Slashdot Mirror


Small Town USA Competing With India

William Hood writes "According to a news article at ABC, companies are sometimes opting to outsource to rural USA rather than foreign countries. Although it still achieves the same result of lowering the value of a job, I think the idea of moving to a larger house that costs less in a town with no traffic is a much better option than flying to Bangalore to train your replacement." From the article: "Sebeka is 14 miles from the closest traffic light, hours from the nearest Starbucks coffee shop and a far cry from the Chicago suburb he left. 'There is no traffic,' said technical consultant Clayton Seal, who also works in Sebeka. 'Anytime, day or night, you can cross Main Street -- almost don't have to look 'cause there's nobody there.' Seal also lost his job to outsourcing."

496 comments

  1. Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Seumas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How exactly do you buy a larger house on a smaller salary? Chances are, if they move you to a more remote and cheaper part of the country, they're going to reduce your salary to an adjusted range for that region.

    So let me get this straight... you move away from your family and friends. You pull your children out of their school, away from their family and away from their friends. You go through the trouble of selling your house and moving to a new place and buying a new house on your reduced salary. You lose the conveniences and diversity of a big city.

    And what do you end up with? A job that could still always be outsourced if someone gets that bug up their ass. And what happens when that position is no longer there? Well, now you're stuck in the middle of nowhere and will probably have to move again because your new little podunk town isn't where all the jobs are - just your current one.

    But if you want to inconvenience your family and live like a nomad, at the beck, whim and call of your employer - go for it.

    For the record, my employer did this recently, too. But I refused to follow along unless they not only retained my previous salary dollar for dollar (not just salary GRADE), but gave me an increase. Most people, however, are not in a position to make such demands and will be in the "do it or we give your job to some guy in Russia" category.

    Even companies that are doing this then move on to the next step of outsourcing, because no matter how cheap they can find labor in America, it's cheaper elsewhere. There are places without OSHA. Places without the same expectation of benefits. Places without the same taxation requirements or insurance. Places with cheaper construction, electricity and maintenance costs. If you can hire an engineer for $4-$7/hr outside of this country, why would you ever waste your money hiring an American when they could make more than that at Burger King?

    To stay employable in the future in this country, you need to have highly marketable skills that are unlikely to be shipped overseas. Brush up on your ability to push a broom or ring up a cash register.

    Seriously, any and every job that can be outsourced, eventually will be. I can't think of many that could not be. Even surgery eventually (since we saw the story of a surgery taking place across the ocean, via a remote/robot). Management could be handled overseas. Product manufacturing can be done over seas. Taking orders at a fast food drive through can be done overseas. Gas pumping can be automated. Even cashier work will eventually be automated. I guess security guard work is probably a sure bet. Police work. Janitorial work. And, I suppose, hollywood/acting type of work. Maybe teaching?

    And yes, I'm a little bitter because I was too young to get into the game to enjoy the dot-com insanity and profit from it and now it feels less like a career every day and more like an 8-5 burger flipping job.

    1. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hello this is HAL,
      How can I help you?
      Would you like cheese with that hamburger?

    2. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life sucks. Find another damn line of work. Parent is trolling.

    3. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Seumas · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, I don't know about that - but do you remember the story from Oregon (my home state) where McDonald's had outsourced the drive through ordering position to a call center in the midwest (North Dakota, I think?). There's no reason they couldn't outsource that overseas for even less money... except people overseas probably are developing a high enough standard that they likely wouldn't take such a menial job for $2/hr, while an American would lap it up for $5/hr.

    4. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is a exec of a major IT company trying to justify outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries.

    5. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Synn · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you buy a larger house on a smaller salary? Chances are, if they move you to a more remote and cheaper part of the country, they're going to reduce your salary to an adjusted range for that region.

      I live in Fort Lauderdale Florida, I used to live in Fort Wayne Indiana. The same house in Fort Wayne would cost me 3-5x as much in Fort Lauderdale. Salaries here are higher, but not 3-5x higher.

      On the flip side though, things like groceries, cars, cable tv, computers and so on all cost the same in this country no matter where you live.

    6. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Parent is a exec

      Not you though. You need to go back to the third grade to learn grammar.

      Oh yea, you are a fucking retard too. Read the Fucking article and read the actual posts before you begin posting your meaningless 12 year old opinion.

    7. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by chrisopherpace · · Score: 1

      You don't work as a Guidance Engineer for the Geek Squad- do you?

    8. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Uhlek · · Score: 5, Informative

      Obviously written by someone with no knowledge of the housing market.

      Most large metropolitan areas are, and have been the last 5 years or so, in the middle of bubble markets. Some are worse than others, but in almost all cases, those that make the median incomes cannot afford the median home.

      Take where I live, Washington DC. We're in one of the worst bubbles in the history of the United States. People who make six-figure salaries cannot afford homes within 50 miles of the District. Even housing in far-flung communities like Fredericksburg VA, Waldorf MD, and even Martinsburg WV are skyrocketing.

      The reason is speculation. People are willing to purchase homes they cannot afford out of the concept that they will make massive returns on it later on. They're right -- up to a point. Eventually (many are saying within the next couple years) the price point will level off because there simply aren't enough people who can afford those prices, then once it levels off, the speculation will end, and prices will plummet. Personally, I think it's all a scam engineered by real estate investors, which is why I'm renting.

      Rural areas have been spared this. Making 100k a year, you can only afford to rent in and around DC. Making 50k in a rural area, you can afford a large home with acrage and still have enough left over for a very comfortable lifestyle. You won't be wearing the latest fashions and drinking at the finest clubs, but, you won't be expected, to, either.

      There's always other friends, and besides, children would probably be better served growing up in a rural area vice a city, with all the problems that they come with.

      It's all contingent on what's important to you.

    9. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Well, now you're stuck in the middle of nowhere and will probably have to move again because your new little podunk town isn't where all the jobs are - just your current one.

      If the house out in the country is set on a farm, the land can be rented out to be farmed. There are many different ways to use the land bring in some income. Living out in the country is a different lifestyle and you have to be more resourceful since you have to work for it. It's not like living in the big city and expecting everything to be there for you.

    10. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      " How exactly do you buy a larger house on a smaller salary? Chances are, if they move you to a more remote and cheaper part of the country, they're going to reduce your salary to an adjusted range for that region."
      Easy they cut your salary by 20% and homes cost 1/5 what they do where your from.
      I am thinking of doing this with our current tech support center. The difference is that we are planning on paying the same as we currently do. We are in South FL and frankly we can not FIND anyone that will work for $12-$15 an hour to do tech support. Home prices have gone up over 100% in the last 4 years. The average home costs over 200k now. The schools are over crowded and traffic is out of control.
      Depending on what is important to you small towns can offer a better standard of living than a big city for a fraction of the cost.
      If you want.
      Clean air.
      Good primary schools
      little traffic.
      Outdoor activities like, cycling, hiking, camping, hunting, and fishing.
      Then a small town might just be perfect for you.
      If you want
      clubbing.
      bars.
      Chinese food that will melt your eyeballs at 2:00 am
      Art galleries.
      Live Theater.
      then yea a big city is a good choice.
      Yea you do sound bitter. My customers do not care that that a home is going to cost 300k here soon. They do not care that gas is almost $3 a gallon. They do not want to pay twice what they are paying now for technical support. I do care that the people that work for me can not afford a home and that the schools that they have to send their kids too suck.
      We will give them a choice. They can stay hear of move at the same pay.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    11. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea, you can rent the land out but the way the system works now a days is that the landlord is expected to pay a major portion of all expenses, from seed, chemicals, electricity, natural gas and for the pumps. But they only get back 1/10 of what the crop was sold for.

      got to love farming

    12. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > How exactly do you buy a larger house on a smaller salary?

      Buy it where real-estate values are lower. This is pretty basic. The cost of living difference between Galion, where I live, and Columbus, one hour to the south, is at least an order of magnitude overall, and the difference is larger for real estate than some other things. (New cars, for instance, are basically the same cost here as there.)

      > You lose the conveniences and diversity of a big city.

      Diversity I'll give you, but convenience? If there's anything less convenient than living in a big city, I'm sure I don't know what it is.

      And yeah, being asked to relocate by your employer is a bummer, but it's not a _new_ bummer; employers have been asking employees to relocate for decades; it's just that previously they mostly moved people *toward* the bigger cities.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    13. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Seriously, any and every job that can be outsourced, eventually will be. I can't think of many that could not be. Even surgery eventually (since we saw the story of a surgery taking place across the ocean, via a remote/robot).


      I can just imagine the first malpractise suit for when someone dies because there was an internet outage.

    14. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yes, I'm a little bitter because I was too young to get into the game to enjoy the dot-com insanity and profit from it and now it feels less like a career every day and more like an 8-5 burger flipping job.

      So, basically what your saying is that your entire post some angst-ridden monologue because you didn't win the dot-com lottery. Boo Hoo.

    15. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      + You make $100k in a big city where the average house price is $250k.

      + Your employer cuts your salary 40% to $60k to match the cost of living in your new city.

      + The average house costs $175k in your new rural paradise.

      How exactly are you going to buy a bigger house, now? Yes - housing is cheaper, but your salary is proportionally smaller, too.

      Most big companies are not going to pay you $100k in HickSticks, Nowhere just because that's what they pay people in San Francisco for the same position where your HQ is.

      Of course, I'm talking about the difference between maybe Portland/Seattle compared to, say, Wichita. The average housing price in Wichita buys you essentially the same that the average housing price in Portland and Seattle would. You're not getting more space or anything in the bargain. And once you factor in the adjusted salary for cost of living, you have about the same buying power for the same house quality as you would have with the bigger salary on the west coast.

    16. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Doppler00 · · Score: 1

      Wow, houses are less than 300k there? Around where I live the average home is still like $600k.

    17. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by SwedishChef · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How exactly do you buy a larger house on a smaller salary?

      Anyone who has watched "What You Get for the Money" on cable tv knows that what you get depends more on where you are than on what you make. Rural America is no different. In N. Dakota you can buy 300 acre farms for less than a studio apartment in San Francisco. But unless you are a damn good farmer (or semi-retired) you might not want to move there.

      However there are lots of places with most of the amenities of big cities without the high prices. In Moses Lake, Washington, for instance, you can buy a nice 3br, 2ba ranch house for under $100,000; often lots less. Or a condo on the water with dock for your jet-skiis for $129,000. And about 2.5 hours to Seattle or 1.5 hours to Spokane if you really *must* get to a big city.

      Want Internet? Moses Lake has DSL and cable Internet plus Fiber-to-the-home in many places (not all) at reasonable prices (under $50 per month for duplex 1mbps). And power rates that are among the lowest in the country at under 4 cents per kw/hour.

      Moses Lake has an entire former B-52 bomber base with a 13,000 foot runway and tons of room for construction of new buildings in case you don't like the old Air Force hangars.

      Recreation? The lake itself is great for water skiing, kayaking, sailing and jet-skiing. We have hundreds of acres of sand dunes south of town for 4-wheeling and off road motorcycling. Bird hunting in the fall, fishing in the summer and deer and elk close by if you really have to go kill something. We are 1.5 hours from ski resorts and x/c ski areas, Moses Lake has a *FREE* ice skating rink in the winter, bike trails, tennis courts, a dozen baseball fields, great parks, and friendly people.

      Ever want to learn to fly gliders? One of the finest locations for soaring flight is run by the Seattle Glider Council and located at a former WWII training base in Ephrata; only 20 miles away. This is where the Seattle pilots come to really learn to fly gliders.

      Top it off with free concerts in the park every Saturday during the summer, a Community College and affiliations with several 4-year universities, splendid weather featuring summers with rainy days you can count on the fingers one hand and friendly people.

      So not only can you buy a bigger house on a smaller salary but you get a better lifestyle too.

      --
      No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
    18. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Hugonz · · Score: 3, Funny

      What if all I want is proper HTML, maybe some bullets here and there??? couldn't resist, sorry.

    19. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by aka1nas · · Score: 3, Informative

      Where do you live that a house near, let alone in, a big city is only $250k? In SoCal, the average house price is well over $400k now. Somewhere in the midwest, you can buy a decent home for closer to $100k depending on area.

    20. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      In Cary, NC(which is close to a lot of tech companies, specifically Red Hat), the average home is probably around $200k.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    21. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by BackInIraq · · Score: 1

      Of course, I'm talking about the difference between maybe Portland/Seattle compared to, say, Wichita. The average housing price in Wichita buys you essentially the same that the average housing price in Portland and Seattle would. You're not getting more space or anything in the bargain. And once you factor in the adjusted salary for cost of living, you have about the same buying power for the same house quality as you would have with the bigger salary on the west coast.

      I think the article was talking about towns more like Salina that Wichita. Or maybe Tonganoxie. You know, actual small towns, not undersized cities with delusions of grandeur. And housing in a place like Salina, KS or State Center, IA is cheaper than housing in Seattle or San Jose, even after adjusting for median income. Housing in both major and minor urban areas is in the middle of a huge bubble, but there are plenty of towns in the sub-10k range that have not yet been hit, or have not been hit as hard.

    22. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by zbend · · Score: 1

      Farming has a become a hobby, an expense not a source of income.

    23. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by rpozz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't worry about it.

      Firstly, offshore outsourcing in computer science appears to be grinding to a halt, according to a few sources, mainly because overall it doesn't really save money. Slashdot won't report it because their parent company, VA Software actively supports outsourcing. OSTG has plenty of adverts on it (not here though obviously - two-faced bastards).

      Secondly, no manager wants to get too carried away with outsourcing, because inevitably their job is next, especially seeing as they will have an enormous salary.

      Finally, as even Slashdot will report, India is becoming too expensive(!!) for outsourcing. However, not many countries have as many English speakers as India, so it isn't as easy to achieve.

      There's a good joelonsoftare article on why it makes sense to hire programmers based on skill, rather than salary.

    24. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      However there are lots of places with most of the amenities of big cities without the high prices. In Moses Lake, Washington, for instance, you can buy a nice 3br, 2ba ranch house for under $100,000; often lots less. Or a condo on the water with dock for your jet-skiis for $129,000. And about 2.5 hours to Seattle or 1.5 hours to Spokane if you really *must* get to a big city.

      Since when is Seattle a big city? And Spokane?! You can't even make an argument for that one...

    25. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by ipjohnson · · Score: 1

      Lots of places have very nice homes for under 300K you just have to move out of LA/NY/BOS/....

      Check out upstate New England and NY state.

    26. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by leonbev · · Score: 1

      "On the flip side though, things like groceries, cars, cable tv, computers and so on all cost the same in this country no matter where you live."

      Cars and computers, maybe. Cable TV and Groceries? No way in hell. When I moved from rural Pennsylvania to the metro NY area, both my grocery and cable bills jumped 25%. Sure, I got a slightly better selection of food options and premium cable channels, but not enough to justify the cost difference. Of course, IT work pays almost double in this area, so it was still worth it to move.

      Because the cost of living is much higher here, almost everyone from the CEO's to the janitors get higher wages. These added employment costs come back to consumers as price increases, so everything from gasoline to the price of weed killer at the local K-Mart is higher.

    27. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      If you can command $100K in Seattle/Redmond/Edmonds, then you can command $80K in Charlotte, NC, where a house costs much less. A 1900 sq. ft. house in Redmond on a 1/6 acre lot will run you half a million dollars. That same money will buy you a 5000 sq. ft. place in Charlotte with five acres.

    28. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by mikael · · Score: 1

      You would still attend a medical office, but they would have backup communication lines (cable, satellite).

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    29. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Okay so who is willing to pay $90 an hour for telephone support tech job?.... Our service contract for costs our customers $500 year for 24/7 800 support. BTW our customers have to wait less than 20 minutes for a call back on average and out techs have access to our programing staff. It is a little different than calling Dell. Do you think they would be willing to pay 3000? I doubt it.
      Yea you can get a nice home a lot of places for less then 600k a year.
      Here for 300k you can get a nice house with maybe a pool. We do have a Starbucks, Borders, Barns and Nobel, good Sushi, and a nice clean Beach. BTW about 8 years ago that same house might have cost you $70,000

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    30. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My customers do not care that that a home is going to cost 300k here soon. They do not care that gas is almost $3 a gallon. They do not want to pay twice what they are paying now for technical support.

      Then screw them. This is the crux of the issue. No one wants to pay. Well tough. Your custoomers didn't care about the 300k house and the $3 a gallon gas so forgive me if I could give a rat's ass about them having to pay for what people are worth. If they think it should be so bloody cheap then it should be trivial for them to learn to do it themselves, right?

    31. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      That is true - depending upon the size of the farm.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    32. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by magarity · · Score: 1

      And what do you end up with? A job that could still always be outsourced
       
      Yeah, but on 7 acres the guy can at least sustinence-farm until things pick up. Do that in a SF condo.

    33. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You clearly do not live in Silicon Valley.
      An "average" 3 bed home, no frills here will set you back 700k - 1m.

      Move to rural america, heck anywhere and you can buy a god damn mansion for 300k.

      You take your equity and run. Assuming you have equity and you're not stupidly buying property right now with interest only mortgages because you can't afford it.

      The housing market is going to crash folks, get ready for negative equity.

    34. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      The OPs *entire point* is that in metropolitan areas, the house prices are out of whack. Traditionaly, yes, you would be able to afford the same level of house for the same relative income in any area. However, recently metropolitan areas have been breaking this proportionality, so that 50th percentile incomes can now only afford 25th percentile homes. The idea is that you move to the country, take your cost of living paycut, and get a house in line with your relative salary.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    35. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      So let me get this straight... you move away from your family and friends. You pull your children out of their school, away from their family and away from their friends. You go through the trouble of selling your house and moving to a new place and buying a new house on your reduced salary. You lose the conveniences and diversity of a big city.
      Well that's funny, those of us who aren't from big cities, and who don't want to be, have been facing this exact proposition for years, but forced to move to the city rather than from it.

      My dream job is to consult, living in a beautiful natural setting, and spending about 10% of my time on travel, onsite. (I know of a childhood friend who is doing exactly that). To me large cities are fun to visit but I get my fill.

    36. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I grew up in Moses Lake. It's a wonderful little place, but you have to like a nice hot day every once in a while. Having lived in both small towns and big cities. I have to say that my fun money/savings was bigger in the small town (after rent grocery, gas and insurance were taken care of) but the only people who figured this out were families. I left for the city because all my friends were older than me with families. I always found it ironic that the dot com boom was developed around the idea that information would be much easier to transmit quickly and cheapluy but all the businesses were founded within a few miles of some of the most expensive real estate in the country.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    37. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Mspangler · · Score: 1

      Well said, Swedishchef. I live near Soap Lake. My house was $130,000 for two acres with water rights. There is an apple orchard across the street. Red tailed hawks nested in a tree about 100 yards from the house, seriously depleting the local rodent population.

      Not everything is perfect though. The Western Tanagers have made heavy inroads on my grapes. I hope the netting gets here soon.

      Why anyone lives in the city has always been a mystery to me. Unless you live right down town you end up spending more time in traffic than you do in the country. A visitor from Seattle asked my how far I drove to work, and I answered is 28 miles. He looked horrifed, and asked how long it took. That answer is 35 minutes. His jaw dropped. (I don't have to park on the highway on the way to work.) Apparently this is unheard of in Seattle.

      Back to the house, the average house in Seattle is $330,000 now. If I lived there, I would make maybe 50% more, if I'm optimistic. So 1.5 times salary minus the higher taxes from the higher tax bracket, 2.5 times housing costs, 1.5 times more food costs, (my garden pays for itself big time, plus the other benefits on living in a farm area), and maybe 0.75 the gas cost, if the trip is shorter, and I don't waste it all idling in traffic jams. I see no benefit in city life.

      Oh, and live theater is available at the Masquers in downtown Soap Lake, 2.5 miles from my driveway.

    38. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      The problem is ultimately having your job moved to a "cheaper" place, not the idea that the work is done from some place with a lower cost of living.

      When you look at real costs of doing business, recruiting is huge. Finding the talent pool is very hard. Being able to cater to (perfectly qualified) moms that want to be able to work, but have a newborn is hard. There are plenty of problems that companies face hiring the right people to get the job done. Yes, all of this has to be at the right price, but the real problem is finding that top 10%, 5%, or 2% that a company might need to be successful.

    39. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where I grew up (Syracuse New York), the average house price is less than 100k. You get out to the suburbs, the house prices are only 150k. The 1800 sq ft house that I grew up in is appraised at 75k.

      This housing boom is localized only in a few places (Washington - Boston, San Francisco and Greater LA). Elsewhere, housing prices are pretty much what they have always been.

    40. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by deanj · · Score: 1

      I've lived in the West and the midwest.

      In the midwest, a house that costs about $250K would cost at LEAST $800k in the west (and that's at the extreme low end). That's for a salary drop of between 10-20k.

      You get a lot of house for that $250k too. Nice neighborhood, actual yard, 2300 sq ft above ground, finished 1500 SQ FT. basement, two story house, four bedrooms, big kitchen, two car garage, etc. It's been a while since I've been in CA, so I don't know what the going rate is for that kind of house.

      And that's in a big city area. If you go to a smaller region, that $250K will buy you a LOT more house even than what I described. With a LOT of land.

    41. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Wiseleo · · Score: 1

      Calling my cell phone is like calling a 900-number at a similar rate. Why do people do it? They know that their problem will be solved. Any problem that costs them more than $90/hr is cheaper to solve at that rate. They don't have to call often since we implement fault-tolerant solutions with full monitoring capabilities and not the standard budget junk. If their problem can be solved by my first tier people, the charge is reduced. $3000/year for unlimited access to senior support who would demand $3000/month at least? It's a steal. Raise the price :)

      --
      Leonid S. Knyshov
      Find me on Quora :)
    42. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, I'm glad you added that bit about what areas you were comparing. We're not all in the same boat and frankly, I don't know of any truly big cities where home prices are still 250k and you can make 100k. 250k in a big city? Not in California.

      This is how it worked for me. Between my wife and I, we made about 140k a year up in SF. In SF and all close regions, the best priced houses we could find without living in a demilitarized zone, was well over half a million, unless you count townhouses in decent(not good) neihborhoods, which were steals at 400k. It was and remains absolutely ridiculous what houses go for in SF and the silicon valley.

      So we moved to a far more remote region, 2500 sqft houses, BRAND NEW, starting at under 200k(at the time, now it's doubled since then). My wife took a 30 percent pay cut and I started my own business which the first year was less than half what I made up north. What we got was a house equivalent to what was selling at the time for 800k up north, and monthly payments EXACTLY the same as what we paid for rent on our dinky townhouse in a bad neighborhood.

      Now, take this a step further and move to a really remote area, and say you already own a house in an expensive area, it is very likely you can sell that house, and own outright in a remote area. We're actually about to move now, as this area has gotten too crowded and more expensive, and most of our work is all done over the net anyway. The areas we're looking at we'll own our house outright, and have cheaper property tax rates to boot, and this time, we won't even have pay cuts to deal with, aside from my local contracts, which are a very very small part of our income now. And if our big money income dries up? We'll own the house outright and will have time to find new opportunities. At least, a lot more time than if we stay in this area where we still have a mortgage payment.

      It really depends what area you're coming from and what area you're looking to move to. Wichita is a bigger area than a true rural community, so the prices will be a bit higher. If you're leaving a LA, SF, or NY area, and head to a backwoods Idaho area, you can make out like a bandit, especially if you aleady have substantially equity in your home.

      and BTW, 175k in a rural area? You're not looking far enough. I know areas where you can get homes in the 125k range. They aren't going to be mansions, but they will be comfortable.

    43. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Interesting
      There's always other friends, and besides, children would probably be better served growing up in a rural area vice a city, with all the problems that they come with.

