless he works a miracle hes done.

    Please do not try to promote censorship, thats not good, I can blame Bush if i want, hes President and we have to blame someone. I'm sick of people making excuses for Bush, now with the weapons of mass destruction thing, people are looking for someone to blame, so they ignore Bush and look at the CIA?

    No, Bush is President, not the CIA.

    Bush has one last chance to do something right. His election is on the line, currently hes under pressure, the weapons of mass destruction have not been found, the economy is shit, his tax cuts while they did help the stock market, have not done anything for the economy, he has not fixed the leak in our econonmy which leaks all our tax money to India and China, until he does, tax cuts wont do anything to create jobs.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Its 2003 now. by Pave+Low · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      You are a really a Grade A moron. You are clueless about technology, politics, and economics, but I can notch arithmetic to the list.

      From January 20, 2001 to today, not even 2 and a half years has passed. Its just closing in on two years and five months. So it wasnt exactly 4 years or 3 BECAUSE IT WASNT AT ALL. And when you say he has one year left, I guess you're saying he'll be out of the White House next June?

      You idiotic drivel is just tiresome, stop embarassing yourself like this. I feel sorry that you find so much time to post so much, but say so little of any value.

      --
      SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
    2. Re:Its 2003 now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Question is what has bush done?
      Is the economy better? Are there more jobs?
      2 years, 3 years, 4 years is irrelevant he has been in office long enough!
      Answer that please!
      BTW you can take your arithmetic and shove up your arse!

  243. Grammer Correction. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

    Not everyone is competiting to earn money, some people just want to earn enough money to pay their bills, and do a job which they feel good about doing, which they believe will benefit the world, alot of people would prefer to feel useful working as a teacher, than feel like a useless peon as an office manager for a nameless faceless private company.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  244. haha good question. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Is this what Bush really wants? I dont think he knows what hes doing if you ask me. But by pushing people out of the cities, does he expect all the problems of the city not to follow him to his rural homelands?

    All the crime, drugs, toxic waste and other problems will move out of the expensive city to somewhere, wonder where it will be.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  245. This American would slightly prefer Germany by cthompso · · Score: 1

    I'll agree that the U.S. isn't too bad, all things considered. But having lived several years in Germany...yeah, if I could, I'd switch. Especially when I think of my 3 year old daughter, and what sort of future she will have here in the U.S., versus what a future Europe will be like (both good and bad parts). One big plus with the German system is that their politicians just don't get away with the enormous shenanigans you see here in the U.S. Yes, there are "scandals" there, but they seem petty by our standards. Why don't I put my money where my mouth is, you say? I checked, and it turns out the U.S. Internal Revenue Service takes almost all your money, if you go through proper channels to relocate permanently overseas. If that changes, that would be great, and I'd probably make the move.

    1. Re:This American would slightly prefer Germany by eugene_t00ms · · Score: 1

      You're neglecting one point though...The IRS can only do this if you retain your American Citizenship... So its all or nothing

      --
      Belief that Perspectives matter more than Facts = Mark of the Truly Ignorant
  246. Re:....and "something for nothing" profits mentali by Beliskner · · Score: 1

    ...stamp duty has that effect...

    --
    A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
  247. 16K/year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i love those stories i was reading in the newspaper telling the sad tales of a couple who now that the husband has lost his job they are headed to the poor house. the story goes on to tell that they now have to rely on the wife's medical residency salary of 40K a year. my heart bled for those people, especially since my girlfriend and i each make 16K/year for a total of 32K. they were worried about how they were going to make the mortgage and car payments (so sad). the article made no mention of his savings from the days when he was making 150K per year. people in the management of alot of these companies are just as bad as the people managing the money in the govt. i have no sympathy for those people. by the way, the story never mentioned that when the unemployment benefits ran out if he actually went and got a low income job to try to get at least some income flowing. poor guy.

  248. A slightly less drastic plan: National Value Chain by tjstork · · Score: 1

    I was a bit miffed when I wrote the above, largely because once again the employees feel the sting of the stupidity of American business managers and investors.

    For all of the ballyhooed triumphs of American capitalism, our investment and management class seems to have come to the conclusion that the people of the country whose flag they so bravenly wave are not capable of anything.

    We need to learn to say to ourselves, over and over and over again, our leadership is the problem, not the competitiveness of our workers.

    Since, mergers of companies into ever larger institutions is the rage, it stands to reason that all of the benefits of the mega merger would accrue if all of America's companies were merged into a national institution!

    Every US Citizen (and citizens of other countries that wanted join- Europe perhaps!), would be issued an internet based voting device to indicate the things they want. An end to end automated system would allocate the entire national gross national product by a democratic process. Citizens would band together electronically to work on different projects, and these bands could propose their own work. The whole thing would be electronically managed.

    Some pundits may call this socialism, but, it's really not, because:

    a) we retain a consumer society.

    b) we gain more rights because we link ownership of national assets to democratic values.

    c) we gain in efficiency by eliminating an unproductive investment class.

    d) we gain in efficiency because things like NDAs and patents would be completely unneccessary.

    e) we gain in efficiency for the same reasons that companies gain in efficiency. Consumer voting drives production forecasts, which in turn efficiently drives production allocation.

    If we can have an efficient automated value chain for a $300 billion dollar a year Walmart, why not have an even more efficient automated value chain for the entire 20 trillion dollar United States and Europe?

    --
    This is my sig.
  249. +1 by MKalus · · Score: 1

    Nope, I agree with you, but the problem is that the masses seem to think that only by giving up their own right, and by being skimmed do they have a chance of becoming rich one day themselves.

    In the past they sold products, nowadays they sell illusions.

    The emperor new clothes in full swing.

    --
    If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    1. Re:+1 by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Get it thru your head that a product does not have to be tangible in order to be legitimate.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  250. Re:OK. Enuff worrying. Let us look at some solutio by MKalus · · Score: 1

    Yes, but lately there have been reports (I think there even was a post on slashdot about this) that the lowlevel jobs start to migrate from India to China etc.

    --
    If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  251. You do not understand current accounts deficit by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 1
    The US does not export dollars. Ultimately all dollars are repatriated after they leave the US, but they are repatriated for goods in foreign nations produced by foreign companies and paying foreign workers.

    This is why the current account deficit is considerd bad and this is why when it becomes wider, it is reported as bad news, not good news.

    1. Re:You do not understand current accounts deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ultimately all dollars are repatriated"

      It doesn't matter if the dollars are repatriated. First, Its the process of continous [demand for] expatriation where the value resides. Second, many expatriated dollars (and debt) remain(s) outside the US economy in circulation or storage in foreign nations in-effect unrepatriated.

      I think you're splitting hairs to make a point that while partially true, doesn't effect the outcome I'm describing.

  252. a perfect example of US-Sweden differences by js7a · · Score: 1
    There you have it: When automobile thefts go up and test scores go down in Sweden, then Swedish citizens start clamoring for more police and teachers. Here in the U.S., the same thing happens, and the entrenched right lets the asault rifle ban expire and tries to outlaw abortion.

    Be thankful your government at least tells you what they could be doing better. In the U.S., treasury secretaries and budget directors who dare to speak the truth get fired and replaced with those who can take orders.

  253. The Jobs Ain't Comming Back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While a lot of network management can be done remotely, there is still a need for a physical presence

    And offshore vendors are more then happy to send someone to the United States for several months at a time to provide that on-site presence. This makes sense in a perverted sort of way: since the bulk of the company's IT staff is already Indian, it is easier to send someone from India -- who speaks the language and understands the culture -- then to use a US citizen.

    Most of the people that I work with on a daily bases are from India. We have SysAdmins, programers, customer support, DBAs, and architects. All of the work for the off-shore vendor; many have been in the US for close to a year now.

    I love seing comments from folks on here: I'm not worried about off-shore, my leet skills will save me. Or the companies will realize that it is more expensive in the long run to go off-shore. Or, don't talk about unions/laws/taxes; it will only drive more jobs off-shore. Oh Polyanna, when will you learn?