      Not necessarily:
      * City magnet schools are some of the best, if your kid is smart and can get in
      * Rural areas have their social problems, too, often more so than cities (witness the recent problems with crystal meth in the Midwest and West)
      * Kids can actually *walk* in cities with less of a risk of being hit by a car (counterintuitive, but cities have sidewalks and traffic doesn't move that fast). Not to mention that there are interesting places to go to within walking distance. I see a lot more 10-12 y.o. kids out walking on their own in NYC than in any rural area
      * Gangs are still a problem in "rural" areas. Look at some parts of New Mexico for an example of this.
      * Don't think that rural areas aren't polluted. Pesticide runoff and industrial pollution (like from mining and coal burning powerplants) is more of a problem than one would like to think.

      Cheers,
      -b.

    44. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      1/8 section (80 acres) of good farmland will go for that in markets not distorted by cities.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    45. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by lost_n_confused · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I moved to a rural area 9 years ago and I lost so many of those big city conveniences. I lost all the metal detectors to protect my kids. I lost the drug dealer on every corner. I lost all the street gangs. I lost all of the crime. I lost having to lock my doors. I lost having my car broken into. I lost the traffic. I lost $250k houses and replaced them with $50k to $100k houses that are bigger with land measured in acres. I lost having to pay $10 a person to see a movie (In the next town admission for 2 adults to a movie, a large popcorn, and 2 20 oz bottles of pop is $10). I lost crowded schools (my daughters high school graduating class will be 18.) I lost crowded state parks. I lost fighting for hours every weekend to put my boat in at the lake. I lost crowded camp grounds. I lost all the lovely air pollution. I lost 3 hour waits to renew my drivers license. I lost high priced doctor's office visits (a visit to the local hospital emergency room at 2 AM, x-rays, doctor's fee, cast, pain medication, and follow up for a broken hand was $409. The one local doctor who still make house calls for $35 moved into town 5 years ago.) I lost having to worry if my wife breaks down that the car load of 5 or 6 teens that pull up behind her are up to no good. I lost the shitty workers at local stores (they bag my groceries for free and ask which of my cars I was driving today so they can carry them out.) I lost the fear and distrust of the big city (the day I moved in I was at the local hardware store and forgot my check book they just asked me for my phone number and address and would send me a bill if I didn't make it back to the store.) Your right I lost all of those wonderful big city things.

      As for moving your kids so what, I know more then a dozen IT workers who moved over 500 miles to get a better position. Sorry you didn't get to enjoy the dot-com boom but I did and still had the life style of a rural area. I flew to either the west coast or east coast every week and loved it. At this point in my life I want to make a change and I am back in school full-time as is my wife something I would never be able to afford if I still lived back east.

      In rural areas of South Dakota you can buy houses for $7.5k - $20k that are the equivalent of the older homes that are rental property in most larger cities. Want a lake front home that is $150k to $350k. It is a small lake and you can only drive your jet ski for 60 miles one way and have to turn back.

      Spend the rest of your life trying to find a job where you can't be replaced is a dream. When you grow up and want to join the big boy's world come back and talk to the rest of us. You remind me of the whiners on my first job after I finished my engineering degree they pissed and moaned that I was paid a lot more then them. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices to achieve something. You want your cake and eat it to. Sometimes you have to make changes in life you don't want for the benefit of your family or career and relocating is one of them. You think you will ever find a position where you are indispensable you are nuts. Virtually anything and anyone can be outsourced over seas.

      The point of the article is that while you can hire a moron 10 time zones away that has no idea what a vertical producer of something does for $5 an hour you can also hire an American in a rural area $20 an hour who does understand your company and market. In a rural area that person can live better on $20 an hour then you can on $40 an hour in most big cities because of a lower cost of living. I am willing to bet a lot of IT workers are paid a bit below $40 an hour. The midwestern work ethic is something you most likely wouldn't understand either. If I was going to open any kind of manufacturing or high tech company it would be in a rural midwestern area because people out here tend to be less likely to job hop because of limited opportunities and they tend to stay with the same companies for many years because most people here never move away. Where did it say in TFA that they are tr

      --
      -- To mess up an OS X box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.--
    46. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even more trivial to decide to pay 1/2 of what they're paying now to a call center farmed out to India.

      Sure, that means their customers will be forced to talk to people with only a basic grasp of English, and an even poorer grasp of the topic they're supposed to discuss than the customer they're talking to, but - they're cheap.

      I think moving to rural areas to compete on price is an excellent idea. Yes, I'm sure the jackass who switches jobs every 1-2 years doesn't like that it'd "show" he took a "pay cut" for his last job on his shiny over-polished resume, but those of us who like finding employers we genuinely enjoy working for while doing projects we genuinely enjoy working on - we'll move to rural america in a heartbeat.

      Let's think about this - you've got reasonable housing prices, reasonable pay for the work you're doing, you live in towns full of genuinely nice people (once you hang around long enough to break down the "you're an outsider" mentality), that are chock full of farmgirls who are used to clever pickup lines that amount to Billy Joe Bob bopping them on the head every time he wants some.

    47. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The median price of a house in South Florida has gone up over $80k in the past year and is nearing $400k. Source: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/realestate/sf l-zhomesbrow24aug24,0,6158484.story?coll=sfla-busr ealestate-headlines

    48. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently did this. I moved from Chicago for a new job less than an hour outside of Atlanta. The salary was just barely more, but I made a large profit on my old house. It had appreciated almost 50% in the 4 years I lived there. I pocketed a large part of the money, bought a house that is twice the size on a lot about 10 times larger. My mortage payment is less and my real estate taxes are about 40% of what I was paying. Throw in the fact that my job is alot more enjoyable, this was a great time to move.

    49. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Uhlek · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't exactly call Wichita a rural area, and you're insane if you think that you can find a $250k house in any large city.

      20-year-old townhouses in suburban Washington (Prince William and Loudon Counties, Virginia) are running in the 320+ range, depending on distance from major throughfares.

      And that still incurs a 1+ hour commute to Arlington or the District.

      One-bedroom condos close to the Metro? $450k+

      Townhouses in good areas inside the beltway? Try 600-800k.

    50. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can stay hear of move at the same pay.

      With those spelling skillz you've got CEO written all over yous.

    51. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      I was with you until the last paragraph.

      She was probably "volunteered" for the job :)

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    52. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, but I don't expect to see any burning crosses in my front yard or clinic bombings in Seattle.

      And in South Carolina, you run less of a risk of idiot anarchist protestors trashing your favorite coffee shop, and eco-terrorist burning the SUV you use to haul around your kids. What, the stereotype's not fair? How about that.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    53. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Yup. I live in a POS townhouse in Gaithersburg. It's a three hour round trip to the corporate office I sometimes visit, 30 miles away in northern VA. The worse townhouse across the parking lot from me just sold for $350k.

      Looks like South Dakota or something is the only hope. It's all about the broadband.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    54. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The average home costs over 200k now" Try UK prices. The average is closer to the equivalent of $300k and they are much smaller.

    55. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Depends on how your work it. Your most profit per acre comes at 5-10 acres (depending on your family). Your greatest income is from ~3000 acres, though you make about half as much per acre.

      5 acres is enough for someone dedicated to farming to make a living. All the food you need, and some to sell, to meet other expenses. You won't get rich though.

      Most people just are not willing to do all their work by hand. Tractors save a lot of labor, but they cost money. On 5 acres a tractor doesn't pay, one 3000 you have no choice.

    56. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > So let me get this straight... you move away from your family and friends. You pull your children out of their school, away from their family and away from their friends

      (Lots more bitching deleted)

      Dude, let me offer you some advice. Nobody OWES you a job. Guess what? In a global economy, you are competing with people who will work for $4.00/hr. You have several choices. You can bitch, which doesn't accomplish jack, although you seem to be good at it. You can do what it takes to compete, even if that means moving to a place with a lower cost of living. Or you can stick you head in the sand until you lose your job because it went to China.

      You don't have some divine right to a job just because your a High Payed 'Merikan. Wake up and smell the coffee.

    57. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Sir+Homer · · Score: 1

      Hey I live in South Florida and I am willing to work for $12-15/hr doing tech support!

    58. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're insane if you think that you can find a $250k house in any large city.

      You're right in general, but not EVERY big city is unaffordable. Houston is the fourth largest city in the United States -- I think that counts as "big". The housing market here (and in Texas generally) has not bubbled. $250k will still buy a lot of house in Houston.

    59. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by jrboatright · · Score: 1

      If you have owned your house in the metro area for as long as 3 to 5 years, you probebly can buy a home in MY town for cash out of your profits.

      then, on your reduced salary, you will have a better life style, safter children, lower stress, less noise, less pollution. As long as the school district is excellent, your kids will make new friends.

      I have visited cities. I can not understand why ANYONE stays there.

    60. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      It's even more trivial to decide to pay 1/2 of what they're paying now to a call center farmed out to India.

      Pay me now or pay me later, those language and skill roadblocks will cost the customer more in the long run. I've repeatedly ran into people who have spent HOURS (being billed) on the phone to Todd (????) in India over something I can assess and walk them thru in a few minutes.

      Sure, that means their customers will be forced to talk to people with only a basic grasp of English, and an even poorer grasp of the topic they're supposed to discuss than the customer they're talking to, but - they're cheap.

      You get what you pay for, why do you think service contracts exist?

      I think moving to rural areas to compete on price is an excellent idea. Yes, I'm sure the jackass who switches jobs every 1-2 years doesn't like that it'd "show" he took a "pay cut" for his last job on his shiny over-polished resume, but those of us who like finding employers we genuinely enjoy working for while doing projects we genuinely enjoy working on - we'll move to rural america in a heartbeat.

      Perhaps, but only if (1)the job is there, and (2) the quality of life you're looking for is there too. This is sometimes hard enough to find in sub/urban America, let alone a small town.

      Let's think about this - you've got reasonable housing prices, reasonable pay for the work you're doing, you live in towns full of genuinely nice people (once you hang around long enough to break down the "you're an outsider" mentality), that are chock full of farmgirls who are used to clever pickup lines that amount to Billy Joe Bob bopping them on the head every time he wants some.

      My brother is in "rural" PA, but close enough to a city that its tolerable (about an hour), and the reasonable prices are vanishing for homes. McManshions are popping up and costs are rising as developers see an influx of new workers who want to settle there. The outsider mentality doesn't bother me, that's neighborhood to nieghborhood around here, but the social/political/religious overhead might be more than I can stomach. And do you really want to have to be dealing with Billy Joe Bob's every day?

    61. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boo Hoo, where I live, in the UK, gas is well over $6 a gallon, and you'd get a 2 bedroom house for $600,000.

    62. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually it's closer to $600k for a house in socal these days.

    63. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Sauron79 · · Score: 1

      I can't comment on the first two observations, even though I harbour some reservations on them, but as for your third observation, its not true. India can never be too expensive for outsourcing unless the local currency (the rupee) almost doubles in its value with respect to the dollar. A software developer with a couple of years of work experience can make anything between Rs. 500000-Rs. 900000 per year which is a LOT in local currency. Also no Indian outsourcing company would want to kill the golden goose viz. outsourced jobs - by demanding too much. And neither will American companies want to overpay. If anything that will kill outsourcing, it will be the famed "tragedy of the commons" effect, with too many programmers (with tons of money to spend) and no basic infrastructure to support all these budding (and rich) nerds.

    64. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      Your most profit per acre comes at 5-10 acres (depending on your family). Your greatest income is from ~3000 acres, though you make about half as much per acre.

      Jeez - jump from the Amish to the superfarmer in one sentence!

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    65. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      (2) the quality of life you're looking for is there too. This is sometimes hard enough to find in sub/urban America, let alone a small town....

      And do you really want to have to be dealing with Billy Joe Bob's every day?

      And we see where you fall. I'm sure that Billy Joe Bob doesn't want to deal with a whiny city dweller every day either :)

      Small towns aren't for everyone.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    66. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since I don't drink coffee OR drive an essyouvee, I'm off the hook :-) And isn't Charlotte in North Carolina? Oh, and did any of those "idiot" anarchist protestors and and so-called eco-"terrorists" actually kill anybody? Can the same be said for the KKK and the clinic bombers and the petro-terrorists(a group with strong support in both Carolinas and Bush/Blair as the sock-puppet leader) mowing down the Middle East?

    67. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's always other friends, and besides, children would probably be better served growing up in a rural area vice a city, with all the problems that they come with.

      Unless, of course, your children aren't white. And even if they were white, living in a rural area would expose them to a lot more problems with drugs than they would in the city.

    68. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yep, as far as I know all the Texas cities (Dallas, Austin, etc.) still have quite affordable prices compared to other places in the country.

      Even here in Phoenix, you can still get a small house for under $200k (I happen to live in one--1100 s.f. currently worth about $200k).

      House prices along the Northeast Corridor have always been ridiculous, even before the current bubble.

    69. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Manchot · · Score: 1

      What he says is true. I'm from St. Louis, and while it's by no means a very large city, you can still get very reasonably-priced houses in the nice areas of the city without moving out to the suburbs. Granted, the demand for houses in those particular areas is relatively high, and it's difficult to find houses for sale there, but this hasn't affected the prices too much. Also, the public schools are amongst the worst in the nation here, so you pretty much have to make sure that your children go to private schools (or parochial ones, which are very abundant and cheap).

    70. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by bohemian72 · · Score: 1

      This info is a little dated but in 1990 Seattle was the 21st largest "urban place" in the United States. During the early 1990s at least Seattle suffered through something of a population boom, so it may be higher in the ranks. You may not think 21st largest in the US out of untold thousands of cities, towns and villages qualifies as "big city" but maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Heck, I live in Ann Arbor and in Washtenaw County, IT is the big city.

      --
      The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
    71. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by susa-no-o · · Score: 1

      "You lose the conveniences and diversity of a big city." Well, the "diversity" of the big city, and the things it brings with it (crime, etc.) may be a reason to want to move to the country. Notice, though, I said "may" be. I'm not sure myself, but it is something to think about.

    72. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "City magnet schools are some of the best, if your kid is smart and can get in"

      Rural public schools are some of the best statewide, hands down including all public and private schools. I know--I found after I graduated from my school district that it and the neighboring district ranked in the top 5 in the state.

      I never even heard of magnet schools until I was in medical school. (Most people don't say they went to magnet schools; they say they went to such and such private institution.) My understanding is that they are private schools and usually specialize in a particular area.

      btw, if you can only afford rent and can't buy a place, chances are private institutions are out of the question too. Leaving public education and home schooling, the former which the city tends to be worse than rural or suburban public schools.

      "Rural areas have their social problems, too, often more so than cities (witness the recent problems with crystal meth in the Midwest and West)"

      Yes, we have problems. But we are talking sweeping generalities here, aren't we.

      I went to the U of Chicago. Then went to DC. Chicago was nice. DC wasn't (despite living in a supposedly reputable section). Taking where I grew up and am now into the equation, I see this as a draw. There are city sections that are downright horrific, while in the suburban and rural areas, it's sporadic and understated.

      To put it more blutently, I see more drunks and addicts walking in a city than in a rural area. We have our drunks and addicts, but we usually only see the former.

      "Kids can actually *walk* in cities with less of a risk of being hit by a car (counterintuitive, but cities have sidewalks and traffic doesn't move that fast)."

      So what. Suburban and rural crime rate per population is higher than city crime rate, but a city dweller is exposed to more people than a suburban or rural dweller, meaning the overall risk is greater living in the city.

      Similar logic applies here.

      This is downright ludicrous for you claim otherwise. You have more traffic. We have sizable yards. Houses in the city do as well, but hardly comparable usually. City parks are usually pretty nasty (some are really nice though). Suburban ones less so. This is night and day if we speak in generalities, lending me to believe you've never spent any decent amount of time in a rural or suburban area.

      btw, in a rural area, you don't usually walk. You ride a bike, rollerblade, get your parents to drive, or have less of an impetus or need to travel anyways.

      "Gangs are still a problem in "rural" areas. Look at some parts of New Mexico for an example of this."

      *laugh* You are clueless. This is a smear.

      Parents should be concerned mostly about gang VIOLENCE and illicit activities. Motorcycle gangs, the local club or bar, the little frat group at the local college don't really count when you look at the real problems that manifest from gangs.

      Also, most gang violence in suburban or rural areas are developed from cultural or media ties or exported from cities. In the city nearest my area, the gangs moved in from Philadelphia due to a runaway when she came back to town.

      Also, we don't put up with violence as much as in the city; in the city, some murder occurs, hardly anyone lifts an eyebrow. That occurs in a rural area, there's a crackdown. Hard.

      I cannot state this enough--gang violence in suburban and rural areas are exported from cities; this is not only a problem with rural areas domestically but also in other countries when members of gangs are deported back to their home country and set up there.

      btw, hands down, gang violence is more tied to economic prosperity coupled with population density versus enforcement. One of the reasons for the rise in gangs in suburban areas is due to the crackdowns in cities and the lack of infrastructure or expected need of such in suburban areas.

      Also, it's harder to have gang violence in an area with sporadic but

    73. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      Nothing against small-towners in general (having been one), many are nice, some not so much, but the larger population in a more urban environment lends itself to greater variety. And I hate being 3-5 years behind the times by being in a small town, this I know from first hand experience. Being 1-2 years behind in a small city is annoying enough. The internet can only compensate for that so much.

    74. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Get ready for the humidty, though you're probably used to it if you're near BA. The broadband is fast, I regularly get over 6Mbs for $50/month.
      I moved from Denver and my salary dropped 10K and my rent halved. Not to mention no income taxes, no emission checking, no expensive car registrations, etc. I'm taking home a lot more here than I ever did in Denver. It helps to know someone though...I'm from around here.

    75. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 20 years or so, CGI will be able to replace hollywood actors.

      Hell, we might even have law enforcement outsourced one day. UN Peace keepers will work for less money then our current police. Many of them will happily take the dangerous job with low compensation just for the chance to crack some American skulls.

      LK

    76. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I moved from California to Washington state a couple years ago and paid $100K cash for a pretty nice house. There is a call center down the road that I worked at for a while before I found a decent job. When customers asked we said we were "just south" of Seattle. They paid about $12 an hour and do tech support for a lot of big companies that probably don't want to be named.
      The first company I supported moved their call center business over to India for a while, but I believe the brought it back because the overseas support was not very good.
      I am 30 minutes from the ocean, a couple hours from the mountains, there's all kinds of opportunities for hunting, fishing, camping, besides affordable housing. I'm thinking of selling this place and moving up to a $130K house.

    77. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

      A visitor from Seattle asked my how far I drove to work, and I answered is 28 miles. He looked horrifed, and asked how long it took. That answer is 35 minutes. His jaw dropped. (I don't have to park on the highway on the way to work.) Apparently this is unheard of in Seattle.

      Yeah, I'm still getting used to this. I used to live near Philadelphia and work in Jersey. Total distance was some 22 miles, but I had to drive across the city, so travel time was around 1:15. Now I live in Lincoln, NE and when I was working in Omaha, my 70 mile trip used to take me ~55 minutes.

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    78. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by uncqual · · Score: 1
      Seriously, any and every job that can be outsourced, eventually will be. I can't think of many that could not be.

      A couple of other jobs that are hard to outsource include plumbers and UPS delivery people. Of course, plumbers may be needed less frequently as building materials improve. UPS delivery people may, to some extent, indirectly fall victim to outsourcing (if consumers don't have jobs, they can't buy as much stuff and as business moves more activites offshore, the demand for domestic B2B deliveries obviously goes down). Interesting, none of these "safe" jobs actually require "highly marketable skills".

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    79. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a friend who did that. Made out pretty well, until the cops busted him. Seems he bought one too many grow lights....

    80. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off nigger-lover

    81. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by MSBob · · Score: 1

      I wish you were wrong but you're not.

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    82. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Liam+Slider · · Score: 1
      Well, now you're stuck in the middle of nowhere and will probably have to move again because your new little podunk town isn't where all the jobs are - just your current one.

      You've obviously never set foot outside of a city in your life. I'm a rural geek. I live in a rural area away from the big cities, in Southern Illinois. I live near a small town that has so many manufacturing jobs that people come from other towns to work at the factories...on top of all the local businesses of course. And it is a small town, around 5,000 people. Some of the factories are even the result of outsourcing....other countries outsourcing their industry to the United States.

      Near this "litte podunk town", within 45 minutes drive, are two "small cities." With lots of industrial and transportation jobs...including a regional commercial jet airport with flights out to major cities in the region, and a train station. There are malls within driving distance, and a lot of major stores. One "small city" has a Nike store, a Gamestop, and a number of other stores that really you don't expect to find in a "rural" region. There are numerous small museums within driving distance, including one art gallery that I am aware of. There are a number of fine, international award winning wineries within driving distance. And the region is noted for a major art and wine festival as well. Is this sufficient "culture" for you "city folk" or does "rural areas with industry" still mean podunk to you?

      Oh, and there are less "cultured" entertainments as well of course, like race tracks, bars and clubs (nothing on the scale of nightclubs in the city I'm sure...), places to gamble, fantastic lakes and wilderness areas...tons of these to enjoy. Hunting is a major sport around here, even a professional sport around here. With big prize events being held in the region. Some of this I'm sure you can enjoy in the city, but I'm sure most of it you cannot (hunting, fishing, hiking out in a real natural environment).

      And yes, the housing prices are much less than in the big city. Although locally they've been inflated some, it's still much cheaper to live here. And it's not just housing prices, prices in the stores are often lower as well. I've had relatives from the city mention that many times when they visit.

      Oh, and yes, there are cybercafes, ISPs, and even DSL and Cable Internet around here...although I'm stuck on sucky dialup for the moment.

    83. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooooo...all that manly talk must really make you horny. You're just jealous that they have a bigger dick than you. Just ask your wife if it's true or not. Goddamn Okie.

    84. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by aaronl · · Score: 1

      You know, you're really talking out of your ass. I've been through rural areas all along the east coast. I can't say that much of it bears any resemblance to what you're saying, nor does the research that I've done, and reports that I've seen. Since the research is trivial to look up on Google, I'll share my personal experiences.

      I grew up in a rural area in New York. I take vacations to a rural area in the Adairondacks, and half my family lives in rural New Jersey and rural Pennsylvania. Many of my friends grew up in rural areas, such as Kansas, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Maine. I also know quite a few people from urban areas, or that live in urban areas.

      The area I grew up in was about an hour and a half from NYC, and the same from Albany. The drug problem consisted of stoners, there wasn't much trouble with drinking, there was one murder in the area in ten years. Very little violent crime of any type, no gang problems, and good schools. This started to change when people from NYC started to move there in larger numbers. There began to be real gang problems in the small city thirty minutes from me (that still sent some kids to my school district, though). Drug problems started to get noticed, and we had our first murder in a long time. Even in that city, most of the crime was a result of NYC bringing former mental patients, some shelters, and a prison into the area.

      Drug problems are *most* common in urban areas, and are also a problem in some Mid-West rural areas. Most rural areas have weed, but they're light on much else. Drinking is a substantially larger problem than drugs in any rural area that I've been near. You're judging all rural areas based on problems of a few of them. There is a lot more to the country than the South or the Mid-West, and not all of those areas are like you're talking about.

      Also, any of the rural areas that I've been in, around, or had acquaintances from, did not have any problems with people that weren't white. I have honestly seen more racism in cities than I have in rural America. I know this is not as true in many Southern rural areas, but I haven't lived there.

      From what I see, people in rural areas are leary of *any* new people. As soon as you're demonstrated to be decent, nobody cares what you look like. They'll get used to you no matter who you are, what you look like, or where you're from. Well, so long as you aren't an asshat.

      The only large prejudice that I've seen is a strong dislike of city people. This doesn't surprise me, considering how many people move from the city, and then want all the city amenities. You'll often see a rise in gated communities, developments, cookie-cutter bullshit, stupidy in schools, drugs, and other things. They tend to bring the city with them. Of course, this isn't true of *all* people that emmigrate from a city, but that is what rural types have started to expect of such people. Again, show yourself to not be of that all too typical mold, and people aren't going to have a problem with you.

      Most people that live in a rural area do it on purpose. They don't *want* it like the city, and they aren't going to like anything that changes that. If you move into a rural area and start trying to make it into the city, expect to get shit on. If you go there with an attitude like yours, expect to be swimming in that shit.

      Right now I live in an area that's part way between light suburb and rural. I'm only about ten minutes from a decently large city, and about fourty-five minutes from Boston. Real estate here is still more than I'd like, but not horrific. I can walk or ride a bike at any hour, the schools are pretty good, I can get good broadband, cable TV, there's very little crime, very little by way of a drug problem, and I'm not far from whatever I want. I have to drive about ten minutes for most anything, but whatever, it's only ten minutes.

    85. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by aaronl · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, what do you mean by being behind the times? Do you mean internet access, job availability, or what?

    86. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm currently programming in Bismarck, North Dakota.

      A 2,400 square-foot waterfront property in a very nice neighborhood will cost you about $240,000.

      I know two programmers who took pay cuts from over $100k to $50k ($54k IIRC) in the Denver area to move to Bismarck. I also know of an insurance software company from Denver that sent 10 employees up to Bismarck on a pilot office program. They've been here for two years now.

      Lakewood Harbor is where our house is located:
      http://www.lakewoodharbor.com/discover.asp.nyud.ne t:8090

      You can checkout Lakewood's current progress as well as other marinas in the Bismarck/Mandan area on Google Maps:

      http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bismarck,+North+Dako ta&ll=46.800706,-100.824108&spn=0.048840,0.103718& t=h&hl=en

      Southport Marina is on the east side of river. across from Lakewood.
      Borden Harbor is the slender bay above Lakewood. Marina Bay is the square bay above that. BridgeView is another bay that is in development by the middle bridge.
      There is also another a few miles north on the east side of the river.

      With house proces so low for waterfront propery, new marinas are popping up constantly here.

      Mitzel Builders is one of the main builders here:

      http://www.mitzelhomes.com.nyud.net:8090/4sale.asp (site made by someone not familiar with the web (650k thumbnails!) so need to mirror it)

    87. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just for reference to support the parent post. I am in a rural section [1] of Prince William county which is about 30 miles south of DC. The values have not jumped as high as the counties closer to DC but they have gone up.
      In 1999, I bought my split foyer house with 1.5 acres for $150k. The previous owner paid $140 in 1990. I am in the market to move and my realtor suggested an asking price of $410K. I have done a lot of work on the house and yard but not that much.

      I could sell my house, move to a cheap area in the midwest paying $70-100K cash for a house and make a decent living with my wife and I both working at job making $7-20/hr and we would have another $200K in the bank.

      [1] Rural meaning well water/septic system, average house in area is on 3 to 15 acres lots and no "subdivisions", no home owners associations, all county roads and no sidewalks, no lines on the roads etc...

    88. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by bmeteor · · Score: 1

      I think it's pretty convenient to go downstairs and walk 100 feet to get all the basics that I need, rather than driving.

      Nowadays, driving is horribly inconvenient with gas prices.

      Not to mention the incredble public funded programs that the City of Chicago puts together, like Millenium Park, movies in the park, and summerdance. If i don't want to drive, I don't have to. Biking is easy, too.

      So yes, I think living in a city is incredibly convenient. More than in the summer, by a matter of degrees.

    89. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      Let me beg to differ here. I grew up (and live) in the heart of NYC. My family too took (and takes) long vacations up to the adirondaks and the catskills (actually, the 8 summers before the last 2 I spent exclusively in the adirondaks). I also now go to college out on LI.

      The city certainly has plenty of drugs, but it also has a lot more people. In my time spent upstate I saw more underage drinking (which is far more dangerous than drugs in some ways, becase there also seemed to be a large amount of drunk driving), more heavy drug abuse, etc. than I ever saw in the city (and I went to a "stoner" school). Cookie cutterness I always associated with rural actually (or suburbia really) not urban.

      If you want stupidity in schools look no further than your typical rural football based highschool (and before you make any comment about that being unsubstanciated, my parents used to live in missouri and my father once had a rather long argument with the local school board becuase they could find millions for a new football stadium, but not thousands for new books - and I've heard simillar stories from my upstate NY friends)

      As for gated communities being influence by city ppl, I call bullshit. There are 2, maybe 3 gated communities in NY (seagate being one for example) and they hardly represent the normal city population.

      the race issue is interesting, and on the surface you may be right about "more" racism in NYC. But remember the size of the city and it's diversity. There's more room for conflict and friction, more cultures butting heads. It's very hard to have that kind of tension in, say, a white one horse town with one "other" family in it, and when that friction occurs it's much less noticeable becuase the one "other" family isnt going to be backed up by others of their culture/ethnicity/religion/etc. I'm reminded of a friend of mine who grew up the only moslem family in a wasp town in alabama, you should here her on racism...

      Oh, on the subject of rural outside the US, did I mention I was born in reasonably rural missouri and have spent much time there.

      A city like NYC has its drawbacks, yes. But it's advantages are manifold. In the city you can be gauranteed there will people there yu like, that there'll be a good school if your kids can get in, that you and your kids will gain a greater appreciation for the world at large and for other people than you can in a rural setting. SUre it aint perfect, but it's pretty damn good.

      oh btw, to counter what you said, I have all of NYC at my fingertips without driving (and with the price of gas how it is, that's quite nice). I live 500 feet from the CO for my dsl connection, I have cheap cabl. I have 4 supermarkets, 3 theatres, 3 movie theatres, and about 70 restaurants within easy walking distance of my house. My neighborhood has very little crime (and NYC btw has a very low crime-per-capita rate, lower than many subburbs), and 90% of the stuff in my neghobrhood is open very late, with a large smattering of stuff 24/7.

      (on an amusing sidenote, the word check for /. was "perfect" :-p)

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    90. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      I imagine it may vary from place to place but where I was it seemed the local area was lagging behind where I grew up in cultural (entertainment, art, music) and consumer goods (things readily availabe back home were hard to find/not carried yet by area (non-chain)retailers), not impossible to live with but it was a real culture-shock when i got back to the old neighborhood.

    91. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking out of my ass; I'm talking mainly about the South, though, as I spent a fair amount of time there while growing up. Drugs are a huge problem in many parts of the rural South.

      I'd actually like to move to someplace more rural eventually, but I just don't want it to be anything like all those areas in the South that I saw growing up: trailers, rednecks, lots of junked cars in the yard, huge racial problems, etc. I'm thinking the Western states (such as Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico) might be good to check out.

    92. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      On the flip side though, things like groceries, cars, cable tv, computers and so on all cost the same in this country no matter where you live.

      Umm. My cable went up almost 2x times when I moved out of my small non-TW town into an area served by them. (Later they bought out the local cable co and raised rates) Cars cost the same? Maybe the purchase price. But not the operating price. Ever looked at car insurance for NYC?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    93. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Here's some more recent data (2000). It's the 15th largest metropolitan area (which I'd say is a more important measure than the size of just the city itself):

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_metropo litan_areas

    94. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      everything from gasoline to the price of weed killer at the local K-Mart is higher.

      I first read 'killer weed' then K-Mart & immediately thought New York was pretty liberal (and cool).

    95. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So, your point is that people in the Carolinas (pick your north or south, it doesn't matter) are worth describing as a single, homogenous crowd? My point is that it's no more appropriate to describe Carolinians as KKK members as it is to describe Washintonians or Oregonians as SUV-burners. It's just BS to paint with that broad a brush.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    96. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by DuctTape · · Score: 1
      There's always other friends, and besides, children would probably be better served growing up in a rural area vice a city, with all the problems that they come with.

      You. Are. So. Full. Of. Dung.

      My stepson got lured to rural Maine by his biodad, one of the promises being it was a small community, and thereby much safer and far away from the drug problems in suburbia. So what does he see? The other high school kids smoking dope on the school bus. Welcome to the safe community, yo.

      DT

      --
      Is this thing on? Hello?
    97. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Then screw them. This is the crux of the issue. No one wants to pay. Well tough. Your customers didn't care about the 300k house and the $3 a gallon gas so forgive me if I could give a rat's ass about them having to pay for what people are worth. If they think it should be so bloody cheap then it should be trivial for them to learn to do it themselves, right?"
      It will be even more trivial for them to buy from on of our competitors that have moved their customer support overseas or to a cheap location like West Virgina. Then the jobs that I am trying to save will be totally gone.
      The truth is that there are lots of places where you can move to with cheaper homes. Dallas, Austin, Salt Lake City,... Lots of cities are now cheaper than we are now. Also you have to remember is that in some of those small towns are people that want to stay there and would love to get those jobs.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    98. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      Ever though about 'outsourcing' your tech needs to rural PA? I'm willing to work for $12-15 an hour, I coudl almost guarentee the state would help fund any development in my home town, and their are schools not 30 minutes away that special in teaching tech (programming, networkign, web design, etc). But absolutely no local market for those people... It's why I don't work in my field...

      Anyone want to move some of those jobs my way? I'm quite willing to help any tech companies 'outsource' any of their tech jobs out this way... provided your willing to pay local help as well as moving current employees...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    99. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by GuiDisabled · · Score: 1

      I agree in full. I live in my small rural hometown. It took my two years of job swapping to get back but I'm glad I did. My pay is very good for the area but laughable compared to larger urban areas. I have one of the very few IT jobs in the county much less the city.

      I have proposed your idea several times to the city council - to look for just the type of business you are describing. We have the power grid and data lines to handle many IT companies but the city has been reluctant to pursue them because many of the "locals" don't have the education to support an IT business. I would love to see an IT company move in bringing their own people to get a foothold in rural america, it would give the graduating students something to come home to other than manual labor. Rural america is a GREAT place to live IF you don't have to have the convenience of "big city life". I have lived in the city as well. I just don't like the high price of convenience both in dollars and safety. In the city we had to keep everything we owned locked 24/7 and after what looked like an episode of "COPS" in front of our house one night ( and we lived in a nice area ) - it was time to move.

      Living in the country we have our own home, property, clean air, an excellent school system, no gangs and low crime. Drugs we do have but I challange anyone anywhere, outside an Amish communty, to say that they don't.

      My 2 cents.

    100. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My captcha for this post is funny: whatever. It's almost as if slashdot was reading my mind!

      Let's consider a couple things. First, a house in Peoria costs less than a house inside the Chicago city limits. The general cost of living is going to be lower. You can afford a larger dwelling than if you were looking in a major metropolitan area. Besides which, no self-respecting corporation is going to be setting up a call centre (which let's face is it what we're talking about here) in downtown anywhere. It's going to be on the outskirts. When I worked for Earthlink a few years back their call centre was in Pasadena. Not downtown Los Angeles.

      Uprooting your family and moving is just one of those things you have to do sometimes. But again, let's be honest. If you've got a family you're probably looking for something that pays better than call centre work anyway. Your family will adjust. Getting used to a new school CAN be tough, but I've done it twice. If *I* can get used to a new school, make new friends and still remain (somewhat) normal, chances are your kids (despite whatever disadvantages may come with being YOUR progeny) can do the same.

      What it boils down to is this: if you don't want to move your family to keep your job, don't. It's simple, isn't it? Find a new job. Granted, it isn't easy, but hey, it's a matter of principal!

    101. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I've been thru there a few times (when I lived in Montana, I used to do the eastern Wash. dog show circuit, so I'm passing-familiar with the whole area). I'm considering relocation out of SoCal, and the swath between Moses Lake and Yakima is one of my potential targets, for exactly those reasons.

      The main reason it beats out North Dakota (where I lived as a kid) is because winters are less extreme, and there are fewer twin-engine mosquitoes in summer. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    102. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by numbski · · Score: 1

      Manchester/Ballwin here, born and raised in Collinsville.

      We managed to get a TINY house off of Big Bend for about $160k. It used to be a rental and we're hoping to get a good deal in sweat equity back out of the place, but if the whole bubble scenario is true, then we'll be screwed just like everyone else.

      But hey, I just started a company named "OSS Solutions", so life is good. ;)

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    103. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by aaronl · · Score: 1

      I'll definitely give you a lot of that for NYC. It's an odd city in a lot of ways. As much as many people hated Giuliani, he cleaned the City up rather well. The majority of my animosity towards it comes from annoying bastards moving into rural areas from the City, and from Cuomo fucking everyone over to give the majority of the State budget to the City. Damn, I hated that asshole. It's one of the few cities that I don't mind visiting on occasion.

      I'll confirm the football/sports bullshit in school, too. If you were up in the Catskills then you probably went through where I grew up. I was over towards Ellenville, and a bit north of Middletown, in the northwest corner of Orange County. It was still Hudson Valley, but only barely. Went through school at Valley Central, which, despite what I hear it is now, used to be an incredibly good school system. They still ended up putting like 45% of their budget into sports, though.

      For myself, I'll take light suburb/rural over urban any day. I've lived in all of 'em except for the deep rural, six hours to the nearest population center, no gas within twenty miles, type places. I just find living in, and usually (but not always) anywhere near, most cities to suck. Driving is annoying, people don't talk as much, there's a lot of rudeness, prices are high, etc.

      As for crime in NYC, yeah, just don't get on the PATH or you'll find all that missing crime. :P

    104. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by aaronl · · Score: 1

      I've heard good things about the Pacific North-West, and I personally rather like rural areas in the North-East. From what I saw of it, getting a bit inland in Maryland, and even the little bit of Delaware that there is, were both really nice. I imagine those two are a bit expensive at this point, unfortunately. I was in Boulder, CO for a little while. That area looks perfectly fine, even if it is city-ish. I was considering moving out to the Colorado Springs area for a little while, but decided I liked working in tech and still wanted to do a bit more school. The people I've known from WA and NM both loved it there, but ended up staying here, in MA, after college.

      I have some family in the hill down in North Carolina; they recommend that we don't visit, and that if we do, we go straight there. From the people I know from that area, it seems that the closer to the Atlantic you get, the more sane the area is. Except for Florida; there isn't anyone sane that lives there. ;-)

    105. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by NRP128 · · Score: 1

      I'm kinda glad to hear something like this. I live within reasonable commuting distance (1 hour, which were i'm from is nothing) of 3 major midwest cities, have fat broadband pipes in my area, and live in a town of less than 500 people, where i can buy property AND build a 2500 sq ft house for far less than what you would pay for a decent apartment in a fair neighborhood for a long span of time in a major city like New York or SF and OWN a house and lots of land at the end of it. I am VERY happy to hear this news, and i hope it holds out just a few more years for me to get my degree and get some access into the job market. :)

    106. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Personally, I think it's all a scam engineered by real estate investors, which is why I'm renting.

      That kind of explains the "interest only" mortgages currently being offered. Then again, when a significant enough percentage of the population is involved in a scam there's always safety in numbers.

      Onward and upward, go, go go!

    107. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by nxs212 · · Score: 1

      Take a job in NC, making 2/3 of what you make in NYC. Buy a house for 1/3 NC of what it would cost to get a 2 bedroom apartment in NYC or a small house in Northern NJ or LA.

    108. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by davidfree · · Score: 1

      If the experience in the uk is anything to go by, the advantages of moving to rural areas wont last for ever. Unfortunately, these bubbles are unlikely to burst, for the simple reasons that populations are rising and people still need places to live. In the uk, the housing market also boomed, but what has also happened is that a) the big city folks used their equity to buy second homes in rural/tourist areas b)workers moved to cheaper rural areas The result of that is that many rural and tourist areas are now as expensive as the big cities in the uk. In many popular rural areas, locals can no longer afford to buy a home. Its probably happened a lot faster in the uk, because its smaller, but now prices are so expensive that the only people that can afford to buy are those that already have homes, everyone else is having to rent. Even if the market crashes, there are so many people renting that the effects dont last long, unless there is a major economic downturn.

      --
      --Imagine every Thursday shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers.
    109. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by idsofmarch · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Are you retarded or just completly fucking ignorant? Comparing the KKK of lynchings, beatings, and public abuse to someone trashing your yard?!

      The 'liberal anarchists' of Seattle don't set fire to crosses in your yard? But, maybe they threaten you if you sit at the front of the bus? Or maybe drinking from a different fountain? Or maybe you dated a liberal and now a few of them took you out to a field and beat the shit out of you? No? Well, of course there's all those Republicans who mysteriously disappeared. Or, maybe a few staunch 'Ditto-heads' who were found swinging from a tree?

      No. I wonder why.

      Or right, because it's completely fucking different. Get of your "Help, I'm being prosecuted" perch and start paying attention.

      --
      Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
    110. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny. Just this week I accepted an apprenticeship as an electrician and quit no call, no show, as a UPS driver.

      The need for electricity will not go away tomorrow. You have to know what you're doing. It is a highly skilled job necessary on a local level as oppposed to a highly trained job at UPS. Screw the way UPS was always trying to squeeze more out of everyone I worked with and I. Every person I worked with was unhappy and fully supports my decision to move on from UPS. It's a money trap. They pay great. You buy a car and get a mortgage and then wonder how you can possibly replace that wage when you look at yourself and see how run down they've driven you with that addictive OT cash.

      Lucky me. I saw the trap, got the opportunity, avoided car and home payments, can afford to leave, and some schmuck failed his piss test giving me the slot. I have a few weeks off, taking a vacation, then starting a new career with entrepreneurial opportunities once I get my journeyman's card.

      UPS can gobble my crank. The negative reinforcement management techniques they exercise upon their employees is not sustainable with the exception of the money-trapped employee. I wouldn't recommend UPS to anyone. Nor would any of the weathered veterans I formerly worked with.

      Props to all I worked with and thanks for the advice. You reinforced opinions that were already forming, accelerating my adoption of a new career.

    111. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      So you're one of the reasons that Lincoln's had that huge housing boom? I hardly recognize the place when I come back.

      But yeah, I live 14 miles from work, and it takes me about 20-30 minutes to get there during non-winter periods. All but four miles are highway. Of course, it was bad when they were working on the gates.

      The biggest example I've personally seen is the difference between Minot, ND, and the surrounding small towns. You'll pay 50-100% more for a comparable place in town versus out in the 'boondocks'*. Of course, I'm looking at new construction because all the places available were built back in the early 1900's and the electrical systems haven't been updated, as well as heating, etc. A house they want $60k for in the city would sell for $30-40k in the smaller towns.

      I do, however, feel the lack of services. I end up purchasing most of my electronics online, but I think that I'd do that anyways for the lower prices. I also love my 2mbit DSL. Many larger cities actually have lower broadband availability. Minot has pretty much 100% coverage, as well as the best customer service I've ever seen out of a phone company. The lack of a *good* chinese restraunt is the biggest lack in my book. I don't get the 'limited release' movies, but to be honest, I'm not interested in 99.9% of them anyways, and I'll visit the live entertainment places when I go on vacation.

      *It's all relative.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    112. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      India is becoming too expensive(!!) for outsourcing.
      While recently dealing with Fedex I came across the problem of a tight fisted US company inadequately outsourcing - the employees I talked to did not have access to email so the only way to quickly get photographs of damage to a server they dropped in transit was by fax, it would take a while print them out and post them to India. They also had incredibly bad cheap voice over IP lines for speech. I probably have a lot more in common with people in India than those in the USA, so I see it this way - outsourcing is one thing but outsourcing without providing adequate resources because you just want to make a token effort and scare off people who are making complaints (I'm looking at you too Dell) is good old American sharp practice of putting up a front with nothing behind in action. If you shift everything but the management to India what do you think will happen? Clueless managers seem to have a higher chance of continuing their career in the USA than in most other parts of the world if your exported managers are anything to go by - so the likelyhood is that India will be able to handle the management as well, and if they steal your IP it is out of your legal juristicion so there is nothing that can be done if they rip off and sell your products to big markets that don't care.

      Do it USA - cut off the cocaine supply to your management, tell them you don't give a shit about their "power animal" or the management fad of the week and get them to actually run the companies in the long term intrest. If the US economy goes down we all suffer - the 1930's proved that.

    113. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by pvera · · Score: 1

      Very true. If that guy bought a small townhouse and/or condo in a metro area 5 yrs or so ago, he probably made a killing when he sold it to move out to the middle of nowhere. Hell, he probably paid off that 7 acre farm already, so all he has to worry about is property tax and utilities.

      --
      Pedro
      ----
      The Insomniac Coder
    114. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if it looks like a bubble and behaves like one, it must be one. whether it will be a soft or a hard landing, that is to be seen.

    115. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Rural public schools are some of the best statewide, hands down including all public and private schools.

      Were you in a truly *rural* area? At least where I went to college, it seemed that all of the students from really rural areas didn't have the opportunity to take calculus or the more advanced science courses in high school. The lucky ones were either home schooled or took extension courses at a local community college. The students from urban/suburban areas usually had the opportunity to take those classes.

      I never even heard of magnet schools until I was in medical school. (Most people don't say they went to magnet schools; they say they went to such and such private institution.) My understanding is that they are private schools and usually specialize in a particular area.

      Some are private and the city pays, others (like Brooklyn Tech) are public. Depends.

      I went to the U of Chicago. Then went to DC. Chicago was nice. DC wasn't (despite living in a supposedly reputable section).

      I'm not a huge fan of DC either. Mainly because of the stuck-up people and extreme traffic congestion in the area (if anything, worse than NYC).

      There are city sections that are downright horrific, while in the suburban and rural areas, it's sporadic and understated. To put it more blutently, I see more drunks and addicts walking in a city than in a rural area. We have our drunks and addicts, but we usually only see the former.

      If you want to see "bad", NYC had plenty of "bad" suburbs. Come hang out in North Plainfield at night :D Rural areas have drunks and addicts, you just see less of them per a given area since the population density is less. You won't see them walking around, either, since there isn't much to walk to.

      btw, in a rural area, you don't usually walk. You ride a bike, rollerblade, get your parents to drive, or have less of an impetus or need to travel anyways.

      I'd say *more* of an impetus to travel since places you might want to go are further away. Biking and "blading" can only go so far, and being dependent on your parents for longer-distance transport would sort of suck. Though some rural areas do have buses/trains, I suppose. Europe wins hands-down over the US in this respect.

      This is night and day if we speak in generalities, lending me to believe you've never spent any decent amount of time in a rural or suburban area.

      I grew up in the suburbs and still live nearby. Work will probably require me to move to NYC a few months from now (commuting 2-3hr/day irritates me). The suburb I grew up in was pretty nice because it was fairly compact, so you could bike and walk everywhere including to stores in the business area and the train station if you wanted to catch a train to NY. Also, there wasn't school bussing, so the majority of kids walked or biked to school.

      As far as suburbs, the newer developments which have really wide streets, undifferentiated 3500 sq. ft. houses, often no sidewalks, and one entrance/exit from a major road are the ones that really bother me. Raising kids in that sort of suburb would really suck since the kids are basically trapped in that little development. Can't walk to school, can't walk to the store/movies when they're a bit older. Suckage.

      Also, most gang violence in suburban or rural areas are developed from cultural or media ties or exported from cities. In the city nearest my area, the gangs moved in from Philadelphia due to a runaway when she came back to town.

      Stuff like homemade meth seems to be home-grown and hasn't ever been an urban problem (and I hope never will be). So this isn't always the case. As far gangs in rural areas, poverty breeds desperation, and there's plenty of poverty out in the sticks.