    Folks, unless you work for a small IT shop, your job is going to India or eastern Europe. Your skills are not that special; there is someone in India who can do your just as well as you can. The CEO will tell your internal customers to accept the new world order; it's good for the stock price and that is all that matters.

    The only thing that will stop this from happening is a change in US laws. Unless that happens, I will continue to tell folks that IT is a real shitty industry to enter.

    Get out while you still have your pride kids.

  254. Re:I remember way back when I had a job.-No you do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $5 an hour in the Depression days? HAHAHA! Try $5 a DAY if they were lucky.

    Hell, minimum wage was still under $5/hr when I was in High School during the 80s.

    Kids these days. $5/hr during the depression. You're so cute.

    *wipes a tear*

  255. You want Swedish style taxes here? by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    Look, I think people should be free to believe whatever they want. But if you think the Swedish system is so great, maybe you should pack up and move there, because we're never going to that kind of system. I read the article that you presented as evidence of what Swedes pay, but I'm not sold on those facts. There was an article a few years back about Swedish auto workers that had to be motivated by perks, because overtime would simply be sucked up by Swedish tax rates. And I know as recently as the late 90's, the Swedes had a bust ass deficit. So it isn't Paradise over there.

    I'd be happy to pay more taxes if I was sure it would go to good causes. But too often, it doesn't, especially on the state level. When guys like Robert Byrd can make entire branches of major federal agencies pack up and move to his state, I'll want to keep my own money, thanks. Another problem is the definition of "Progressive". You and I will definitely have different definitions of progress.

    Maybe there's no answer to this, because this country is both blessed and cursed with FAR diverging political opinions. But I would submit to you, sir, that most Americans would never go for Euro socialism-lite like that which is found in Sweden. The beauty of this country, is that you're free to try to convince myself and everyone otherwise....

    Good luck to you, sir.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:You want Swedish style taxes here? by js7a · · Score: 1
      I agree in very large part.

      The important point I would raise is that we need to get our local school and hospital funding models away from property taxes, which are almost always regressive, and into a progressive system such as Sweden's two-bracket income tax.

      Thank you for your kind wishes.

  256. Re:OK. Enuff worrying. Let us look at some solutio by Courageous · · Score: 1

    Sure. 'Course you pointed out some logistics problems with that. In India, while the coders demand more, you can guarantee that they probably speak English. The Tawainese probably all speak English, too, as well as the Chinese denizens in and around Hong Kong. Anyway, China's economy is veritably exploding. They are now the world's second largest economy, and could quite possibly outstrip the U.S. within just 10 years. Eventually, they will become a great *consumer*, and this is a very good thing.

    C//

  257. Partner? by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    We're really living in prosperity. It doesn't matter if big business has no need to innovate to the point where they must employ herds of people.

    My suggestion is for people to get together to produce the next generation of technology. Already we see movies hyping artificial intelligence and biotech more and more frequently albeit without the optimism of Star Trek.

    new technologies in demand:
    - less expensive but larger and lighter tablet PC, especially one that works with any pen
    - personal robot servant
    - virtual reality
    - long-term high capacity, portable and not-fragile backup media
    - aerodynamic car
    - solar power

    I'm talking about stuff that everyone wants to buy one for themself but does not quite exist.

    Therefore, don't just look for a job, create it. A fundamental principle for all the educated people is they have to use their imagination.

    Large corporations might tend to be more conservative due to a view that they have all the technology they need to maintain a cash flow where they think market share can't do any more than ripple around on the whims of consumers. That is, the big fish have eaten all the little fish.

    Still, there are a lot of lucrative technologies that beg to be developed, requiring large amounts of man hours, not too much risk, and promise to stay in business for a long time.

    We've seen a phase where many bizarre get-rich-quick schemes and scams have failed. But there are many areas that we can look to for work, areas that require real work rather than some pie-in-the-sky web company with no real idea of how to make money.

    How about an improved recycling system? Or reducing energy costs? Electronic books? Miniature GPS for valuable portable items?

    Even if large businesses are not buying as many new toys, individuals still have an appetite.

    Businesses might be governed by requirements as theorized by Maslow about people, but people, once they have satisfied their basic needs will turn to entertainment. Businesses are like machines - they don't need entertainment even if they provide it.

    However, businesses should go beyond the profit motive and try to improve the lives of people. Is there a profit in this? Many businesses right now are in a deadlock with their competition. They know how to achieve cashflow but have no curiosity for anything outside tested business activities. As time passes, it is natural for all the simple ways of earning revenue to be explored. The successful will motivate the newcomers to emulate or copy.

    It's too easy for business leaders to deprioritize the risky goals in the light of less risky goals. I will point this out to business leaders: ultimately technology will reach the level where your business area will be controlled by a small number of companies, as one may observe with car manufacturers. This technological takeover will spread to many types of businesses. This is fine - let the machines do the labor.

    One of the market forces that I can think of urging businesses in comfortable positions is the escalation of competition. Customers can be won by incentives. If businesses follow narrow, low risk objectives they face steeper competition. This breaks down when technology takes over. Customers like the low pricing caused by competition but are willing to accept a benign monopoly based on improving technology on the grounds that major price increases will cause an easily implemented competitor.

    People must reach for loftier goals. They should direct their businesses to reaching those goals. As businesses that we know become automated, people will lose their meaning in such activities. For example, no one will pull a plow with their bare hands if they can use a tractor. If we can extrapolate to the point where all the food production is automated, then what? Businesses need to anticipate and engineer a new world.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  258. Do what I do.. ask them their location.. by Genjurosan · · Score: 1

    If they say anywhere outside of the country they are serving, then tell them you don't want to talk to them and hang up. Each time they try to sell you something, ask them.

    ---> Caller: Hi, would you like to transfer a balance today to our card with 3.9% APR?
    ---> USA Bob: Where are you located?
    ---> Caller: India.
    ---> USA Bob: Oh, don't call me back until someone from the USA is on the line, goodbye.

    *CLICK*

    1. Re:Do what I do.. ask them their location.. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I keep a foghorn in a can for all bill collectors and sales men. It doesn't take many tries before they stop calling and let their friends know to do the same. :)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    2. Re:Do what I do.. ask them their location.. by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      So you think the 10 people who will do this with you can really make a difference?

      And what makes you think everyone wants to force a company to hire expensive American workers which will raise the cost of the product? And don't bitch about how the executives could maintain the price of the product if they would simply take a paycut. Its not their responsibility to take a paycut for their workers, just increase profits and productivity for the shareholders. If they do so then they deserve whatever they get as pay.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  259. Guess what.... . by alizard · · Score: 1
    Oil production has peaked.

    There aren't any new oil fields left to bring on line, and demand is still increasing.

    If there wasn't an oil supply problem, why would the US go to war to take over a nation that supplies oil?

    Unless you believe that the US really did go to war to stop Saddam from deploying what now appear to be imaginary weapons of mass destruction, or to save the citizens of Iraq from Saddam's (unfortunately not imaginary) oppression. If you do, go back to your Trekkie fantasies, you have no business in an adult public policy discussion.

    1. Re:Guess what.... . by RGRistroph · · Score: 1

      Right now, you get hydrogen from oil.

      The "hydrogen economy" is like the "battery economy". If we run everything off of batteries, we still have to charge them. Hydrogen and fuel cells are just better batteries.

      If oil has peaked (I'm a Texan, I've been hearing that since I could read) you still need to find a way to make hydrogen without using oil. Hydrogen is just the transport method; it's as silly as talking about switching from coal to a "copper economy" because we will all get our electricity from a copper wire. There has to be something on the end of wire, and you have to make the hydrogen.

      As for oil peaking, perhaps you would care to place a bet on the price of gas in 3 years ? Pick what you think the lowest price gas could be as we continue to run out.

  260. Negative feedback... by DrCode · · Score: 1

    This is a good thing, as it will help correct the situation. A week dollar means that overseas workers and products become more expensive, while domestic become more affordable.

  261. Linkage - Re:US National Debt by xtrucial · · Score: 1
  262. Re:OK. Enuff worrying. Let us look at some solutio by MKalus · · Score: 1
    Eventually, they will become a great *consumer*, and this is a very good thing.


    That I would detest, the average north american is burning way too much resources and isn't doing too well when it comes to sustainability.