      Also, we don't put up with violence as much as in the city; in the city, some murder occurs, hardly anyone lifts an eyebrow. That occurs in a rural area, there's a crackdown. Hard.

    116. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

      I live in a small town (population ~800) and I can tell you that housing is dirt cheap compared to larger towns and cities. My wife and I are students at Iowa State University, and there is no comparison between housing costs in our town and in Ames, IA.

      Lots in Ames were starting at $85,000. A new townhome could run you $150k. By accepting a 35 mile commute, (which can be done in 45 minutes since all but 3 miles are on state higheays or the Interstate), my wife and I bought a small house with a detached garage, a big yard, 6 large (50-100 year old) trees, and a quiet neighborhood. All for only $15k. We enjoy our 5 year mortgage, with payments less than $250/month, and property taxes under $200 a year. You can check out some of the home prices in our area here

      We have a good school with no gangs. The biggest criminal activity in the town was about 15 years ago when someone in town was using their garage to hold stolen stereo equipment. (The town still talks about it.)

      So I am far happier here, making far less money, than when I lived in Chicago and was a Senior Software Engineer at Motorola. (My rent for a 1 bedroom apartment was $925.) The commute is even the same since I used to live 5 miles from work and would always get stuck in traffic.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    117. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by KEHT · · Score: 1

      "as many English speakers as India"

      You call them English speakers ??? I can't understand a word they are saying.

    118. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Nobody OWES you a job.

      He NEVER said anyone did.

      Guess what? In a global economy, you are competing with people who will work for $4.00/hr.

      Except that only applies to the working stiff. You don't see top executives being replaced with cheap M.B.A's from India. You don't see the C.E.O. taking a lower salary and benefits package to help the bottom line, if they can fire a few thousand American workers instead. You don't see investors willing to take a lower ROE to compete with a cheaper company in southeast Asia.

      The middle class worker is the only one expected to step up his game while making sacrifices, while the weathiest 1% of the population has seen its income skyrocket over the last few years. That is complete and unadulterated bullshit, anyway you shake it.

    119. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > I think it's pretty convenient to go downstairs and walk 100 feet to
      > get all the basics that I need, rather than driving.

      I think it's pretty convenient to be able to walk to anywhere in town, and get not just the basics but everything I need, rather than driving. I don't own a car, buy gas, pay car insurance, or spend on car repairs. I live two blocks from work, three from the post office, three from the office supply store, four from the hardware store, three blocks in the other direction from the grocery and the discount place... one block from the high school, one block in the other direction from Heise Park, four blocks from the hospital, one block from the dentist... and when I take my dog for a walk, we go out past the edge of town and across fields. It's nice.

      I don't *need* to drive anywhere. What I can't buy in Galion, I buy online.

      (Most folks in Galion have a car and drive around town all the time, of course, just like everywhere else in the US, but that's a *choice* people make.)

      > Not to mention the incredble public funded programs that the City of
      > Chicago puts together, like Millenium Park, movies in the park, and
      > summerdance

      *shrug*. You pay for all that stuff. My taxes are lower. I suppose if I actually cared for stuff like movies in the park or dance programs, I might think it was worth it, but that sort of thing really isn't my cup of tea.

      I do wish we could get fluoride in the water, though, and I'm not saying cities have no advantages at all... but man, the traffic, the lines, the noise, the crowds... such horrible inconveniences you have to put up with; I wouldn't like it at all. Then there's the crime. When a car was stolen in Galion a couple months back, it was on the top of the front page of the paper. The car turned up about twenty or thirty miles away a day or two later, and that made the front page too. We don't lock our house door, day or night, whether we're home or away (though, if we didn't have a dog, we might lock it when we're away). You have no idea how convenient it is to live a life without locked doors until you've done it. (Businesses and offices do lock up at night, though; we're a small city, but we're not *that* small. I think 10-12 thousand people or so.) My parents didn't used to lock their cars in the driveway, until they got Fords, which lock themselves automatically, one of the most annoying and inconvenient security features ever devised.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    120. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Oh boo fucking hoo. I know rural life can be far from a paradise, and was expecting to be regaled with a story of a gang killing, school violence or methamphetamines. But smoking pot? Please. If bullies were the ones smoking the pot, your stepson was actually safer on that bus because pot makes you happy and docile. What's your next story, that there was too much dancing and rock music going on, Reverend Moore?

    121. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well that would be an issue. Not everyone will want to move so a good labor pool is one of the things we are looking for. The North Dallas area has nice homes for the $90s and a lot of schools. Southern Idaho has REALLY CHEAP land. About 80% of the people have a college degree. And a lot of them speak a more than one language. We have customers in Mexico, Germany, Italy, and Canada.
      The Salt Lake area has a huge pool of really educated people. Rural out sourcing maybe the salvation of the rural America.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    122. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by lucas_picador · · Score: 1
      So let me get this straight... you move away from your family and friends. You pull your children out of their school, away from their family and away from their friends. You go through the trouble of selling your house and moving to a new place and buying a new house on your reduced salary. You lose the conveniences and diversity of a big city.

      And what do you end up with? A job that could still always be outsourced if someone gets that bug up their ass.

      Seumas, you've hit the nail on the head. This is an old, old story about capital and labor. And while Americans have been living in a bubble for the last several decades, they're finally starting to wake up to the realities that drove the Socialist movements of the '30's.

      Pick up some Marx. Read it with an open mind. I think you'll find the ideas fresh and highly relevant.

    123. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by GuiDisabled · · Score: 1

      You are right. Pulling IT industry into the rural areas will be their salvation. Getting IT to rural areas to begin with will be the challenge. Most of the true rural areas lose their population because the young people go to college and don't come back because there are no jobs for them so they move to areas where they have a job market. If we could get IT to move into the area at least some of those graduates would move back after college. Keeping more of the younger generation in the local area can't be anything but good in the long run.

      Very few people move to rural area unless they have already retired or have a strong personal reason, such as I had. I was simply lucky enough to find a job in my field where I wanted to live. Otherwise, I would either have a long daily commute or be working in, shall we say, a non-technical field? :)

      I still have high hopes for this area drawing IT business in. I have no doubt that the manpower is available even if they were forced to commute. I say this as I know several other IT professionals in the state who daily commute 50+ miles. Commuting isn't just for IT people; many people commute the same distance, if not more, just to have work. I have a cousin that has had a 70+ mile commute for over 20 years just to have a job. Sad but true.

      Good luck with your move!

    124. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Not+The+Real+Me · · Score: 1

      "When I moved from rural Pennsylvania to the metro NY area, both my grocery and cable bills jumped 25%..."

      3 words for you: Learn To Shop

      I live in Los Angeles. I discovered a grocery store called Top Valu Markets (not a typo, they really do spell "Value" as "Valu"). Their regular prices on meats, poultry, eggs, dairy products, fruits and vegetables average about 50% less than major supermarkets in the area.

    125. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heard of the housing bubble, or froth if you want to get precise.
      It is mainly the large metropolitan areas where this housing speculation is taking place.

      Read these:
      http://thehousingbubble2.blogspot.com/
      http://globethistle.blogspot.com/
      http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/
      http://bighousingbubble.blogspot.com/
      there are just too many to list

    126. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      Somebody mod you up to Karma: Infinity.

      I'm sooooo tired of hearing the dupes and rubes of the middle class pretending that the corporations don't own them body and soul, even when they stop employing them. Adapting isn't working, since the core problem of "capital supremacy" remains. Moving isn't working, for the same reason.

      Capital is essentially frictionless now, and that's only because we have CHOSEN to not place social restraints on it. We've allowed labor to be decoupled from the wealth it produces. There's no natural law that says this should be so. So when the fuck are people going to wake up and return to regulating their corporations again?

      The FACT that the most eminently outsourcable jobs on the basis of costs (i.e. executives) are not outsourced only illustrates what this all is: CLASS WARFARE. And the elites are winning by an enormous margin.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    127. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just BS to paint with that broad a brush.

      And now you know why my original post was so appropriately modded. And you got fished in. Thanks for the "money shot" :-)

    128. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      I'll give you most of that, but on the Cuomo issue with the state budget, remember something. Most of the state budget comes from the city to begin with. In fact, upstaters get something like a a buck twenty-five back in state services and such for every dollar they pay in taxes whereas city people get approx seventy-five cents back for every dollar. As bad in other ways as cuomo was, what he wanted was to give the city a somewhat fairer return on its taxes.

      Other than that though, spot on. The city people being assholes in rural areas are the ones that, as you said, can't really adapt to mvoing environs.

      Rural definately has some major advantages. I prefer the city myself though, rural nice to visit and spend time in but a not a place to live for me.

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    129. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Why not start with making sure that your site works relibly with images turned OFF. You pathetic microsuck small business specialist!

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    130. Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? by ckedge · · Score: 1

      People who make six-figure salaries cannot afford homes within 50 miles of the District.

      Tell me about it.

      12 miles north of the core of Toronto is North York, a nice looking newly built 2000 sq ft house there is $950,000 CDN. Houses of a similar size in western Canada in smaller cities are between $180,000 CDN and $450,000 CDN - depending on how elaborate they are and their location. The 450 I'm thinking of has a huge amount of vaulted ceilings and SPECTACULAR views of a huge park it sits on. You couldn't find that for less than 1.5-2 million CDN in Toronto. Not unless it's less than 1000 sq ft, 40+ years old, and on a 30 ft wide lot.

  2. It wasn't HIS job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Seal also lost his job to outsourcing

    Ah, yes. Them dang foreigners are stealin' our jobs.

    Wake up. It was never Seal's job in the first place. No-one owns a job or has a right to a job.

    1. Re:It wasn't HIS job by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand, a company that gets massive tax breaks and general corporate welfare on the cost of american citizens should not be able to sell those same american citizens out for cheaper foreign labor that the citizens that helped get and keep the company running in the first place could not ever possibly compete with, simply because they had the misfortune of living in a top-society that values the Fortune 500 more than they value employing americans and keeping the economy strong?

      How is the economy going to work out when the only jobs in this country are service jobs and everything that is consumed is produced overseas? Including knowledge and intellectual property.

      No, nobody has a "right" to a job - but that doesn't mean anyone has the right to sell the entire country short, either. There is a serious difference between the freedom of the employer and the freedom of the employee in this country. You probably couldn't even live on the street for what they're paying in a lot of cases overseas. Are you suggesting that people in this country are just whiney and lazy because they can't compete with a position that requires 10 years of experience and a 4 year university degree on $6/hr?

      Wake up and stop buying the Fox News Channel business-line hook and sinker. Not everything big business does is glorious and representative of democracy and freedom. A lot of it is underhanded, backstabbing and unpatriotic. Like using offshoring as a forceful threat to induce Americans to accept lower wages and worse working conditions.

    2. Re:It wasn't HIS job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carly Fiorina? Where ya been since getting shit-canned from HP?

    3. Re:It wasn't HIS job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheesh. Other countries have been outsourcing software development to the USA for decades. As soon as there's movement the other way it's all "It's not fair!".

    4. Re:It wasn't HIS job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It actually was his job. You see, when someone is employed we refer to the position they fill as the "person's job." It's just how we do things. And in the same way that you may lose your job to automation, your own incompetence, a more qualified candidate, or the boss' nephew, you may also lose your job to outsourcing.

    5. Re:It wasn't HIS job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to provide any examples for your blanket comment? Bear in mind that "outsourcing" means taking job A in in company 1 and moving job A to company B. In other words, buying software from MS or IBM is NOT outsourcing.

    6. Re:It wasn't HIS job by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By the same reasoning, no one owns an employee, but we still have everything from overexcessive "we own everything you think" IP contracts, to no-compete contracts.

      That's the thing I don't understand - by all means have a laissez-faire approach if you really think that works better, but that should work both ways, in the employee's favour as well and not just the employer's.

    7. Re:It wasn't HIS job by Safe+Sex+Goddess · · Score: 1
      Seamus, you raise a very interesting point about forcing Americans to accept lower wages and worse working conditions by threatening to outsource jobs.

      Instead of lowering our own standards here at home to compete, we should be helping labor in other countries raise their living standards and protections. In that way it would not be cost effective for corporations to outsource jobs so that they can make $2 billion in profit instead of only $1 billion in profit.

      In the late 1800's and early 1900's many women and men gave their lives and livelhood to make sure that children weren't forced to work, that we had 40 hour work weeks, and that there were worker safety laws put in place. A lot of things people take for granted today are a direct result of union organizing.

      I think we'd be a lot better off if white collar workers would get a clue. The seem to be doing it at Electronic Arts. The way I think of it is:
      Blue Collar = Organized Labor
      White Collar = Disorganized Labor

      --
      Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
    8. Re:It wasn't HIS job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wake up. It was never [Carly Fiorina]'s job in the first place. No-one owns a job or has a right to a job."

    9. Re:It wasn't HIS job by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wake up. It was never Seal's job in the first place. No-one owns a job or has a right to a job.

      Remarkably, people tend to work better if they have some reasonable expectation that their jobs are their jobs, and good employers understand this. Attitudes like the one you express, while all too common, are ultimately destructive to employers and employees alike.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    10. Re:It wasn't HIS job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you suggest we replace socialism with more socialism? the problem is the welfare et al .. get rid of it all.

    11. Re:It wasn't HIS job by ejito · · Score: 1

      It was his job while he worked there. Are getting angry over grammar?

      An employer gives Bob a job, and therefore it's Bob's job while he works there. Who works that job? Why, it's Bob's job.

      Bob got fired. Who has his job now? Why, Mr. Patel has Bob's old job. Who works that job? Why, it's Mr. Patel's job now-- his employer gave him that job.

    12. Re:It wasn't HIS job by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I agree that what is happening with American companies outsourcing is highly unethical at first sight. But the more I think about this and look back on history, the more I'm starting to see that America has been spoiled with a quality of life far beyond what should normally have been. This is in part to the tapping of cheap labor.

      Now fast forward today... We have international travel and instant communicans that it makes globalism that much closer to home. As such, the process of outsourcing (and insourcing too) is what happens when you reach a point of achieving Global-Economic-Equilibrium. As each country demands higher pay for the services they are selling, you simple re-outsource to Africa, Mexico, Asia...etc untill the cost of their services equals that of what can be bought in America.

      Now you might think this really *sucks*. But let me ask you something. Would you rather force to keep jobs in America so you can buy your next "X-Box"? Or, would you rather the jobs be offered to 10 people in your place that just wish to have clean water and shelter over their head? In retrospect, I now know what the ethical choice should be.

      Basically to sum things up, we Americans and Europeans are spoiled and don't realize just how good of a life we have it. Untill the rest of the world catches up in skills and industry and thus demand higher wages themselves, expect the 1st world to stagnate for some time. Keep in mind this will only be a temporary event that might last for 20+ years from now. However, the fostering of free enterprise does alow for democrocy at the same time which should make for a safer and more peaceful world.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    13. Re:It wasn't HIS job by composer777 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since when have markets EVER worked the way you describe? Your proposition reminds me of my vegetarian friends who don't eat meat because they think that if we consume less meat, it will help solve world hunger problems. That's NOT why people are hungry, we throw food away every day in this country. We have more than enough surplus to feed the entire world. It's because markets are inefficient. If all Americans decided to quit eating meat tomorrow, that still wouldn't change the fact that the reason people go hungry is because they don't have money, and without money, you don't get to eat in a market based economy.

      The same goes for your example of labor outsourcing. Corporations are not doing this to provide running water, etc. to third world countries. Only a small minority in India are benefitting from any of this outsourcing, the rest are just as poor as they ever were. It would be nice if corporations were actually installing infrastructure, but that's not reality. The reality is that they are doing the bare minimum, like making sure that the warehouses that the employees work in have electricity, and running water, but when those employees go home, they still live in the same 3rd world standards that they had before. Again, this is a small minority, the rest are living in poverty. The net effect of outsourcing has been to lower the standard of living, not to raise it. As soon as the standard of living gets to high, the corporations will move. The goal is to drive wages down to the lowest level. Small miniorities of rich people will benefit, both in the US and in the 3rd world, but everyone else will suffer.

      You keep describing this as a process of wealth redistribution to the 3rd world, when the reality is that the wealth is being distributed to the rich. The way markets have worked, and the way that they have always worked, is that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. The net effect of free trade is not redistribution of wealth to 3rd world countries, but is in fact to redistribute wealth out of the hands of the middle class and in to the hands of the upper class. I would quit thinking about this in terms of nationality, that only confuses the issue. Free trade's goal is not the redistribution of wealth between nations, but is in fact a policy that redistributes wealth between class. Making "India" or "China" richer means absolutely nothing. Nationalism no longer has meaning in this world of globalization. The proper way to view this and to gain understanding into why free trade proponents love it so much, is to view it in terms of class. When one does a class based analysis, and looks at what this policy is doing to each class (middle vs upper vs lower), it becomes obvious that around the world, free trade has taken money away from the middle and lower classes, and put it in the hands of the upper classes. The rich in India, China, US, etc. have gotten quite a bit richer treating and trading middle class labor as if they were commodities, and the poor have gotten quite a bit poorer as a result.

    14. Re:It wasn't HIS job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally someone with good sense! Isn't the concept of nation useful sometimes...

    15. Re:It wasn't HIS job by WiMoose · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a libertatian at heart and I really don't mind as long as these companies are at least not given tax breaks to offshore work. Companies should be allowed to do stupid things, and I should be allowed not to buy from them. As long as the gov't isn't using my money to encourage corporate stupidity.

      Personally I think this outsourcing thing is a bit of a corporate fad which will, if not disappear at least become more rational as companies realize that it isn't as *universally* a good idea as it might seem at first blush.

      The true costs of outsourcing are often higher than the financial savings, which in turn are often less than they seem at first.

      My brother-in-law is responsible for helping set up IT centers for Bank of America in India and now China, and he emphatically agrees. The communication issues are huge, and largely because of that, you often don't get the kind/quality of of product out that you do with domestic IT groups. It is *not* because the foreign groups are less technically competent, educated, smart or industrious, but the intangible aspects of getting a team to be effectively productive make it a lot less effective than it seems on paper.

      Also, since saving money is a prime motivator for going overseeas, they often try to save money over there by getting the cheapest people (least trained/educated) available abroad. It's not like they go and recruit the top 10% of IIT's graduating class.

    16. Re:It wasn't HIS job by icecow · · Score: 1

      Wow, that was great. Thank you. You put in to words what I've--in the past--tried and failed to put in to words. That's worth 90% of the credit in my book.

      --
      Stop invalid scientific research. Ask your local scientists to feed their lab rats with a phytoestrogen-free chow.
    17. Re:It wasn't HIS job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      We have more than enough surplus to feed the entire world. It's because markets are inefficient.

      No, it's because of the lack of a completely free market that people starve. In a truly free market, no one would be starving, because the number of people who couldn't afford to buy food would be so small that charity would easily fix the problem.

      Now, as soon as you start messing with the money supply through the banking system, as the United States has always done, even in so-called free banking eras, you will get business cycles. Business cycles result in recessions, and that usually means unemployment and starvation for some. Attempt to fix these recessions with social programs, and you will only disrupt the market further (since government programs do not create real wealth efficiently, if at all). Communism, socialism, and fascism also distort the market, in more obvious ways. With the exception of natural disasters, all wide-spread starvation is caused by government intervention in the market.

      Only a small minority in India are benefitting from any of this outsourcing, the rest are just as poor as they ever were.

      A minority is better than no one.

      The net effect of outsourcing has been to lower the standard of living, not to raise it. As soon as the standard of living gets to high, the corporations will move.

      How does the standard of living get too high if the corporations are lowering the standard of living? I'm not following.

      You keep describing this as a process of wealth redistribution to the 3rd world, when the reality is that the wealth is being distributed to the rich.

      You speak of wealth as though there is a set amount, and it is simply redistributed around the world. The reality is that wealth is continuously created in capitalism. Workers in the 3rd world create wealth (i.e. a programmer writes a program), often using the tools provided to them by corporations, and the workers offer their creations to corporations for something the workers value even more (i.e. a salary). Both parties benefit from the transaction; it doesn't really matter which party benefits more, because if they don't cooperate, neither will benefit.

      free trade has taken money away from the middle and lower classes, and put it in the hands of the upper classes.

      Money is never taken away from anyone, except in the form of taxes. Perhaps what you mean is, if a rich person is paying someone in India to do work, then that means he is not paying that money to someone in the USA. In that instance, money has not been taken from the middle or lower classes in the USA; rather, it simply means they won't be getting something they were never entitled to. That's what the "free" in free trade means; you can spend your money where you want.

    18. Re:It wasn't HIS job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Responding to my own post here...I don't want to come off as a doom and gloom guy. On the contrary, the good news is that, since capitalism is not a zero-sum game, jobs moved overseas aren't necessarily a bad thing for workers who are "misplaced". Instead, it simply means that corporations now have lower labor costs in certain areas.

      In response to lower labor costs, corporations may choose to lower their prices, which will allow workers to accept a lower wage and still have the same standard of living. Or, corporations can keep prices the same, and thus profits will increase. If profits increase, corporations can either A) invest those profits, which means more jobs, or B) distribute those profits to shareholders, which means more investment and thus more jobs, or C) hoard those profits, which means less money in circulation, and that increases the purchasing power of the money that is in circulation.

      So, workers need not worry...so long as total demand is infinite (which it is), there will be plenty of jobs to go around. The only way workers can hurt themselves is by attempting to fight the market's adjustment process. Price controls, subsidies, taxes, laws that make it tough to lay off or fire workers, 35-hour work weeks, and minimum wage laws are all examples of government intervention that slows or prevents the market's reorganization process.

      People need to realize that all of the classes have the same goal: to make the most efficient use out of our scarce resources. Fighting this process just creates more unemployment, as some of the socialist European countries are finding out.

    19. Re:It wasn't HIS job by shmlco · · Score: 1
      "Or, would you rather the jobs be offered to 10 people in your place..."

      Every time I see this I have to ask, why is it an either/or proposition?

      Statements like the above limit the possibilities by treating everything as a zero-sum game. My job, or their jobs. I win and everyone else loses. Why not turn the question around and ask, what do we need to do to have both?

      I prefer to believe that our options, and our wealth, are limited only by our creativity.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    20. Re:It wasn't HIS job by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      We have more than enough surplus to feed the entire world. It's because markets are inefficient.

      I'd argue that it's not so much a lack of free market, as the interference of government and other hostile parties. I'd also like to point out that the Communist nations have far more problems with nutrition than the USA ever has. The USSR and China starved tens to hundreds of millions to death. Warlords and Dictators in Africa create the problems there.

      Only a small minority in India are benefitting from any of this outsourcing, the rest are just as poor as they ever were.

      Except that minority is better off. They create a demand for services, which are then provided by the other poor people. Those people then demand more services, etc. It's a positive feedback loop. Everybody gets better.

      when those employees go home, they still live in the same 3rd world standards that they had before

      For a while, but from my reading, while they're still not up to american standards by any stretch, they're living better than ever before. It's creating a new housing market, requiring more construction workers, etc. Back to positive feedback loop.

      reality is that the wealth is being distributed to the rich

      Ask yourself this: Are you more pissed about the 'rich' getting richer, or the idea that the poor aren't advancing as fast?

      The goal is to drive wages down to the lowest level. Small miniorities of rich people will benefit, both in the US and in the 3rd world, but everyone else will suffer.

      Actually, the goal is to produce the most goods for the least amount. Wages are only one expense of many. Whether this is outsourcing, or deploying new machines to make production more efficient, it's the same thing: efficiency.

      If setting up a factory in the USA, while twice as expensive as setting it up elsewhere, is twice as productive, it makes sense to set it up in the USA. If it's cheaper to set it up and operate elsewhere, then that's the correct decision.

      Eventually, education levels and standard of living should equalize. Hopefully not worse in the USA, as I believe that new technology will allow it to remain the same or even improve. It's just a matter that India's standard of living might be increasing at the equivalent of 20% a year, versus the USA/Europe's gain of 1%. For one thing, I've read that in the areas that these factories have opened, child labor has dropped precipitously. Education for the kids have skyrocketed. These first generation workers are serious about education. Kinda like my grandparents, who went hungry on occasion to ensure that my parents got a good education.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    21. Re:It wasn't HIS job by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      That's is more or less what I'm saying. It's NOT a zero-sum game. In fact, what I am saying is that it's better for the ecconomy as a whole to not prevent the exportation of jobs overseas. As a resault of the global economy, we also have insourcing in this country too.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    22. Re:It wasn't HIS job by Rayonic · · Score: 1
      Seal also lost his job to outsourcing

      Ah, yes. Them dang foreigners are stealin' our jobs.
      If they give your job to someone in Kansas, then congratulations: You've lost your job to outsourcing!

      There is a difference between Outsourcing and Offshoring.
    23. Re:It wasn't HIS job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Your proposition reminds me of my vegetarian friends who don't eat meat because they think that if we consume less meat, it will help solve world hunger problems.

      I dont believe ANY vegitarian thinks eating meat is going to solve world hunger problems. Vegitarians dont eat meat for an entirely different purpose; because that meat comes from a living being, and you have to rob it of its life to make a meal for you. Its a matter of compassion towards a helpless animal that cannot defened itself. Its a matter of respect for all life. If you were to really look at it, how would you feel about killing your neighbour and consuming him/her for lunch? That was exactly what Jeffry Dhalmer did, and it sounds abominable; why? because you are eating one of your own, some one you knew, at least remotely knows that has feelings and fear of death and you can understand how s/he will react if being killed. But how is this any different than eating beef or chicken? Only difference is that you didnt know the cow or the chicken as well as you did your neighbour, and so think it has less feelings, that it somehow dosent have the fear of death that one of our own has. Ever seen how a chciken or cow acts when its about to be killed? It is so afraid of death, it looses all control and craps and urinates all over the place and tries to escape, just like any human would.

      >>If all Americans decided to quit eating meat tomorrow, that still wouldn't change the fact that the reason people go hungry is because they don't have money, and without money, you don't get to eat in a market based economy.

      Again its a stupid argument. If all Americans were to stop eating meat, it will make a tremendous difference to those animals; they will be able to lead its full life, instead of satisfying the taste of meat in a country where people eat meat not because they are hungry, but because they are greedy.

      Using some very twisted logic, you some how connected vegitarians with outsourcing... I agree with some parts of your argument that big corporations arent interested in providing a better way of life to the third world; all they want is to drive down the salaries here in the USA.

    24. Re:It wasn't HIS job by smallpaul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You keep describing this as a process of wealth redistribution to the 3rd world, when the reality is that the wealth is being distributed to the rich. The way markets have worked, and the way that they have always worked, is that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

      This seems to be the key sentence in your post. According to this view, market-driven countries like America, Britain and the rest of Western Europe have seen their poor grow poorer over the last 300 years of capitalism. And yet, by any measure you care to mention, this is not true. Nutrition is better than the pre-capitalist period and better than that in communist countries. Education is better. Working days are shorter. Health is better.

      Furthermore, this is true not just in "rich" countries but also in most poor countries that have adopted global capitalism. With the exception of war-torn and AIDs-ravagead sub-saharan africa (which is hardly a key part of the globalized economy), people's health and and other development indicators have been trending steadily and rapidly higher. In other words, the facts are starkly at odd with your "opinion" that the world's poor are getting poorer. These findings are summarized in an easily digestible form at the UN site. http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/flash.html

      Among other things you can see there, the average Chinese life expectency has increased from around 43 to around 70 over the last 50 years. GDP is about 10 times what it was in 1950. Even the poorest regions of China are better off today than they were 20 years ago.

      The poorest countries of the world are not those that have embraced globalism most warmly (your poor get poorer theory) but rather those that have been fighting wars that prevent their economies from participating meaningfully in the global economy.

      My question for you is: do you hate the rich so much that you would ignore the the demonwtrated benefits of globalization for the poor?. Or are you willing to look the facts in the face? http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/flash.html

    25. Re:It wasn't HIS job by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Or, would you rather the jobs be offered to 10 people in your place that just wish to have clean water and shelter over their head?

      Why the hell does everyone think the *only* way out of 3rd-world hell is to run a trade-surpless with the US? Another approach that is under-tried is to free up consumer spending, punish corruption, and allow small local businesses to flurish.

  3. Sounds like a change for the better. by FireFlie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although it still achieves the same result of lowering the value of a job

    We are still a capitalist society. If someone is willing to do a job just as well (or better) than the guy currently doing it, and for less money, what do you think will happen?

    For the guy that is accepting the job out in the country this may be an good thing idea because the cost of living is often much less out in the country than in the burbs or in a big city. I'm sure there are also people out there that like both working with computers and living on farms, all with the added benefit of having little to no commute to worry about.

    Another good side effect of this would be bringing money into smaller, rural communities without bringing in Walmart (I live in Kentucky and there are many such areas neighboring the town that I live).

    Regardless, I agree with Hood, I would very much prefer to hear that jobs are being outsourced more and more to Americans rather than being sent overseas to India.

    1. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except the reason that people are now in the position of being willing to do the job for this pay and these circumstances is only because the alternative is for those jobs to go completely away thanks to globalization. I'm all for capitalism, but while my employer has a global work force to choose from, I do not have a global pool of employers to choose from.

      This isn't a good thing. If we weren't so lax about allowing offshoring like there was no tomorrow, people would not be accepting these jobs for pennies on the dollar in the states.

      This is nothing more than the result of corporate strong-arming. And capitalism is all about free enterprise and pursuit, yes? Yet I only see the free part being attributed to the corporations.

      And as some whiney bitch posted elsewhere in this thread about "people need to find another line of work then" -- the fucking point is today it's tech jobs. Tomorrow, it might be your job. Or your mom's job. Again - find me a job that couldn't be outsourced? Pretty much all of them eventually could be. And if we don't stand up, check for our own nuts and stop buying the whole "but this is the way a free society works!" bullshit, we're going to send all of our jobs offshore. Then we're going to be stuck importing everything. All of our money will (and already is) going out... and not coming back in... We are reducing our own country's value for the same of a few lame ass CEOs and a small echelon of the investor-class.

    2. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Of course you have a global pool of employers to choose from. You just have to accept whatever wages they'll offer you. If it can be done on a computer, it can be done by Americans for foreign companies.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    3. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by BackInIraq · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All of our money will (and already is) going out... and not coming back in... We are reducing our own country's value for the same of a few lame ass CEOs and a small echelon of the investor-class.

      But I would think that this can't go on forever. Once all the jobs are outsourced, we'll hit the point where we can't consume the products India and China are exporting, at any price. Then it will be a wake-up call for them, because it sucks to be a business when your biggest customer is gone. Eventually we'll see Indian and Chinese companies outsourcing to the US, because we're so poor we're willing to work for less.

      But in the long run what I see happening, the final effect of the global economy, will be a sort of equalizing effect when it comes to wealth across the world. Indians and Afghanis and Mexicans become more wealthy, and Americans less. The humanitarian in me cannot help but see that as a good thing. Of course, the American in me thinks it freakin' sucks.

      That, and it wouldn't happen overnight, and the process wouldn't be pretty. I'm talking "Gee, doesn't the Great Depression look like it might have been a fun thing to live through" not pretty.

    4. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1, Unemployed whiner.

      As a consultant, I've worked tech jobs in 4 countries on 3 continents in the last year. If you have valuable skills, you have a global pool of employers.

      If you think somebody owes you a cushy job, well, you're stuck sitting at home posting on Slashdot all day.

    5. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, and it wouldn't happen overnight, and the process wouldn't be pretty. I'm talking "Gee, doesn't the Great Depression look like it might have been a fun thing to live through" not pretty.

      You know, I seriously doubt that the United States would survive such a transition. I mean, do the math: millions of guns in circulation + millions of unemployed, enraged, desperate people + a ruling class that is determined to hold on to power at any cost = a bloodbath that would make the French Revolution look like a church service. Even if the government won the nation would be totally gutted; and if not, the ex-US would probably fracture into a dozen statelets along various racial/ethnic/religious lines. Has none of these "outsourcing uber-alles" types ever considered this, or do they just not believe it would happen?

    6. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by BackInIraq · · Score: 1

      Has none of these "outsourcing uber-alles" types ever considered this, or do they just not believe it would happen?

      Most people have problems imagining that the status quo will ever change, especially when said status quo is rather comfortable for them.

      Hopefully the CEO-types will have invested their money in something barter-able beforehand, because it's hard to raise a private army to protect you from lots of angry, poor, armed people when all you have to pay them with is dollars, which have since become worthless.

      Screw that. Hopefully they haven't.

    7. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by nickj6282 · · Score: 1

      I too think this is a fantastic idea. I moved a few years ago from a large Midwestern city to a relatively small town in Wisconsin. The job market in rural areas of the country is very poor. Those lucky enough to have jobs these days are counting their blessings. I think it's great if a company is going to move into a tiny community and bring jobs to those who need them right here in the USA.

    8. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      This is nothing more than the result of corporate strong-arming.

      No. This is the result of decentralization. It didn't used to be possible for a company to have a tiny office in BFE that could provide useful contributions to the mother ship. The result of offshoring is that low-cost tools for permitting such collaboration have been created.

      It isn't a sin to live in the stix. Some people actually like it! Myself, I will stick to living in San Francisco, but for those who want to live in BFE... go for it! And all the more power to the workforce and talent pool, since it is easier to get work done. That is the primary objective afterall.

      The benefit of being able to do the offshoring within the US is that the money stays onshore, making better use of tax benefits that companies get anyway! It also helps in reducing traffic in major cities!

      What I don't like is when work is moved to second-tier cities for the apparent cost of living savings. Many of these markets lack the talent pool, which is a negative byproduct of capitalism.

    9. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by daviddennis · · Score: 1

      When I lived in Los Angeles, my house cost $428,000 and even though I made $100k a year, my standard of living wasn't that great.

      In rural areas you can get nice houses for a quarter that or even less, and so making half what you made in a big city isn't such a problem. In the end, you'll have almost the same standard of living because your costs are so much lower. I'm living in a semi-rural area right now, in a house the size of a castle, and it's still less than half the price of my tiny house in LA. Despite making $58k instead of $100k, my lifestyle has not dimnished one bit, because housing used to eat up half my income and now it doesn't.

      I don't think a company that doesn't want to help someone buy a $428,000 house when they could buy a $200,000 or less house in a rural area and offer the same or better standard of living is being so greedy.

      A lot of people prefer the rural lifestyle. It's not permanently for me, granted, but a lot of people do love it.

      Criticism of Walmart is fashionable in urban areas because there are so many choices. Here, where there are far fewer, Walmart is definitely useful to have around. I don't love it, since it tends to offer mediocre to lousy products, but when you need what it has, it's a great deal better than the nothing that used to be here.

      D

    10. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by MSBob · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But I would think that this can't go on forever. Once all the jobs are outsourced, we'll hit the point where we can't consume the products India and China are exporting, at any price.

      This point will come when oil stops being traded in US dollars. Right now your currency is grossly overvalued because anyone who wants to buy oi has to pay in greenbacks. This creates an artificial demand for US dollars. If it weren't for that US dollar would carry little more respect than a peso.

      Now, your govt isn't stupid and knows this prety well, so they invaded Iraq as soon as Saddam announced that they'd trade Iraqi oil in Euros. Now, that Iran is trying to do the same thing (and even start their own oil Bourse traded in Euros) your president is throwing a hissy fit. Except this time he's way too weak to do anything about it.

      Soon enough the chinese plasticware at Walmart is going to get verrry expensive for ya.

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    11. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by syncomm · · Score: 0

      just as well (or better) than the guy currently doing it is the key phrase there. The cold hard truth is the people replacing our American and EU workforce CAN'T do it "just as well or better!" In many examples, they replace an engeneer with three or four off shore IT folks because one can't do his job and three or four are _still_ a lower cost than one traditional employee. The long and short of it is, off-shoring is NOT about "two people who are on equal footing, only one is less costly" it is _only_ about "one is less costly".

    12. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      You overestimate the outcome of outsourcing.

      While outsourcing has hit the tech sector in a moderate fashion, I'd argue that the 90's tech bubble did far more damage to tech jobs than outsourcing.

      Even now, we see backlashes against outsourcing. It really doesn't compromise as much of the job market as you might believe. Furthermore, if you've ever taken an international trade class, you'd learn that it makes sense for countries to specialize in whatever goods they are best at producing. In the long run, everyone benefits as production is moved to the lost-cost-per-good nation (assuming fairly free trade, of course).

      The answer to outsourcing is *not* protectionism. The answer to outsourcing is better eduction for American workers, tax breaks to enterprises that choose to locate factories in the U.S. and American free-trade partners (Canada, Mexico), investment in research & development (not necessarily by the government but by large lending institutions, and the general organs of the economy). Think proactive, not reactive: the U.S. and Europe have dominated world trade for a long, long time. Now, other countries are going to start competing for these markets. This means we need to be *more* productive, and more economically efficient.

      Everyone benefits when the whole world has jobs. Everyone benefits when humanities economic conditions improve. It's extremely shorted sighted to ignore that.

      Furthermore, I do not think the adjustment process has to be *that* ugly. What are things that we will see in the adjustment process?

      Well, for one, rising energy prices (check). Two, we'll see the yuan (RMB) rise in value; you can only keep control of a currency for so long before the black market takes over (the Chinese know this; they keep good tabs on this kind of thing).
      Greater purchasing power parity will cause imports in these 3rd world countries to rise.
      Also, some markets will dry up (American textiles, or American steel), but cheap intermediate goods will give opportunities for integrators to manufacturer end user products. The coalition of companies I work for manufacture heavy equipment, perform construction contracting, manufacturing environmental cleanup chemicals, and food products. We roll with the punches as much as we can; we purchase our supplies from Europe, China, S. Korea, Mexico, and the U.S.
      We sell these same products back, in manufactured form, with ourselves and our employees being the benefactors of mark up.

      This transition doesn't have to be ugly. The governments of the world need to embrace free trade, and sane economic policy-- rather than being a new 'Great Depression', this jerky, painful, stop-start process *is* without a doubt the engine that can substantially reduce world poverty.

      When a company looses out to foreign competitors, it needs to redouble its efforts. American companies are still extremely competitive: it's just that we aren't the only players on the field anymore, and thats a very good thing (the American steel conglomerates deserve to die, the same way that the S. Korean/Japanese steel conglomerates *did* die. Inefficent, expensive, monopoly-esque profits, while trashing the environment left and right (we've done some of those cleanup projects).

      These pains are the agonies of the world growing up. Wealth should not be concentrated in the North. But individuals like yourself shouldn't propogate doom scenarions Gee, doesn't the Great Depression look like it might have been a fun thing to live through because you aren't helping matters, you're just stocking the fires of protectionists.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    13. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by smallpaul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm all for capitalism, but while my employer has a global work force to choose from, I do not have a global pool of employers to choose from.

      Why not? Do you think that there are no employees of Japanese companies in America? IIRC, Honda just opened a big plant in my old home town. And I know people in America who work for German software companies (e.g. SAP).

    14. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by YetAnotherAnonymousC · · Score: 1

      If it weren't for that US dollar would carry little more respect than a peso.

      Pulleeze! No offense to Mexico, which has done a lot since we bailed them out a decade ago, but it's economy is an order of magnitude smaller.

      Now, your govt isn't stupid and knows this prety well, so they invaded Iraq as soon as Saddam announced that they'd trade Iraqi oil in Euros.

      We're in real tinfoil territory now.

    15. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people have problems imagining that the status quo will ever change, especially when said status quo is rather comfortable for them.

      True dat. Talk to some older Russian or Ukrainian expatriates; most of them will tell you that back in the 70's and even in the mid-80's they had a hard time believing that the USSR would ever disappear. It was such a profound shock to them when the hammer-and-sickle was hauled down from the Kremlin for the last time. I can see a similar paradigm-shattering moment in store if/when the same thing happens in the USA.

      Hopefully the CEO-types will have invested their money in something barter-able beforehand, because it's hard to raise a private army to protect you from lots of angry, poor, armed people when all you have to pay them with is dollars, which have since become worthless.

      Screw that. Hopefully they haven't.


      Heh heh. Amen to that.

    16. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by MSBob · · Score: 4, Insightful
      We're in real tinfoil territory now.

      Yeah, it was all about Iraqi Freedom, silly me! Or is it Weapons of Mass Destruction? Which one is it this month?

      Believe your government's propaganda all you want but ask yourself this question. If Iraq had been sitting on massive reserves of figs or bananas would they have been invaded by the USA?

      There are brutal regimes all over the world, African ones seemingly the most vicious of them, there are WMD in former Soviet republics that can be had for a few crates of vodka. Why doesn't your government interven there if the WMD threat is its true motivation?

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    17. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why doesn't your government interven[e] there

      Why doesn't yours? Perhaps invading Iraq wasn't a great decision, but at least America tries to do something about murderous tyrants. So what if it was done because there is oil there (a theory I don't agree with by the way)? Would it change the fact that we got rid of one of the most oppressive dictators in recent history?

      If you think the world should change, don't just bash America for not doing something about it; get YOUR country to get off THEIR ass and take care of it.

    18. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by MSBob · · Score: 1
      Heh. Incidentally, MY government did march into Baghdad along with yours like a lapdog. That doesn't make it right or honourable. I also don't believe they did it for noble reasons.

      It is also highly questionable whether Iraq is better off in its current shape vs what was there before Bush sent his minions. As a matter of fact most indicators show a substantial decline in an average Iraqi's life quality. Child poverty and mortality are at their highest. Frequent shortages of energy are commonplace and I haven't even got to the incessant daily violence.

      It won't surprise me one bit if Saddam is not only freed but asked back to sort this mess out once Americans leave with their tails between their legs. Thare'd be a bit of poetic justice to it.

      Bush is there to ensure the security of US oil supplies and to make sure oil remains to be traded in US dollars. If one of those things changes the US economy is headed for a catastrophe that'll make the Great Depression look like the good ole' times.

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    19. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you know why the US dollar got off the gold standard? Voters who were debtors were in favor of a currency that could inflate; if a dollar was worth less, so were the dollars they owed to the bank.

      Fast forward a century, and we now have the government that is deeply indebted, and while both parties like to gloss over it, it's still an albatross around the federal government's collective neck. The easiest way to pay off this debt? Devalue the dollars that debt is measured in.

      This is why the US government has done little in the wake of the dollar's slide in the past few years, and why foreign governments (including/especially Japan) have been scrambling to prop it up. And this is why your particular conspiracy theory holds no water.

      Absolute value with respect to other currencies doesn't matter, the only important part is the change in value over time (think back to first semester calculus). If the US dollar being worth less than a (presumably) Mexican peso is such a bad thing, then why isn't Japan in a panic since there are about 10 yen to a peso? Was Italy a third-world country back when they still used lira?

    20. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      " If Iraq had been sitting on massive reserves of (...) bananas would they have been invaded by the USA?"

      Yes, it probably would. Ever wonder how the phrase "banana repulic" came about?

      "There are brutal regimes all over the world, African ones seemingly the most vicious of them,"

      None of them had UN precedent against them, as Iraq did (even the situation in Sudan inspired a good deal of waffling). In that way Iraq was conveniently a "more legitimate" target.

      "there are WMD in former Soviet republics that can be had for a few crates of vodka."

      Name one former Soviet republic, other than Russia, that is knowingly retaining weapons of mass destruction. One of the first things the US did after the collapse of the USSR was to offer to buy all such weapons from all the republics, and Russia is the only one that didn't take the US up on the offer.

      "Why doesn't your government interven there if the WMD threat is its true motivation?"

      Again, Iraq's unique history with the UN made it a "more legitimate" taret than others.

      Whether or not these are the true motives of the federal government in invading Iraq, the "If A, why not B?" argument doesn't work when A is unique.

    21. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Canada (specifically, Alberta) can supply the US with oil for a couple hundred years, given the current buck/barrel extracted cost.

      They're not looking at the Euro as the currency of choice.

    22. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by idsofmarch · · Score: 1
      Screwed with the rest of the world for fifty years? Guess what? Payback time!

      Oh joy, maybe Europe will be back in charge, I mean they never did anything wrong, right? Ask any anyone, just not anyone from Egypt, Congo, Vietnam, China...on second thought never mind. Or maybe the Russians can be in charge with all their peaceful history. Or maybe Canada. Yeah, that's it put the Canucks in charge.

      Payback time is going to come at a sharp price for the rest of the world, and while I deplore Bush and Co., I cannot understand the sudden hatred so many like you have. I mean really, for all of its faults, has the U.S. acted so poorly compared to every other country that it deserves the world's wrath? Is there another country that has tried, albeit like a rather large superman-strong toddler, to help the rest of the world? Europe would still be a smoldering ruin without the Marshall Plan, Japan a Soviet backwater and a front to the war with China, and Africa and South America would probably remain as European colonies while all the oil was owned by French and British companies. The world's problems are part of the collective malaise of the human condition, not because the U.S. is teh evil. So, put the "payback" to rest because vengence rarely affects only those it targets.

      --
      Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
    23. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by Scudsucker · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps invading Iraq wasn't a great decision, but at least America tries to do something about murderous tyrants.

      No, it doesn't. The invasion was about WMD's, remember?

    24. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by dbIII · · Score: 1
      If Iraq had been sitting on massive reserves of figs or bananas would they have been invaded by the USA?
      If they had pissed off Rumsfeld and Baby Bush - most likely. Look at Central America and the various actions the USA has taken there for well over a hundred years.

      The people in charge would have had to be incredibly stupid if the Iraq war was all about oil - they won't be getting much oil out of Iraq for a very long time.

      As for the WMD - after Iraq was bombed back into the third world they really didn't have a chance to make any and certainly couldn't afford to buy them. As for dealing with terrorists, they hated Saddam a lot more than the USA - he was a secular leader (not a very nice one in case people think I'm an apologist) who was actively killing terrorists (and a lot of others) in the groups that fantasy has him giving imaginary nukes made from imaginary African Uranium to. Iraq looks like an expensive smokescreen to do something so it would like like action was being taken against terrorism, and now we are stuck with the mess daddy Bush had enough sense not to face, despite various loons calling for crushing Iraq from that day on and using Sept11 as an excuse to play out their fantasy of a quick war.

    25. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Regardless, I agree with Hood, I would very much prefer to hear that jobs are being outsourced more and more to Americans rather than being sent overseas to India.

      Why? Does someone have more of a right to a job because they're American?

      Slashdot is always complaining about things like DVD regions, saying that the concept of borders in an international market is obsolete. Well, that cuts both ways.

    26. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the depleted uranium poisoning that will destroy generations...

    27. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by MSBob · · Score: 1

      ...and their oil is shitty and expensive. Also they can't scale production of it to the level you are hoping for. Tar sands production requires gigantic natural gas inputs. There simply isn't enough natural gas around to produce enough barrels of oil to satisfy US apetite.

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    28. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      As long as the price stays above $50/bbl, it apparently is competitive.

      I'll cite a link, can you provide one for your side of the argument or is the extent of your reasoning limited to FUD adjectives like "shitty", "expensive" and "not enough"?