    And that's only 300 million people, I don't even want to imagine when you all of the sudden have 1 billion people trying to live the same way.

    So no, I don't think that this would be a "good" thing for the world in general.
    --
    If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  263. Re:Solution? Try a different career... by miniver · · Score: 1

    Oddly enough, I do an awful lot of my own maintenance. I can't see paying a contractor to do work that I can do, and who I'd have to supervise directly in order to get the job done with the quality I want. Not to say I do everything -- I am more than happy to pay an electrical contractor to add new electrical circuits (putting new circuit breakers into a breaker box is not a job for amateurs), but I've done all of the phone and network wiring, and most of the electrical work. I've built new walls, installed doors, repaired and installed drywall, and installed linoleum flooring. And painting. Way too much painting, though my wife does the bulk of that.

    The next major projects are redoing the kitchen (much of which will be contracted out because I don't have the time to do everything myself) and converting a storage room into a workroom for my wife (she makes glass beads & jewelry) complete with kiln.

    --
    We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
  264. Don't forget mechanics... by xtal · · Score: 1

    I have a EE degree.. as soon as I have more money saved, I'm heading for the performance auto tuning and rebuilding world. It's been my hobby for a long time - and everyone has a car. The worse the economy gets, the more people who want to keep old cars on the road.. the more old cars.. the more repairs..

    And, FWIW, most tradespeople do a hair better than $14/hr around here once you work your way up and build a client base.

    --
    ..don't panic
  265. No, the worst ever is by jeff4747 · · Score: 1
  266. Re:*cough* 30's? *cough* (The Other Missing Thing) by entropy123 · · Score: 1

    The person you just hired knows more than you, has better interpersonal skills and many more good contacts. Suddenly you have a much greater problem than a blank space on the org sheet. My advice to Mr. Klinck would be to start his own company from scratch. Such a charismatic leader was surely loved at his former company and many highly qualified people would immediately come work for him. Failing that, start taking stuff off your resume. entropy The 'Burger King' modification: $200,000/yr ----> $9/hr Now all the 18yr old Burger King manager has to say is, well we only hire at $8/hr but if you do a goo job we can boost you up to $9/hr in six months. Instant employment.

  267. Jesus H. Christ by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    There IS such a thing as welfare you know. Its PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE to use it if your about to have essential services like ELECTRICITY cut off.

    But I mean come on, you don't have any relatives you could move back in with? There's no retail or fast food places you could find work at? Just because you can't get a tech job doesn't mean you should allow yourself to starve.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    1. Re:Jesus H. Christ by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Trust me. At the time I was having trouble I tried everything possible. The local system was such that they wouldn't give you utility assistance unless you had children in the household. I had no friends or relatives that I could move in with (though a few helped me with wht money they could spare) and the job market was horrible. I got a job for a while doing horrible phone spamming but couldn't find a fast food place that'd hire me. I have a horrible time getting shitty jobs. Not really sure why. Even when I was a teenager most my jobs were in IT.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  268. progressives and handguns by js7a · · Score: 1
    do you deny that there is a strong number of progressives who are considered mainstream who wish to ban handguns?

    Well, if you divide the progressives up into pragmatists and idealists, I'd guess less than a percent of the former want to ban handguns, whereas perhaps half of the idealists do. But those are many of the people who say they want to legalize hemp to help the textile industry, if you get my drift. I'm not alone in my lack of trust of idealogues, be they progressive or otherwise, and they don't often get elected.

    Most of the pragmatic progressives these days who care at all about gun issues are focused on things like making a chamber round indicator mandatory so kids don't keep shooting each other. We lose a whole lot of kids every year because they think ejecting a magazine unloads a gun.

    As for things like registration, mandatory training and safety inspections, trigger locks, etc., that's another story, and very well within the meaning of the 2nd amendment's words, "well regulated." Even "The Brady Campaign works to enact sensible gun control legislation in the United States but does not seek to ban guns."

  269. IT dug out its own grave. by $criptah · · Score: 1

    It is not a surprise that IT workers are the ones who experience the most horrors in this economy. Why? The answer is simple: the IT industry carries the most responsibility for screwing itself over because it pushed for a flood of underqualified professionals.