    29. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by MSBob · · Score: 1
      Listen, I live in Canada. It's not in my interest to poopoo the tar sands. But the truth is this: The tar sands Energy Returned on Energy Invested ratio is barealy 3/2. In other words you need to invest two barrels of oil equivalents (typically natural gas) to get back three. It's still a net gain but when you compare this to Saudi Arabia where EROEI is around 30/1 it gives you something to think about. The "break even" point for tar sands is highly predicated on the cost of natural gas. If the demand for natural gas surges, the cost of it will follow creating a damper on the scale of tar sands processing.

      The other problem with the synthetic crude from tar sands is that most refineries are unable to process it. That's why I called it "shitty" crude.

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    30. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Did you poke around the site I referenced? One of the key elements is much reduced NG consumption.

    31. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      equalizing effect when it comes to wealth across the world. Indians and Afghanis and Mexicans become more wealthy, and Americans less. The humanitarian in me cannot help but see that as a good thing. Of course, the American in me thinks it freakin' sucks. That, and it wouldn't happen overnight, and the process wouldn't be pretty. I'm talking "Gee, doesn't the Great Depression look like it might have been a fun thing to live through" not pretty.

      This is why we should demand balanced trade from other countries. Running huge deficits with China and India is eventually going to catch up with us. If we demand equal trade from them, we may not only be saving US jobs, but preventing the poppage a nasty bubble.

    32. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      Bzzt! Sorry, chum, but there are varying levels of, oh, I dunno, IMMENSE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS for individuals arriving in other countries. Many countries have REAL immigration laws -- unlike America (the land of cheap, often illegal, immigrant labor) -- which means they are highly restrictive and have small quotas.

      The OP is right. Workers are NOT free to select a pool of global employers. Capital encounters about 100 times less friction when selecting a pool of global employees.

      Time to turn off Rush Limbaugh and fucking THINK for a change, sport. Try it. After a while, you might even like having informed opinions of your own, not just those cooked-up in the Republican Echo Chamber first.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    33. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      If you'll recall, the Bush Administration called it Operation Iraqi Liberation at first ... before someone noticed that too much truth was implied by that name, so they quickly changed it to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    34. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      The people in charge would have had to be incredibly stupid if the Iraq war was all about oil - they won't be getting much oil out of Iraq for a very long time.

      So? As long as the "right people" (i.e. WASPs and Israelis) controlled those oil reserves, then they would get what they wanted one way or another.

      People like to harp on the general observation that "the price of gas didn't fall so the Iraq War wasn't about oil", but it was never about price. The invasion was never about making it cheaper for consumers. It was all about controlling a significant fraction of the world's oil reserves so that a new extranational elite could take the next step into being trillionaires from parceling out such a commodity barrel by barrel, then gallon by gallon, then ounce by ounce.

      This is probably one reason why a murderous asshole like Pat Robertson wants Chavez killed. Chavez is sharing the wealth of oil in ways that DON'T make Robertson's class of WASP and Israeli elites even wealthier.

      It's the same thing when Wall Street condemns a company like Costco for actually paying their workers well. It's all about class war, and you can just bet that EVERYONE who posts on Slashdot are on the losing side of that war.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    35. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      While outsourcing has hit the tech sector in a moderate fashion,

      BZZT! Completely incorrect. I am a tech worker and have been since 1985. The industry now is awash in the FUD caused by outsourcing and offshoring. It is 100% pervasive. Tech workers live in fear as a standard issue now, and not just from rumors but pervasive practice of outsourcing, outsourcing, outsourcing. This is hardly "moderate"!

      You get even more foolish here:

      The answer to outsourcing is better eduction for American workers, tax breaks to enterprises that choose to locate factories in the U.S. and American free-trade partners (Canada, Mexico), investment in research & development (not necessarily by the government but by large lending institutions, and the general organs of the economy).

      1. FACT: A "better education" just places you into a population of workers whose tasks are even more outsourcable and offshorable than before. Therefore, education is a LIABILITY, not an asset, since it incurs an enormous debt to buy less of a job future.

      2. FACT: Corporations are swimming in unprecedented levels of tax breaks, grants, loan guarantees and outright bribes ... yet the outflow of capital and jobs is at record rates. Therefore, tax breaks don't work at all.

      3. FACT: American corporations want nothing to do with R&D anymore since it doesn't payoff in the next fiscal quarter as far as the MBAs are (solely) concerned. You're against protectionism, so what are you going to do, pass a law mandating R&D in America?

      Everyone benefits when the whole world has jobs.

      Oh, I agree, as long as you actually expand the franchise of the middle class. But that's NOT what's happening. What's actually happening is that the First World is losing sustainable jobs to the Third World, so they are losing their middle class. These jobs are creating a small uber-consuming class that is literally consuming itself in an orgy of spending. The rest of the offshoring is capturing dispossessed rurals and placing them into wage slavery in faux urbanized environments.

      When you actually have evidence that a SUSTAINABLE middle class in the world is expanding, I'll be happy to hear your further comments. But America's and Europe 's middle classes are being cashed out to increase the wealth of the elite few, and they are leveraging the unsustainable American-type of lifestyle in Third World areas to tempt people into wage slavery. The scumbag capitalists are going through waves of movement from even the higher-priced areas they created, to lower ones in other Third World zones, to continue the gravy train of Hypercapitalism -- a.k.a. looting capitalism, or slash-and-burn capitalism.

      Really, come back when you have some real arguments, pal.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    36. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Wonderful way to make assumptions. I am not a republican and I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.

      I stand by what I said. It is possible for an American to telecommut for a company in a foreign nation. You are correct that capital encounters less friction but there is some friction there and labor is not entirely blocked from moving. Naturally its more difficult for a person to either move to another country or even find a job in another country while remaining here but it is not impossible.

      So you can encourage out of work Americans to feel sorry for themselves and continue to blame capitalism for their woes, the same capitalism that provides for them a very high standard of living compared to people in a lot of countries, or you can encourage them to empower themselves by making their labor avaiable for hire by any company and country on the planet.

      The choice is up to you and to them.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    37. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by dbIII · · Score: 1
      It was all about controlling a significant fraction of the world's oil reserves
      How much control is being exerted now on those oifields? No oil is making it out of Iraq and there is no prospect of oil exports in at least the next couple of years, by which time control may well have changed, perhaps even out of US hands into UN hands - making US lobby groups that may want control of the oil irrelevant. I hope such a simplistic view was not taken by those that decided to invade.
      This is probably one reason why a murderous asshole like Pat Robertson wants Chavez killed
      In my country we call such folks "Godless Christians" - so idiot who is using religeon as the excuse to shove his politics down other peoples throats.
    38. Re:Sounds like a change for the better. by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

      It was Nixon who eliminated exchangability of dollars for gold, in 1971. Where do you get "fast forward a century" from?

      --
      The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
  4. Rural area? by Infinityis · · Score: 0

    Great, sign me up! Wait, what? Rural areas don't get cable, you have to use satellite for the TV channels? What about DSL...no?

    Seriously, my parents live in a rural area and the best option they have for internet connections is dialup (even worse, they have AOL). Unless you also want to spend money on a satellite internet connection, be prepared to go back to the internet stone age. The only way to get around this currently is to BE a high speed ISP branching out to a rural area.

    1. Re:Rural area? by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      I live in a small rural town and have had DSL longer than many larger communities in Iowa. From speaking with the phone company, everyone in their area can have DSL - even if they are in an acreage outside of town.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    2. Re:Rural area? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My parents live in the booneys in NC - they have fiber available. Why? Guess it is easier to install new cable than it is in the city. :\

    3. Re:Rural area? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I have friends in rural Idaho, Utah, Texas, and Georgia. They all have DSL and or cable. I think it really depends a lot on the area. Some small towns are running fiber everywhere to attract companies.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Rural area? by Blkdeath · · Score: 1
      Great, sign me up! Wait, what? Rural areas don't get cable, you have to use satellite for the TV channels? What about DSL...no?

      My sister and her family live in a rural area of Ontario (farming town) and they've had cable since they moved in, high speed cable Internet access, DSL for a couple years, and their house and land cost a small fraction of what a smaller house costs where I live.

      I could get a 3 bedroom house out there on 2 acres of land for under $70k CDN. Out here that wouldn't even buy me a 3 bedroom townhouse on a postage stamp of grass.

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    5. Re:Rural area? by lost_n_confused · · Score: 1

      Damn I better disconnect my 4 Meg connection and go back to dialup. I live just outside a very small town and have high speed access. By the way the small town is 691 people.

      --
      -- To mess up an OS X box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.--
    6. Re:Rural area? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GOOD, however you do it?

      It's good business to start your own local business, especially if there is 0% competition around you locally.

      Means IF there's a market for you? Even online so you can reach out farther, doing work via remote code &/or binaries online + updates/patches... I have been part of such projects, they do workout.

      Good luck, kick A$$ (Make a buck or two (or whatever numbers are your game here...))

      * :)

      APK

      P.S.=> Of course, lol, I expect a fee for business consultations, & consider this part of the bill... apk

  5. Evil quote from article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Debronsky said the town's isolation will help guarantee workers will stick around. "There's no other work within two, three hundred miles," Debronsky said with a smile.

    Translation: "We can treat these people like complete shit if we choose, and most of them will just roll over and take it due to the hassle of relocating to find alternate employment."

    1. Re:Evil quote from article by Mspangler · · Score: 1

      "Debronsky said the town's isolation will help guarantee workers will stick around. "There's no other work within two, three hundred miles," Debronsky said with a smile." That will backfire quickly. Rural counties tend to run by Good-old-boy networks, and they can be creative about looking out for their own. So if you are an outsider it is best to play very nice for the first several years. On the other hand, if he is simply tired of workers flitting from job to job on the "grass is always greener" principle, then he probably is right. People in the country may well have longer attention spans.

  6. Rural areas? How about just cheaper states? by Cerdic · · Score: 1

    This seems so extreme. How about instead of going from NY,NY or SF,CA to Nowhere,USA they just go to a cheaper state in a decent city. Like places in the Midwest (the Baltimore based company could have tried a suburb of Chicago or something and saved money).

    I'm going to college in a pretty rural spot right now, and it's driving me crazy after living in various metros. The food choices suck, the entertainment is low, and I'm sick of all the poorly maintained pickups.

    --
    Advice for my fellow geeks: before seeking out that threesome you dream of, you might see what a TWOsome is like first.
  7. Good or bad, depending on what's important to you by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Living in the city is important to some people, but not to all. I lived in Seattle for a dozen years. My wife comes from a small town in eastern Washington state (we met in college in Seattle). Every time we go back to visit her folks, I always end up thinking "this is such a wonderful place - too bad there aren't any jobs".

    Personally I'd take this sort of job in a short second. Friendlier people, a real sense of community, no commute, an amazingly lower cost of living... sure sounds good to me. Plus it'd make my wife happy - she's still a small-town girl at heart.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  8. Good things about rural areas by Infinityis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some positive things I can personally attest to about living in a rural area:

    Your kids can graduate as Valedictorian or top 10% with relative ease

    You can turn your TV/music way up and no neighbor cares.

    Because it takes longer to get from A to B, you get a lot less visitors, particularly annoying visitors.

    You actually take grass for granted (note: When I went to college, people were surprised at how I would cut across a grassy area without even thinking about it--apparently grass was respected if it was next to a sidewalk).

    More space for personal projects.

    Less traffic (as pointed out in the article).

    No "Homeowners Association"...if you want to do home improvements or park cars in the yard, have at it.

    An excellent view of the night sky.

    Those are just a few of the things I miss about living in a rural area...

    1. Re:Good things about rural areas by Doppler00 · · Score: 1

      You actually take grass for granted (note: When I went to college, people were surprised at how I would cut across a grassy area without even thinking about it--apparently grass was respected if it was next to a sidewalk).

      I noticed this to when I moved to large city. I'm always amazed to see people do 90 deg turns on sidewalks instead of walking on the grass. What is it about urban grass that makes it so special? Are people so worried about getting their shoes dirty?

    2. Re:Good things about rural areas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree on the Homeowners Association crap.. I just got a letter from them which essentially calls me a moron for installing a satellite dish without getting prior approval.

    3. Re:Good things about rural areas by speleo · · Score: 1

      What is it with some people and antennas?

      It's OK to park a bright yellow Hummer in my driveway but a satellite dish in the backyard is an eyesore?

      And why do some people think a cell phone tower is more attractive when it's dressed up to look like a fake pine tree?

    4. Re:Good things about rural areas by J.+T.+MacLeod · · Score: 1

      It's likely because the grass is so rare, they don't want to risk killing it or stunting its growth by walking on it.

    5. Re:Good things about rural areas by Wiseleo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tell them to go review the FCC website that states in plain English that passive reception devices are their authority, can be deployed anywhere on your property, and that they explicitly override any landlord or HOA with regards to these decisions.

      --
      Leonid S. Knyshov
      Find me on Quora :)
    6. Re:Good things about rural areas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because we don't want to kill what little grass we have. Think about it. If everyone walks on that little patch of grass, it'll die. It's not like out on your farm where it's just you walking on that patch of grass.

    7. Re:Good things about rural areas by bluGill · · Score: 1

      No it is not okay to part a bright yellow hummer in the driveway. If you cannot fit it in the garrage then get rid of it. Don't get rid of it here though, cars in the driveway are not allowed.

      I don't see why they care, most townhomes are a uniform ugly gray, so it isn't like cars in the driveway or a satellite dish make it worse. A 62 VW bug on blocks in the driveway would make most of those neighborhoods look better. IMHO of course, which is why I don't live in such a neighborhood.

    8. Re:Good things about rural areas by djp928 · · Score: 1
      Your kids can graduate as Valedictorian or top 10% with relative ease

      So, what... You're claiming that people who live in the country are dumber than people who live in the city?

    9. Re:Good things about rural areas by xethair · · Score: 1

      You actually take grass for granted (note: When I went to college, people were surprised at how I would cut across a grassy area without even thinking about it--apparently grass was respected if it was next to a sidewalk).

      Actually, this is the opposite of what you seem to think. Being rural, you miss that if people all walk on the grass, it won't be there anymore. Instead you'll just have a continually widening* dirt/mud path. Smart places put the sidewalks as close to the natural path lines as they can, and people that want to have grass around respect the need to cooperate in not beating it down. Yeah, sometimes it costs a few seconds.

      What you are really taking for granted is the slight harm walking does to the grass. It doesn't matter when it's infrequent, but that doesn't scale very far.

      The function of paved sidewalks/paths is to protect grass and keep people out of mud.

      * Widening because people edge the bare dirt when the ground is damp, which is harder still on the grass.

      (No, I don't really know why I'm pointing this out.)

    10. Re:Good things about rural areas by nameer · · Score: 1, Informative

      OK. I did look it up. It's here. Only applies if the dish is less than 1m in diameter. So a digital satellite dish would qualify, but one of those 2m+ ones (like I used to see in the 80's) could still be restricted. Then again, does anybody still get the giant ones? Maybe to pick up foreign television transmissions?

      --
      "Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?" --Pinky
    11. Re:Good things about rural areas by xethair · · Score: 1

      So, what... You're claiming that people who live in the country are dumber than people who live in the city?

      Doing better than eight random people is, in a way, easier than doing better than eight hundred. The more people, the better the odds someone will clean your clock academically, and the better the odds that problematic social forces will come into play. It's not that country people are dumber, rather it's that you can get higher spots while being statistically less above average.

      In other words, as the pool grows, it becomes nigh impossible for "moderately above average" to come out anywhere but moderately above average. The smaller the pool, the less uniform the result. "Relative ease" => "It could happen"

      Naturally, you also run risks that you will be in the bottom 10%, because you have a particularly bright eight people in your class. Given that most consider themselves above average (and their children prodigal), we can understand how they will see that throw of the dice.

      It's a shame people are always jumping at the "You think you're better than me" bit. Honest truth is, rural people have less experience with the world at large. That doesn't mean ANYTHING EVEN RESEMBLING that they are dumber, or even that they are less knowledgeable, but it does matter when dealing with the world at large.

      I wouldn't want someone who only knows gay people from what his church tells him and watching "Will & Grace" to make decisions about gay people any more than that person would want me making decisions about what to plant based on what my grocer says is in season and watching "Green Acres".

      I have never understood why Americans simply can't accept inexperience. Even having been one my whole life.

    12. Re:Good things about rural areas by jred · · Score: 1

      You actually take grass for granted

      I guess I was the only one to think of pot when I read this. You can get killer homegrown in the boonies...

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    13. Re:Good things about rural areas by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

      Your kids can graduate as Valedictorian or top 10% with relative ease

      Umm, BZZT WRONG! I don't know what rural area you lived in, but the high school I went to was the opposite. We had many smart kids in a class of ~55, and it was very difficult.

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    14. Re:Good things about rural areas by mini+me · · Score: 1

      It's not like out on your farm where it's just you walking on that patch of grass.

      But we rural folk also drive (cars, tractors, atvs, snowmobiles, etc.) on the grass, which has got to be equivalent to many people walking. The beauty of grass is that it always grows back, no matter how hard you are on it.

    15. Re:Good things about rural areas by Infinityis · · Score: 1

      Certainly not...I myself am from the country, and I did indeed graduate as Valedictorian. But it's a lot easier to be Valedictorian out of 57 people than it is to be Valedictorian out of 500+ people. If we scale the numbers up, there would have been about 10 people like me in a larger school--certainly my percentage would be similar (i.e. top 10 percent, for example), but I would have approximately 1/10th the probability of being the top graduate.

      So no, country people aren't dumber, but there are fewer of them per school, so the odds of having a higher absolute placement go up.

      If someone were the only student in their graduating class, they'd be guaranteed to be the valedictorian, regarless of their intelligence. But they're just as equally in the bottom 10% of their class. Which do you think they'll write on their college application (if they're inclined to go to college)?

  9. Being where the action is has a certain cost. by rolfwind · · Score: 1

    While it's probably a better cost cutting measure than outsourcing because lower cost of living - the whole bad thing about being in a super rural place is that you are miles from nowhere - and travel is getting more expensive and a PITA (to fly).

    The other problem - even with the internet - is that you are isolated from the action - only so much business (to business) can be conducted over email/websites (talking about more major deals). Many clients still feel more comfortable with someone they can meet face to face.

    This type of move is good for a programming/manufacturing (branch of the) business but not something that involves sales. Or something that is obviously website oriented. Otherwise you end up losing more than you save. It's not something I'd recommend to a small company trying to start up.

    1. Re:Being where the action is has a certain cost. by homer_ca · · Score: 1
      All true, and that's why many companies start by outsourcing less advanced work like call centers and grunt level programming. The rural U.S. has long been home to outsourced call centers, either telemarketing or customer service. It usually works like this: the company gets big tax concessions from the local governments, and maybe even free land, in exchange for promising lots of jobs. When the incentives expire, many times so do the jobs. It's nice to have to jobs while they last, but don't consider it any kind of stable long-term employment. Here's a story of one town's deal with one of these call center operators (from here:
      In Kansas, the city of Manhattan and the state offered Sykes a subsidy package of about $6.2 million in 1998 based on its promise to create an estimated 432 jobs. From the city came a $2.6 million cash grant, free land, $500,000 for site improvements, and property tax reductions for five years. The state provided $550,000 from an "Economic Opportunity" fund, enterprise zone tax breaks worth nearly $1.8 million, and a project and training grant of $800,000. In June 2004, the remaining 256 workers lost their jobs when Sykes moved the work to Asia and Latin America. The Manhattan plant closed only six months after the enterprise zone tax breaks expired.
  10. The catch ? by rkt · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is no problem doing this in a small US town.

    The problem is that u need to find very well trained people who are willing to live there and work from there and still be happy with what they get paid.

    Its a funny thing that u guys think there are no traffic lights in india. The cities where these outsourcing companies work from are not 14 miles away from traffic lights and not 50 miles from a starbucks like coffee shop. Its hard to see how a computer savy group can live without computer shops around, without the modern amenities and most importantly without coffee !!

    1. Re:The catch ? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Its hard to see how a computer savy group can live without computer shops around, without the modern amenities and most importantly without coffee !!

      You can order computer equipment from Newegg. As for coffee, get yourself an expresso machine and make your own. :P

    2. Re:The catch ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think there's no coffee? You can get a cup at the local diner, served with a smile by a woman named Mabel who addresses you as "Hon".

    3. Re:The catch ? by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      What good is coffee if it's not more expensive than gasoline!

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    4. Re:The catch ? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Its hard to see how a computer savy group can live without computer shops around

      It's called UPS, Fedex, and the Post Office. Jeeze. The 20th century has come and gone. You don't need brick and mortar for this.

      without the modern amenities

      You don't enumerate these, so it's hard to tell how spoiled you might be. I'll just state the obvious. Most folks who don't live herded like sheep in giant noisy neon cities do not feel put upon because they don't have 10 overblown boutique shopping centers with "amusement arcades" and "stadium seating movie theaters" within a quick fuel-wasting SUV's ride.

      and most importantly without coffee

      Reality check. It's called instant coffee, and it's in every grocery store. Toss a spoonful in a cup, add boiling water, and guess what you have on the spot? What? You're WAY beyond stooping to that? You can waste money on the gourmet stuff, that's available in the same place. You don't need to take a gigantic container of the stuff with you every single place you go all day, never 5 minutes without it.

      Jeeze louise. We WALKED to school, ya whippersnapper. EVERY day. Even if the snow was up to our chests ...

  11. Outsourcing should be illegal. by Khyber · · Score: 1, Insightful

    USA Companies always say that they support the USA. How do you support our country if you're sending our jobs overseas? How can you support America by giving jobs we need to other places overseas? Some companies say they're patriotic - how does taking a job from an american and giving it to someone 5k+ miles away make a company patriotic?

    Outsourcing of our jobs should be made illegal. You're doing nothing more than hurting your fellow countrymen..

    Oh, hell, what am I saying. It's not like *ANY* big company truly cares.

    Outlaw Outsourcing.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >Outsourcing of our jobs should be made illegal. You're doing nothing more than hurting your fellow countrymen.

      If you really believed that, you'd be doing everything in your power to support Microsoft to help extend the American hegemony over world computer technology and bring foreign wealth into the United States.

      Whatever happened to "the right tool for the right job"?

    2. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by littlerubberfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Market economics will eventually take care of outsourcing.

      If all of our high-paying jobs are going elsewhere (say, manufacturing to China) then US residents will be working for much lower wages in service industries. We won't be able to afford the very goods that we USED to make, causing US companies to fail, cycling us into a depression, until we become the cheap labor again. In the long term, outsourcing hurts corporations as much as us lowly workers.

      That being said, we need to stop corporate tax breaks for outsourcing and understand that US corporations are nothing without US consumers and US workers. A global economy can only work if we grow in such a way to bring standards and wages up around the world...Corporate-dominated market-economics destroys the very consumers needed to sustain capitalist growth.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    3. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Outlawing outsourcing would be a restraint of trade. Thats not very capitalistic. You see, what people who understand economics can see is that globalization is not going to bring about the end of the Western world. There will be some uncomfortable shocks to be sure but we'll be alright. In the process the rest of the world will be brought up and everyone will be better for it. Its a good thing people like you are being ignored.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    4. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by benjamindees · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How do you support our country if you're sending our jobs overseas?

      Ding ding. Here's your wake up call. These companies are supporting the country by shipping jobs overseas to free up Americans to fight in foreign wars.

      The US gov't won't outlaw outsourcing because it's by design. As outsourced techies are working at McDonalds, the people who should be working at McDonalds are being shot at in Iraq.

      If everybody had jobs they could do right here, no one would voluntarily sign up to fight the Jews' wars for them. And the last time they tried to force people to fight a needless war, all hell broke loose.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    5. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by Dan+Up+Baby · · Score: 1

      Wow, +2? Who gave David Duke mod points?

    6. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by blinksilver · · Score: 0

      I can't stand this type of talk, who are you to decide what a company should or should not do if its not hurting anyone. Firing someone because a person from a india can do the job well enough that company doesn't care is not hurting them, its business, make profit, get rich, you know the Americian Dream. It you really want to help your fellow countrymen in the face of Evil Profit Hungry Corp(TM) then fight thing like DRM that don't even let me use the software on my PSP I choose to use.

      If a machine can do your job should we outlaw the use of any and all machines, just becasue you want to keep the your job? Your logic is just plain faulty.

      If you can be replaced with someone who is willing to work for less, then _his_ salary is what your job is worth, not yours, deal with it, your skills are just not worth what your being payed, and you can't handle that, but instead of getting a better edu, which would make your worth your salary you complain about it.

      quiet complaining, and get a degree in something that ensure job security.
      __________
      and NO I dont care about Karma, I rather speak my mind and be modded a troll, then have my mouth kept shut by the "Karma police."

    7. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      What does outsourcing have to do with being patriotic? How about worrying about the wellbeing of your fellow man, regardless of color, creed or nationality instead of this xenophobic claptrap? Apparently, you think there's a difference between moving a job to Cleveland and moving a job to Toronto - even though you know neither of the people there, they're only a couple of miles apart and very similar. Face it - outsourcing happens every day in the US. It's just that the jobs don't go to those slimy indians or evil mexicans. Apparently, that is important to you. Go suck an egg.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    8. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone should mod this dude up. The poorest segment of Americans are *filthy rich* compared to people in many other countries. Those people need jobs far more than some overweight American who has "only" two TV sets and a 10 year old car. Please consider that there are people who don't have enough food. People who don't have clean water to drink. Those people deserve jobs just as much as someone in the US whining about how he might have to cancel his cable TV.

      Outsourcing *should* continue until the standard of living in rural India begins to match that in East Buttcrack, Kansas.

    9. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I'm going to bite.

      First off, since you're insinuating that I'm being a racist by putting in the word xenophobic, tell me where I mentioned anybody by race, color, or creed? I didn't. I just said AMERICAN. Please point out the xenophobic crap, please.

      And you don't know me, so how do you know what's important to me? What's important to me is for outsourcing of american jobs to stop so people like me can actually get a job that our certifications and degrees say we should be able to do, and not have to go into debt to start up one's own business to survive and maintain a roof over our heads, food in our bellies, gas in our cars, etc.

      Now you go suck an egg, Mr. I-Know-Everything-About-You.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    10. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      If a machine can do your job should we outlaw the use of any and all machines, just becasue you want to keep the your job? Your logic is just plain faulty.

      Faulty, how? If everyone was replaced by a machine, then how is anyone going to work and earn the money they need to buy things? Will we suddenly ditch cash totally and develop a market system where everything is free?? I don't think so.

      quiet complaining, and get a degree in something that ensure job security.

      Well, speaking of degrees, your horrible spelling makes me think that I should avoid whatever college you attended. Obviously they don't know the difference between QUIT and quiet.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What's important to me is for outsourcing of american jobs to stop so people like me can actually get a job

      You know what? For every "person like you", there are 100 people like you in China and India who have more education and are willing to work for less money and without complaining as much.

      That's reality. I hate to bear sad news, but you are not special. You do not deserve a job any more than that dude in China does. No one owes you jack shit. Either you compete on price and merits, or you won't be working.

      That's life. Learn to deal with it, and you'll be better off in the end, trust me.

    12. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      What you suggest is simply that the standard of living in the US drops to the point that we can't afford to feed ourselves either.

    13. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Competing with dictatorships that keep their people beaten down in the dirt and starving is totally fair ;)

    14. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
      Yes, India is a dictatorship and yes, we're beaten down by our authoritarian masters to do their biding.

      Keep spouting the same fantasies over and over again, and you might actually believe in them one day.

    15. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Outsourcing of our jobs should be made illegal. You're doing nothing more than hurting your fellow countrymen..

      Companies exist to make themselves money, not other Americans. I don't see why you're entitled to a job just because you have the same passport as whoever founded the company, even if you're no more qualified than a foreigner. I don't know if legally you can stop companies employing people in other countries.

      I bet you don't buy entirely American-produced food, or use entirely American-made electronics, or only access American internet-content, or drive entirely American cars, watch only American films and TV programmes, only wear American-made clothes, so how can you expect an American company to only employ Americans?

      We live in a global market now. This means you can buy things from all over the world, you can communicate with people all over the world, it also means that companies can employ people all over the world. This is a good thing.

      Restricting employement based on arbitrary national boundaries is a horrific and outdated concept.

    16. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Competing with dictatorships that keep their people beaten down in the dirt and starving is totally fair ;)

      Scientists make earthshaking discovery: life unfair! Film at eleven!

    17. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Take a look at who actually owns "American" companies anymore. Way too many are partly or wholly foreign-owned.

      Maybe the trick is to tax companies for being based elsewhere but doing business here, and likewise for employees -- so they only get tax breaks when they bring their business and their jobs back to America.

      Indeed, a company could be taxed in direct proportion to how much of their business is based elsewhere, and on how many of their jobs are not in America.

      Instead, what do we do? the exact opposite. No wonder it at least looks cheaper to move your business (and jobs) elsewhere.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    18. Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It is a political matter. Other jobs have various protections because of political power. Hell, farmers get all kinds of gov protection. If you don't excercise political power, then big biz or something equally scary will use it to your disadvantage. The nerd libertarian view has to end and we have to create trade groups. Not necessarily unions, but something like the NRA with powerful lobbying power.

  12. Future's so bright ya gotta... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...wonder what these corporate clowns are gonna do when they wake up one day and realize they've gutted their own consumer base.

  13. Amerrika by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, wake up amerrikans! Your life costs too much. To you, and to the world. Jobs are being outsourced because even your society can't sustain (by exploitation of the rest of the world) your own inflated luxuries.

    --
    Eat at Joe's.

    1. Re:Amerrika by bloxnet · · Score: 1

      It's difficult to respect the intelligence of your opinion when your AC post shares the sig of your non-AC post. Stupidity and cowardice...way to go.

  14. world communications cap the common worker by icecow · · Score: 1

    No surprise here. In the past America's high economic success allowed even unproductive Americans high levels of access to piss away resources. Globalization is changing all of that. Now the domain of the wealthy are peppered across the earth and taking a new form that resembles a mega-global reincarnation of the Lord/Serf era.

    --
    Stop invalid scientific research. Ask your local scientists to feed their lab rats with a phytoestrogen-free chow.
  15. Re:Rural areas? How about just cheaper states? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    Heh, depends on the rural area. My favorite place in the world is State College, you have any type of food you can imagine, there are plenty of entertainment options both on and off campus(theatres, cinemas, bars etc), a somewhat decent public transportation system if you don't want to use your bike, and the cost of living is almost nothing. Not to mention you are only a few hours drive from NYC, DC, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh.
    It's also pretty rural(and thus cheap!) as well. I was renting an apartment that covered everything but electricity(but they paid for the gas heating and cooking), phone and internet for $270 a month. I had my own room and only had to share a bathroom with 1 other person. For about $100 more per month you can get your own bathroom and a roomier kitchen in a very modern apartment. You can eat well for about $50 a week etc. Rural doesn't have to mean it sucks!

  16. Unaware to the causes by [cx] · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If someone is going to do the same job as you for less money and arguably as well, or even better, not many people are going to keep you on the job just because of the fact you live in the same country as them.

    In a capitalist country, how could you justify it as a citizen to keep your job when someone else is willing to do it for cheaper?

    That's how the game is played, the harder you work and less you complain the more likely you will have a job. This whining about outsourcing is just a bunch of over-priviledged people who are used to having it easy.

    If you want your job back, move to India and work for $5/hour, that's right you didn't just want "your" job (its a position, not a posession) you wanted the paycheck.

    Get into a field of work that can't be outsourced if you want job security.

    [cx]

    1. Re:Unaware to the causes by littlerubberfeet · · Score: 1

      Granted, US workers probably need to become more efficient, but: If all of our high-paying jobs are going elsewhere (say, manufacturing to China, or tech support to India) then US residents will be working for much lower wages in service industries. We won't be able to afford the very goods that we USED to make, causing US companies to fail, cycling us into a depression, until we become the cheap labor again. In the long term, outsourcing hurts corporations as much as us lowly workers.

      Also, $5 an hour isn't accurate. It is closer to 30 CENTS an hour for some jobs. Maybe $2 if you have remarkable English skills. Hard-working Non-complaining workers have been outsourced. They never opened their mouths until the stench of burgers at the golden arches became too much.

      I am working in a field that can't be outsourced. I chose it in part for that reason. Some people don't have a choice though...I am lucky to be able to afford a full college education. Some people have to start work right out of high school.

      If we have to compete in a global marketplace, we should at least have the same benefits as Indian, Chinese or even European workers: Some amount of Gov't healthcare, access to higher education, and perhaps a government that doesn't give tax breaks to companies that outsource US jobs.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    2. Re:Unaware to the causes by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      That's how the game is played, the harder you work and less you complain the more likely you will have a job. This whining about outsourcing is just a bunch of over-priviledged people who are used to having it easy.

      You sound like an Uncle Tom - "Yes massa, I'll work hard without complaint, because that's my lot in life". What a load of bullshit, and it's an attitude that will guarantee you a lower class hard working existence until you die.

      In the enlightened world, people are less servile and aren't confused into thinking that brainless hard work makes them worthwhile, and prefer to work smart while looking out for #1 (themselves). It's for this reason that self-employment and extreme capitalism is so common in North America and Europe. It's why most of the hard working, non-complainers are working for large Western corporations, that are full of endless ranks of idle middle-managers. Feel proud.

      On the other hand, the industrious hard working folk of Somewhere in SomeThirdWorldNation can feel foolishly confident and proud that their meager paradoxically existence guaranteeing them a job, until BigCo decides that the pickings are even better in North Korea, and moves on. Already many large corporations are grumbling about India's tech sector being "too priviledged", to use your servile talking points.

      In the end, though, I completely agree with you - Any sort of protectionist or entitled grumblings are misled, and ultimately those who are downtrodden about outsourcing just need to look at the massive and continuing tech industry right here in North America. A tech industry that is actually growing, despite the fact that workers are demanding more and more (some niches are back up to over-100K average salaries. Again, feel great about the fact that you've been suckered into working for 6 rupees a day).

    3. Re:Unaware to the causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone is going to do the same job as you for less money and arguably as well, or even better, not many people are going to keep you on the job just because of the fact you live in the same country as them.

      We had stuff like this "protecting" jobs it was called tarrifs. Seems that most people just wanted cheaper stuff and damn the fact that for every dollar earned/spent is multiplied 5 or 6 times in the overall economy.

      Today that multiplier is probably reduced to 2-3 times as the money that is "spent" in the economy is leaving as our foreign investers are profit taking and skimming some money away from one country's economy and putting it into the local economy, where they don't have to spend/invest near what it would take to invest in the larger economy.

      Is this right? I don't know. The only way for the US economy to regain its glory days is find something that the rest of the world wants and no one else has the infrastructure/resources to be able to create cheaply.
      Something like food for example the US already exports more food than most every other country is it because the people that we export food to can't grow enough? NO it is because we can export food cheaper than they can grow it, so they build their infrastructure where they find something else to spend their limited resources on.

      I remember an Old Fogey saying the only thing that is certain in an economic downturn is that people still need to eat. Fullfill that requirement and you can still have a market. But when the world wide economic system collapses (which WILL happen) the countries that control the basic needs, food and clean H2O are going to be the real powers. We lived for thousands of years without electricity, clean water, and a decent sewage system that we have become spoiled.

      Invest in the food/clean water industries as that is all that mankind "really" needs.

    4. Re:Unaware to the causes by susa-no-o · · Score: 1

      I can't move to India, the immigration system is far more difficult there. Even if I could, why should I? At my college, sometimes I thought the whole computer science department was Indian. When I would wait outside the tech support room, they weren't speaking English, they were speaking Hindi, or something. It might as well be India. Also, most Indian programmers make much less than five dollars an hour. But, the cost of living is so much lower, they are still able to maintain a middle class lifestyle on their salary. Although, a middle class lifestyle in India is probably different from a middle class lifestyle in America.

    5. Re:Unaware to the causes by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And what sort of jobs *can't* be outsourced?

      1) Manual labour.
      2) Medical services.

      Offhand I can't think of anything else... and even these have been to a large degree already "outsourced" by using 1) cheap illegal immigrants, and 2) cheap foreign doctors here on a temporary intern Visa.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:Unaware to the causes by [cx] · · Score: 1

      Law, Heavy Duty Vehicle Operator, Landscaping, Carpentry, Electrician, Mechanics.

      All of these things can I suppose somehow be outsourced through immigrants, but most wouldn't last long in a trade that requires english skills to run the business as well as keep a steady clientele. I would like to see some Mexican who just jumped the fence become a district attorney, although with the kind of judges that are elected to the Supreme Court as of late, it wouldn't entirely surprise me.

  17. Heh heh... by msimm · · Score: 1

    Don't you have any friends outside of major metropolitan areas? Mine laugh when I tell them what I pay and what I'm getting for what I pay. I live in San Diego and the prices here (like a lot of other places) put shoe-box sized pieces of property into ranges I'd call pretty high.

    Local economy, population density, there are a lot of things to take into account. So I don't think its so far off saying in a smaller part of the country, even with the reduced salary things like house-size will increase even as cost (often dramatically) decreases. Apple to oranges.

    Anyhow, a lot of people live in urban areas for other reasons and the trade-offs to moving into a bigger house in a smaller town with a smaller economy might not do.

    Personally I'm getting a little sick of the riduculous prices on just about everything. A quarter of a million dollars for a postage stamp sized piece of property far enough outside the actual metropolitan area that I can't actually enjoy it without commuting into it (with heavy, typical Southern California traffic) isn't sounding so good.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  18. Re:Rural areas? How about just cheaper states? by TykeClone · · Score: 1

    State College is about as rural as Des Moines and Fargo. For city dwellers, I'm sure that it sounds as if it is rural, but it really isn't.

    --
    A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  19. I'll work for $12/hr or 25k/yr by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can code anything you can imagine, and work with any software program. I live in nowheresville PA :P Nothing to do here but bum on the internet 24/7 and wait for Dungeons and Dragons Online to be released.

    1. Re:I'll work for $12/hr or 25k/yr by Shakesphere · · Score: 1

      I can imagine True AI. Can you code that? It should imprint on me like a duck and it should have Human Farm In It.

      --
      "I'm not the street on operas" - CrazyJim1
  20. I actually lived in Sebeka by Chaos+Engine · · Score: 3, Informative

    I lived in Sebeka in 1990, it was a really nice little town. Good school, nice people, a public pool and ice rink. It even has a little river running through it.

    I don't remember it being THAT small tho. I wouldn't want to live there now, but if I ever wanted to raise a family I could think of worse places.

    How can you go wrong living in a place less than 10 miles from Nimrod, MN??

    --
    And then he did that thing with that stuff and it was like, wow...
  21. Protectionism by MrSteveSD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My boss is always looking to outsource our jobs to India, China or Poland. Fortunately they are so paranoid about people stealing our business ideas, they never go through with their plans.

    You will notice a distinct lack of protectionism when it comes to outsourcing jobs. When our industries are being undermined by cheaper foreign imports, the government starts introducing tariff barriers and/or quotas. This is because the rich people at the top of the chain are being affected. In contrast, job outsourcing benefits these same rich people, so there is no reason for the government to introduce protective measures. The government only protects its direct paymasters, not the little fish.

    1. Re:Protectionism by Safe+Sex+Goddess · · Score: 1
      Agreed. Does it make sense to throw thousands of people out of work in America so that you can make $2 billion in profits instead of $1 billion?

      How much profit is enough?

      I'd like to see us move to a mixed economy. It always gives me the creeps to think that people are making profits on war, medicine, medical care, and insurance. Especially those who raise prices in times of disasters.

      Necessities at cost, luxiries for profit.

      --
      Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
    2. Re:Protectionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a solution:
      1) Knock boss unconscious.
      2)Stuff into large FedEx box.
      Mail to Bangalore (or favorite interesting sounding place) with a note on the box:
      BIG FISH, AHEAD OF CURVE, SEEKS DIRECT PAYMASTER JOB.

  22. At least the money is staying in country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OT: Housing in the big cities sucks! Yes I make almost double what I would back home in the Midwest. I am paying 40% more for housing for 20% less space which sucks.

  23. Cookeville Tennessee USA by SumDog · · Score: 1

    I went to school in a place called Cookeville. It was only about an hour and a half away from the city of Chattanooga where I grew up, and before I knew it, I totally hated the small town feel. Cookeville was a place where old people went to die and it drained the life out of everyone there.

    If you're thinking about going to Tennessee Tech, don't! It's the worst school in Tennessee; probably the entire south.

    While there a lot of my friends got jobs in call centers for SunTrust Bank. There was even a data center there for Fleetguard and the traditional factories.

    I guess if you dig that environment, it's not to bad. They did have a wallmart and a StarBucks on campus.

    I do miss the $300/2 bed room places sometimes compared to living back in the city, and the nice parks and waterfalls, but other than that I really don't miss bumble-fuck backwater America.

    1. Re:Cookeville Tennessee USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work in the engineering field, and it is interesting that that Tech turns out the best engineers of all schools in TN for undergrads. They are workers and problem solvers. I suspect you should have gone somewhere else.

      Guess I got my button pushed.

    2. Re:Cookeville Tennessee USA by jrockway · · Score: 2, Funny

      Was the minimum security orphanarium on campus, as well?

      --
      My other car is first.
    3. Re:Cookeville Tennessee USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell yeah, I 2nd that. The nearest real tech job I knew about when I was there was the Dell manufacturing plant east of Nashville. That's still about an 80-mile commute for a $12/hour job...

      On the bright side, there's a bowling alley, 2 theaters, the TTU gym, and it's really close to some nice parks: Burgess Falls is just a few miles away and Fall Creek Falls isn't too far of a trip either. Also, a good spot for rappelling is about 14 miles east of Cookeville.

      If you haven't went to Fall Creek Falls and like the outdoors, it's great - over 10,000 acres.

      If you need money and want to go to a TN school, go to MTSU, it's only 20 miles from Nashville and a lot of jobs are within a 30 mile radius.

  24. Interesting by digitalgimpus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sometimes I wonder if it's harder to understand tech support outsourced to India, or southern US.

    1. Re:Interesting by >:^D · · Score: 1

      I get called every day by individuals with accents that can be described as Indic in origin. Believe me, I can only understand the word "consolidate" and "loan". Everything else is completely unintelligible.

      I'm sure it'll get better as they outsource more and as the workers become more familiar with English, but it's pretty bad now. I can't imagine if I had to call tech support.

    2. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if it's a girl doing the tech support, give me the Southern Belle anytime. Even if I can't understand what she's saying, I'll be happy with the call.

      Plus, you can watch "Blue Collar TV" to learn the language.

    3. Re:Interesting by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I wonder if it's harder to understand tech support outsourced to India, or southern US.

      Them kind of insults leave a hitch in my craw.

  25. Outsourcing work to people's homes... by UpLateDrinkingCoffee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What surprises me is that firms seem more than willing to outsource entire projects to another country or to some out of the way rural place, but as soon as the subject of current employees working from home comes up, it immediately get's dismissed for reasons usually related to "making sure the work is getting done".

    1. Re:Outsourcing work to people's homes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Accoutability and scope. If 5% of your workforce working from home doesn't do their job, they get canned and the job still isn't done. 5% of the major project you outsourced to Bangladore doesn't get completed, you don't pay a dime.

      Oh wait, I'm forgetting that in this country, people who don't do their job leech off of others until they retire, and vendors who don't fulfill agreements & deliverables laugh all the way to the bank with their prepaid check.

      I guess I have no clue, then.

    2. Re:Outsourcing work to people's homes... by cliveholloway · · Score: 2

      Paul Graham had something interesting to say about that at OSCON this year. Here's a snippet:

      "To me the most demoralizing aspect of the traditional office is that you're supposed to be there at certain times. There are usually a few people in a company who really have to, but the reason most employees work fixed hours is that the company can't measure their productivity.

      "The basic idea behind office hours is that if you can't make people work, you can at least prevent them from having fun. If employees have to be in the building a certain number of hours a day, and are forbidden to do non-work things while there, then they must be working. In theory. In practice they spend a lot of their time in a no-man's land, where they're neither working nor having fun.

      "If you could measure how much work people did, many companies wouldn't need any fixed workday. You could just say: this is what you have to do. Do it whenever you like, wherever you like. If your work requires you to talk to other people in the company, then you may need to be here a certain amount. Otherwise we don't care."

      --
      -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    3. Re:Outsourcing work to people's homes... by twitter · · Score: 1
      If your work requires you to talk to other people in the company, then you may need to be here a certain amount.

      This is wrong on two counts. First, a person can be available without a physical presence. Second, fixed hours are required for some jobs because you can not predict when others will have to get your input. The upshot is that where your work does not matter but when you are availabel does matter.

      With good software, like gnome meeting, and hardware, I'm as good here as I am anywhere. If you don't understand what I'm saying, I can draw you a picture and email it. You can get me and however many other people you want together and all of our smiling faces can meet on the network. There are many jobs which require a physical presence - physical labor, maintenance, plant engineering, civil engineering, etc, but most does not really.

      Because I can't predict when someone else will need me, "office hours" can not be done away with. Anyone who has to work with other people has to be available for quick problem solving. Questions that take a day to answer can stretch a five minute job to a week or more. Interestingly enough, such lack of accountability is easier to track through on line interaction tools than it is at a real office.

      --

      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    4. Re:Outsourcing work to people's homes... by cliveholloway · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I should have explained context - he was talking about developers, but it can apply to many other roles. Just not *all* roles.

      --
      -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    5. Re:Outsourcing work to people's homes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >With good software, like gnome meeting, and hardware, I'm as good here as I am anywhere.

      How depressing for you; you might want to get that autism looked at. The human contact of face to face meetings is extremely valuable for building relationships with your colleagues and clients. Ditto for chatting around the water cooler for building professional and social relationships, networking, and departmental gossip over the water cooler.

      Assuming an equal quantity and quality of work, who is the boss going to remember when selecting people for assignments or at promotion time, the guy who waves to him every morning in the hallway or some blurry face on a monitor?

    6. Re:Outsourcing work to people's homes... by HampiRocks · · Score: 1

      Because Indian companies have worked a lot and have lots of experience to show that the outsourcing model can work.

    7. Re:Outsourcing work to people's homes... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      What surprises me is that firms seem more than willing to outsource entire projects to another country or to some out of the way rural place, but as soon as the subject of current employees working from home comes up, it immediately get's dismissed for reasons usually related to "making sure the work is getting done".

      Did you ask if they can pay you 40% less if you do?

  26. The old hometown ain't what it used to be by GrmpyOldPgmr · · Score: 1

    It's actually not a bad little town to live in. Yeah, they've had DSL for several years now. Yeah, they've had cable TV for a looong time. It's not as bad as you'd think. There's little traffic but not no traffic. Just enough to keep you on your toes when trying to cross the street at midnight after a night at the municipal liquor store on Main St. There's people there that I went to high school with that got a better job, because of that company, than anything else available around there. That's a bunch of less jobs that got shipped off to India. Everyone thought it wouldn't last either but they have so something must be going right there. They've even got a *gasp* website. http://www.sebeka.com./ Yee haw!

    1. Re:The old hometown ain't what it used to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither is the web site,
      http://www.sebeka.com./ ==
      No web site is configured at this address.

  27. Only on /. by khasim · · Score: 1

    Only on /. would an anonymous post be mod'ed up to +4 for semantically parsing the words "his job".