    During the mid nineties everybody, mostly immigrants, on my block were 'developers.' People who were fresh off the boat, including my mom, went to community colleges and technical schools because anybody who could put a couple of catch phrases had a potential to be hired. There were many people who did not consider going to college or do anything meaningful with their lives. Why bother if you could earn money by doing something that not everybody is born to do: coding. I remember some people bragging about how little they learnt and how much money they were getting for almost having almost no skills. Companies were eager to hire newly created 'developers' because they hoped to use them in the future. When the ideas fell through, these companies began to lay people off. These layoffs created a class of unemployed IT professionals; the irony is that some of those people don't even belong in IT.

    I have known many of people that got into IT in the middle of the nineties only because of money. They did not like what they did at work, the did not show any interest in technology or what was the driving force behind it. They thought that taking a bunch of course at a local community college will provide them with enough experience for the rest of their lives. Right? Wrong!! Yet, for some magical reason, companies hired them! I have talked to some of these developers: not only they lacked the basics, but they were not interested in improving things, learning, and benefitting their own companies! Eventhough some of these people sucked, they managed to get several years of experience and now they compete with both real IT professionals and students who graduate with technical degrees. The consequences are horrible: IT unemployment is on the rise and managers think that there is a whole lot of professionals looking for jobs. Yeah, I know a lot of professionals, people with 10+ years of experience who have to work at a local retail store in order to support their families. At the same time I know several 'software engineers' who asked me what 'threads' were. Moreover, everytime I turn on my TV I see yet another commercial that advertises a 1 year technical college with programs that will bring deep knowledge of a certain IT field and economic prosperity. It seems that companies have learnt that IT demands knowledge, experience and interest just like any other industry.

  270. Which is true. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Many Indian companies have certifications backing their claims to quality that many Western companies only dream of.

    Filipino companies do not have those.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Which is true. by LTRUETT · · Score: 1

      Keep telling yourself that US Corporations care at all about your certifications.

      Corporations went to India for workers because you could produce code cheaper than US workers. They didn't care then that your first language isn't English. They didn't care then that most Indian programmers went to schools that very few US executives had heard of. They didn't care that working remotely with foreign workers with a big time difference is not as good as having the programmers right there working the same hours as their US office staff.

      Cheaper price rules in programming these days.

      If, in the unlikely event it turns out US Coporations actually do care about certifications, it's certain that in some other country programmers will manage to get just as certified as in India. Perhaps they will be even more certified than Indian workers. I don't know if it will be in the Philippines, China, Russia, Ireland, or somewhere else. If it matters, it will happen. However, I doubt it matters all that much.

      Cheaper price. That's how India got the work in the first place. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

  271. Services Luke. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    You sell tailored services of some kind or another Luke.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Services Luke. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      To some extent that works but how many services are there that have to be done locally and can't be farmed out overseas?

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  272. If unemployment raise in the US... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... then labour becomes cheaper, which is an inncentive for companies working in the US.

    In an era of closed markets labour in Western countries was overvalued. Globalization is bringing labour costs back to reality and eventually will mean that people are hired based on merit, not in price.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  273. The Grade Tax? by js7a · · Score: 1
    I have never heard of The Grade Tax, and Google has not enlightned me with a cursory search.

    Please tell me more.

  274. Re:OK. Enuff worrying. Let us look at some solutio by Courageous · · Score: 1

    "Burning away too much resources" and purchasing what others produce are two different things; moreover, not all resources are unrenewable. It's generally a good thing, for humans, when their country joins the first world. First world nations generally enjoy stable (even shrinking) populations, also.

    C//

  275. Re:OK. Enuff worrying. Let us look at some solutio by MKalus · · Score: 1

    China already has a population problem (see "one child policy" and what that does to the world).

    Even if, say, over the next 10 years China would loose 10% of their population while increasing the overall living standard by 10% that would still mean that 900 million people would consume easily as much as as the US is right now. And the US already consumes huge amounts of crude oil and other resources. Some of them renewable, most of them are not.

    --
    If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.