    If it wasn't his job, why was he getting paid by his employer for doing it?

    1. Re:Only on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You parse syntactically, not semantically, you four-digit, brown-skinned cunt.

    2. Re:Only on /. by buddhaseviltwin · · Score: 1

      You parse syntactically, not semantically, you four-digit, brown-skinned cunt.

      Actually you're wrong you pedantically impetuous three fingered twat.

      Parsing syntactically means you're interpreting the lexical structure whereas parsing semantically means you're interpreting the conceptual meaning of the lexical structure.

  28. Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by gregwbrooks · · Score: 4, Interesting
    God, I love it when people talk about all the horrors of moving to scary, unconnected "rural" America.

    A few data points from Plattsburg, Missouri (pop. 2,375), where I call home... based on what I can tell (and I've lived in Chicago and SoCal, as well as other rural areas) these data points could be duplicated in many areas:

    • Wages are lower, but the variance in housing prices and other cost-of-living items far outstrips the wage differential. The wage thing doesn't faze me because I'm self employed and, before that, I drove into Kansas City (higher wages) for work. Still, it shows up in a lot of small ways, like the fact that it's cheaper to get your car fixed or your air conditioning unit installed. Housing, on the other hand, is a shocker for anyone who isn't used to these sorts of prices. I paid $145k for a fully restored Victorian painted lady; there are small-but-cute houses in town for about $80-90k and I think the nicest Victorian on the market right now is about $225k. Compare that with the metro market of your choice.
    • "Rural" doesn't mean "no access to a major metro area. I'm 35 miles (and 35 minutes - there is no traffic) from the Kansas City metro area.
    • No crime and good schools. 'Nuff said.
    • Yes, Virginia, there is connectivity in the boonies. You just have to shop for it. We had to have DSL and we had to have it with a provider that wouldn't get its corporate panties in a twist if we wanted to run mail and web servers. It wasn't that hard to find.
    • One downside: The housing market isn't very liquid. A house put on the market in my town will take about six months to sell. That number is trending down as people discover the area, but it's still a far cry from the sell-it-in-a-weekend character of a hot metro market.
    • Another downside: Less access to fast food. We don't have any fast food in town -- the closest is about 13 miles (and 13 minutes!) away. On the upside, I've dropped 20 lbs. since I moved there. ;)
    --


    "It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
    1. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by nomadic · · Score: 1

      "Rural" doesn't mean "no access to a major metro area. I'm 35 miles (and 35 minutes - there is no traffic) from the Kansas City metro area.

      Kansas City isn't a major metro area, though.

    2. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't really have anything to add to your comment other than I completely agree with you. Although I've always lived in fairly rural areas, I have plenty of friends who live in big cities. When I compare what they have for housing to what I can afford, I'm not disappointed. They pay $250k for a house that would be worth about $80k here, and I paid $133k for a house that's worth $133k here. Yes, they make more money, but they're still enjoying a lower quality of living than I.

      Houses cost about quadruple what they do here for the same quality, but my friends only get paid twice as much (of course, there are more opportunities). Combine that with everything else in town being a lot more expensive, and you have a losing proposition.

      Maybe this isn't representative of most "big cities", but I bet it's not that far off from reality.

    3. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by BackInIraq · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you live in the kind of rural area I'd like to live in. However, when most people think of "rural" areas, they are thinking of the other 85 to 90 percent of the US west of the Mississippi. The portion of the country without reasonable access to a major metro area (the nearest for me is a 6-8 hour drive or so, depending on what you define as "major.")

      There are really 3 main environments in my mind. Urban, rural-near-a-city, and rural-not-near-a-city. I've always found the second one to be my favorite, but given a choice between straight urban or "true" rural, I'll go urban every time.

      Though, even in the semi-rural area I live in (town of about 20k+a college), I still have most of the amenities of an urban area...DSL, fast food, most chain stores (though unfortunately they are becoming the only shopping option), a fairly decent theatre, etc. But I miss having access to things like museums, more concerts (they're rare where I live...at least decent ones), more theaters, the actual theare, etc. Basically, culture. Unless you're into the whole rodeo/cowboy thing, it's lacking when you get farther from a major metro area.

    4. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by gregwbrooks · · Score: 1
      {shrug} Depends on what the criteria are, I guess. KC has lot of arts/culture, headquarters (read: jobs) for a lot of top-tier companies (H&R Block, Hallmark Cards, AMC Theaters, etc.) and a wealth of diverstiy.

      Manhattan is a "real" urban area, but it's 100% unlivable unless you're making north of $150k, IMHO.

      --


      "It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
    5. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 2, Informative
      Kansas City isn't a major metro area, though.

      By what standard? With almost 2 million people, whatever big-city conveniences the KC metro area doesn't have are not due to its size.

    6. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by try_anything · · Score: 0

      You don't live in a rural area. You live in the suburbs. Would the good schools and DSL would be there if it weren't for people commuting into Kansas City? Get a clue yourself.

    7. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      I went to school in Lawrence, KS, and think the area is fantastic. KC is not a major metropolitan area. The GP mentioned the liquidity of the housing market; think about the same for the job market-- how hard is it to find another job.

      In San Francisco, I have 10-20 companies that I could go to tomorrow and get a job. In KC, you would be lucky to have 2-7 companies in that kind of market if you were adequately marketable.

      What do you value? Do you plan to work for the same company for the rest of your life? If you were laid off tomorrow, what would you do?

    8. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      The important take-away is that different people value different things. That is what ultimately defines "quality of life."

      I like being able to walk to restaurants, bars, corner stores. I really don't care about having a yard that requires me to cut the grass. I like not owning a car!

      If I had three kids, I would have different priorities.

      There is nothing wrong with either choice, but I see the metropolitan lifestyle making fewer compromises than the rural. I don't want to own a car or ever sit in traffic. I like having my options open. But there is no one Utopia.

    9. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by TykeClone · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In San Francisco, I have 10-20 companies that I could go to tomorrow and get a job. In KC, you would be lucky to have 2-7 companies in that kind of market if you were adequately marketable.

      All you need is 1.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    10. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      All you need is 1. ...if all you want is a job, and if they aren't having problems.

    11. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1
      I went to school in Lawrence, KS, and think the area is fantastic. KC is not a major metropolitan area. The GP mentioned the liquidity of the housing market; think about the same for the job market-- how hard is it to find another job.

      In San Francisco, I have 10-20 companies that I could go to tomorrow and get a job. In KC, you would be lucky to have 2-7 companies in that kind of market if you were adequately marketable.

      That doesn't sound like a very good prerequisite for "major metropolitan area" to me. If the economy tanked and suddenly work became hard to find in San Francisco, that alone would not cause San Francisco to cease being a major metropolitan area. It's more about the services and conveniences that come from having a lot of people in the same area.

    12. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by geoffalot · · Score: 1

      "No crime and good schools. 'Nuff said."

      I have no problem with your point about the good schools; I'm sure your district performs well - But generalizing that rural areas have no crime is putting your in the sand - Meth and meth labs are devastating many rural areas in this country.

      http://www.joplinindependent.com/display_article.p hp/mariwinn1095401283
      http://www.ncpc.org/ncpc/ncpc/?pg=2088-5774-5792

    13. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by Marvin_OScribbley · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone who used to live near you, I have to take exception to some of what you say:

      Wages are lower, but the variance in housing prices and other cost-of-living items far outstrips the wage differential.
      Cost of living may be less, but a lot of it is made up for by the fact you have to drive further to get anywhere. With the price of gasoline going up this only gets worse.

      "Rural" doesn't mean "no access to a major metro area.
      Again, gas... after we left we heard that a lot of other people were leaving too because it was cheaper to live closer to the city.

      No crime and good schools. 'Nuff said.
      Comparatively speaking crime is lower. However the town I lived did have quite a bit more crime then you might expect. Murder, drugs, sexual misconduct, vandalism.

      Yes, Virginia, there is connectivity in the boonies.

      Can't disagree there... had wireless broadband...

      One downside: The housing market isn't very liquid.

      In fact many people actually lose money selling their houses in a rural market. (Hint: Never buy in a market in which you are able to talk down the owner by 15-20% of their asking price... the same will happen to you!) And with gas prices and people moving closer to the city it is only getting worse. I've heard 12-18 months to have a decent chance of getting your money back.

      Also, if you move to a rural area, what happens if things don't work out with the (probably only in the area) company you are working for and you have to move quickly?

      --
      I'm not a journalist, but I play one on slashdot
    14. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by macshit · · Score: 1

      Manhattan is a "real" urban area, but it's 100% unlivable unless you're making north of $150k, IMHO.

      I think where you like to live is about 90% down to individual taste; it's bizarre seeing people post these long screeds on all the advantages of living in one place or another, because if your tastes run counter to a particular lifestyle, you're going to be miserable there no matter how many amenities on a checklist.

      Personally I'm a city guy, and that basically means Manhattan in the U.S. -- even other major U.S. cities are pretty anemic by comparison (both because they simply aren't big or dense enough to support the things Manhattan does, and because they've suffered from the long U.S. flirtation with automobile-centered development).

      [btw, Manhattan is certainly quite livable under $150K, but you obviously have to adjust your housing expectations accordingly. Many people accept that because they value the advantages of living in Manhattan more than dislike a cramped apartment/flatmates/etc.]

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    15. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      County sheriffs issuing "get out of jail free" cards to those that do away with those making and distributing meth would help.

      Meth is a plague and should be eradicated along with those who make and sell it.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    16. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking of doing the "semi rural" think - but I think of it this way - sell my house here, pay the mortgage off, by the house there (mortgage free), and pocket the other 290k. Now I work. If I earn 1/2 of what I do now, who cares?

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    17. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by gregwbrooks · · Score: 1
      Um, wrong. I'll grant you exurbs, but not suburbs. People in the KC area generally don't like to commute and anything more than about 15-20 miles away is considered the absolute edge of the universe.

      I was roundly panned as insane for moving "off the face of the earth" by co-workers when I moved out there.

      There are a few white-collar commuters in Plattsburg, but the primary occupations are farming, farming and, um... being retired from farming.

      --


      "It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
    18. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by gregwbrooks · · Score: 1
      You're right -- meth is a problem. But here (and I mean within-my-city-limits here), at least, it seems like we've largely dodged the bullet a lot of other rural communities haven't. Part of that has to do with being the county seat, I suppose; you've got two layers of law enforcement rather than one, and the County Sheriff doesn't want things looking bad in his back yard.

      According to 2003 data (the latest I could find), Plattsburg's crime index (a number based on crimes per 10,000 population) is 322; that compares with a state average of 599 and a U.S. average of 472.

      So we're not Gower (a nearby, even-smaller town with an index of 134), but we're not Kansas City (933), either.

      --


      "It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
    19. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Another downside: Less access to fast food.

      Isn't that what roadkill is for? :-)

    20. Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't by BSDFreak · · Score: 1

      Still pretty large when you compare it to Sebeka, MN with a population of ~700.

  29. Start your own business by blitz487 · · Score: 1
    And yes, I'm a little bitter because I was too young to get into the game to enjoy the dot-com insanity and profit from it and now it feels less like a career every day and more like an 8-5 burger flipping job.

    Why don't you do like I did when I lost my job and start your own business? Oh, that's right, it's easier to be bitter and argue that the world owes you a living.

    1. Re:Start your own business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you do like I did when I lost my job and start your own business?

      Why do you think that would work for everyone?

      Oh, that's right, it's easier to be bitter and argue that the world owes you a living.

      Just like it's easy to sit there and be a pompus ass, because what worked for you is obviously going to work for everyone else.

  30. Blame the In-Jinns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all we have left!!!

  31. Where I live is a perfect example by ShatteredDream · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I live in Harrisonburg, a college town in VA where $35,000 would actually be a pretty good starting salary for a programmer since the cost of living is $17,000 a year. I'd rather be paid $40-45,000 a year here starting out than $60,000 in Fairfax, VA which is a pretty large IT area in the US, because the money would go farther here.

    Seriously, these companies are abysmally stupid. They can always hire an English-speaking CS or CIS student and start a new branch in bumblefuck USA for much less than going to India. The best part about it for the management is that it's all domestic and if they do it right, they can drive out that day and talk to the team in person.

    Like many CS students here, I'd rather work in this town for $45,000 because it's close enough to bigger areas that it's not a struggle to get out on the weekend, but it's small enough to make an entry level salary really attractive. I can honestly say that I'd be very happy making that same salary around here for 4-5 years because barring VA's tax rate going through the roof (yeah, fuck you Gov. Warner!) it'd be easy to really save and invest A LOT out here on that kind of salary.

    Outsource to bumblefuck USA, not Bangalore India. That should be our new anti-offshoring slogan :-D

  32. Outsourcing by fossa · · Score: 1

    I've heard from a tech company based in the US that it now costs the about same to manufacture a Silicon wafer in Asia as it does in the US. Not sure if we're talking bare Si, or an IC, or both. Also not sure if the reason is due to increased salary demands, or rising shipping costs or whatever, but I found it interesting.

    1. Re:Outsourcing by dbIII · · Score: 1
      it now costs the about same to manufacture a Silicon wafer in Asia as it does in the US
      With things like that wages are only a tiny percentage of the total cost, so aren't paticularly relevant. It reminds me of the government owned power company that revived a small old plant and wanted it to be run remotely with no staff at all - it cost a fortune and wages would have been well under a percent of the operating costs with even double the staff the place used to have. The automation would not have paid for itself in wage savings for the entire expected life of the plant.
  33. Corporate welfare to small, not global, businesses by Safe+Sex+Goddess · · Score: 3, Informative

    During the Democratic presidential primary I heard one candidate talk about the need to stop giving welfare money to large corporations but instead give tax breaks and incentives to small businesses. The rationale is that small businesses keep jobs here in America rather than outsource them. I like the idear not only because it keeps jobs in America, but it fits in well with the American Dream. Giving people the opportunities of making a good living while being your own boss.

    --
    Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
  34. From the blurb by deepestblue · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    ... moving to a larger house that costs less in a town with no traffic is a much better option than flying to Bangalore to train your replacement ...

    If moving to a smaller town is an option, why isn't moving to Bangalore? Oh, I know - "irreconcilable cultural differences". Somehow, when immigrants to the US encounter the same culture shock, it's all right because they're getting "a better life". Talk of being spoilt.

    Disclaimer: I'm an alien in the US. From India, at that.

    1. Re:From the blurb by Dielectric · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not an option because the Indian government will not allow US citizens to work there. They've got an amazingly one-way division of labor.

    2. Re:From the blurb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple, the better life is here, not in India. You see people flocking to the US by the thousand, but you don't see the same for India, now do you?

    3. Re:From the blurb by deepestblue · · Score: 1

      Great, then. Don't complain about outsourcing to India. Be happy with the better life here.

    4. Re:From the blurb by deepestblue · · Score: 1

      Um, citations please?

    5. Re:From the blurb by northcat · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, a couple of people will start claiming this "fact" on forums and chat rooms, people will pick it up and put it on their blogs saying "someone I know" said this and in just a few weeks it will become a well known "fact" on the Internet and every kid with an Internet connection will start whining about India's "one-way division of labor". They'll believe what they want to believe. It's foolish to think that these people have their facts right.

    6. Re:From the blurb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I'm a different poster than the OP)

      I can't provide any citations, 'cause I'm too lazy to google ;), but I'm the only non-Desi in my department and about 6 of my coworkers are Indian. From what they've told me I'd have to agree with Dielectric. There certainly is some top-level grads going to India (biz and whiz folks) but IIRC until recently it was near impossible to get a work permit in India. One of my uni pals wanted to work in India (this about 10yrs ago), a damn smart biology grad who was pretty conversant in Hindi. He told me that India welcomed travellers and volunteers but balked at allowing anyone to hire him. Perhaps Dielectric and I are suffering from severe misconceptions? Certainly possible, it's easy for rumors to become fact. But since the overwhelming majority in North America seem to hold this perception I'd recommend *you* provide the citations that it *is* possible. Maybe stats on foreign work visas and links to a gov site expressing the Indian gov's policies. I could of course search for this myself but I'm not exactly trying to prove myself wrong here :)

    7. Re:From the blurb by deepestblue · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here you go:

      http://passport.nic.in/visrules.htm
      http://www.immigration.com/india/visa-info.html

      (disclaimer: I didn't do the web-design :-))

      Google search keys:
      "employment visa" site:in
      immigration to India

      BTW, I'm not pretending it's hassle-free - the Indian govt. remains bureaucratic and corrupt, but I can think of equivalent hassles that potential immigrants to the US face.

    8. Re:From the blurb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life is better here? Why would someone who could probably afford servants and a large house, based on English-language skills alone, come here to work in a crummy low-paid job, live in a crummy apartment in a crummy neighborhood? They come here for the money, not the lifestyle. I know plenty of Indian ex-pats who work hard to send home a few hundred dollars a month and it makes a huge difference for their families in the old country. Most want to settle here permanently and have kids but even much of that is calculated - Western citizenship is prestigious and valuable (though many rue the decision when they realize their kids will keep next to zero cultural connection). Others plan on returning home and retiring early on their savings - it's not hard to live comfortably in rural India, labor is cheap. A good parallel are the Mexican migrants. Most really have no plans on settling permanently, they just want the money. Or consider university grads who go to Japan to teach English for a year... damn expensive, big culture shock, but exciting and if you're careful you can come home with much more in savings than you'd have earned at an entry level job here.

    9. Re:From the blurb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, I guess all that disgusting filth, unending degradation and merciless poverty in India is just equal to anything the US has to offer. Same difference, right? Wrong.

      Then there's that wonderful caste system and its inherent violence you all have over there, now that's just beautiful.

      The edgy situation with Pakistan on the border, that is perfectly envious too, I'm sure.

      Go back to picking through shit to find a religious icon and quit spouting your condescending tripe.

      Nobody really believes that it's just "cultural differences" that keep them from moving to India.

      It's just that India fucking sucks!!

    10. Re:From the blurb by rathehun · · Score: 1
      Since when is Bangalore a smaller city?

      At last count, population was in the 6 - 7 million range.
      Just a thought...

      R.

  35. Unitelligible English? by dratox · · Score: 1

    So now when I have to call tech support it's going to be:

    1. Dial
    2. Howdy Thar, hows you doin-
    3. *CLICK*

    If only there were no language barrier...

  36. Great.. by EiZei · · Score: 0, Redundant

    .. now people get to decipher thick hillbilly accents instead of thick indian accents.

  37. It's great, short term. by khasim · · Score: 1

    Sure, off-shoring the workers saves money for the people at the top ... but someone has to manage those workers and that means they will start to learn your business.

    Eventually, they will be able to take your business away from you. After all, all of their people will be working for 1/10th the cost (even the CEO's) and how will your business be able to compete at that rate?

    I believe the goal for most of the companies doing the off-shoring is to make big profits, quickly, and retire before the real bill comes due.

  38. Can't happen by ylikone · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    That can't and won't happen (making it illegel to outsource). As long as north america has a strong capitalist force which everyone embraces, it will continue to be fine to outsource. What will happen is that eventually it will level out all around the world. The global economy will make everybody poor. Except the rich who run the corporations, they will get richer. The gap between rich and poor will widen significantly. What will happen then? Maybe a revolution.

    --
    Meh.
  39. already happening by toy4two · · Score: 1

    My company just opened a Somerset, KY help desk. Beat the company I just left where I had to train my replacement in Tijuana Mexico!!

  40. the true reason for outsourcing call centers is, by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    because they know we can't f*cking kill them!

    Many scumbag corporations, especially utility companies hide in concrete and brick towers without windows and when you call about a problem with service or billing a computer decides if it should route your call to India or Pakistan. And when the idiot on the other end just doesn't get it, and you are at the point of killing them if you could, they just grin and hang up on you knowing that you have no power what-so-ever, that they control you and the situation 100%.

    Many years ago when everything was made here, serviced here, answered here, there was accountability. Now, they have you by the short hairs and they know it.

    What can you do? Nothing. Bitch a little but in the end you still have to dish out the bucks and take what they give you, even if you don't like it at all..

  41. Non-potable water by lullabud · · Score: 1

    It might be the fact that they're watering the grass with non-potable water... sometimes I walk by the park down the street when the sprinklers are on and honestly it smells like sewage. That is yet another thing that makes me miss the country and the mountains... nature. Nature waters with fresh clean rain, not recycled grey water.

    1. Re:Non-potable water by karnal · · Score: 1

      The rural areas have the benefit of living by farms though...

      I lived by a farm growing up. I can still remember the smell of manure being spread....

      In Columbus, OH - they don't use non-potable water to water grass. In fact, I know a street a few blocks away that pedestrians have cut a pretty good path into to cut off the corner of the block. Why you can't just walk around? I dunno....

      --
      Karnal
  42. Bribery by MrSteveSD · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is slightly off-topic but I was thinking about why governments do not protect workers from outsourcing and I had an idea... The Government makes decisions that favour big business, since big business is the government's paymaster. Sometimes these decisions involve sending us to war and getting us killed just so they can get more bribes and directorships from companies like Halliburton. I have a radical proposal. Why don't we just bribe the government directly? Imagine if everyone in the country gave £10 a year to a special government bribe fund. You would have several hundred million pounds (or dollars if you're American) with which to bribe the right people. Suddenly we might be able to create legislation that benefits the public at the expense of big business. Bribing the government to get what you want would be a lot better for your health than protesting. When you protest, you have to stand out in the rain and get clubbed over the held by riot police. You don't see the board of directors of Raytheon protesting in the street. They are smart enough to know that bribery is far more effective. For example, if the government was being bribed by arms companies to invade Iran, we could counter-bribe and prevent it. This kind of thing could even work internationally. Many people around the world would be better off if the U.S. did not invade Iran. On an international scale you would have many billions of dollars in the bribe kitty! How can we go about pulling this off?

    1. Re:Bribery by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      here in America we already do that... and I'm sure they do it in England as well... they are called Lobbies.

      The problems come when the administrators of the Lobby fund decide that they know how to spend the money better than their contributors and/or they get corrupted by the system they are trying to change.

      ie: one group of contributors starts giving more and becomes a major 'stockholder' in the lobby... the admins end up being influenced by this minority group over the wishes of the majority so they can 'overall' help more people with the added funds the minority group are contributing.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    2. Re:Bribery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Bribery by northcat · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is good only when you're using it.

    4. Re:Bribery by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      The Government makes decisions that favour big business, since big business is the government's paymaster

      Or, you could say that organizations like those run by trial lawyers, teachers' unions, labor unions, retired people, etc., are the "paymasters" since they also spend a lot of money backing candidates. In the last election, backers of the current administration spent less on the election than those backing the losing side did.

      Sometimes these decisions involve sending us to war and getting us killed

      Yup, even in places like Europe, the Pacific, and Africa. Check in with the people who were getting "ethnically cleansed" in Croatia and Bosnia, and ask if they think it was a good idea. Or ask our substantial trading partners in Germany and Japan if they think they're better off now, being liberal democracies, than they were in the throws of fascism and imperial fuedalism.

      Why don't we just bribe the government directly?

      It's called taxes.

      On an international scale you would have many billions of dollars in the bribe kitty! How can we go about pulling this off?

      Leaving aside for a moment the fact that using foreign dollars (and a lot of domestic dollars) to influence an election is wildly illegal (even Bill Clinton's and the dem party's campaign aparati had to return some "donations" demonstrably tied to Chinese interests), you're assuming that people can't vote their consciences. If it were all about money, why didn't the millions upon millions that George Soros poured into the recent election get him what he was trying to buy? Some of the wealthiest people (entertainers, etc) and organizations (large labor unions, professional associations, etc) raised and spent more money on the election than the winners' backers did. What happened? People didn't like the (lack of a) message, and didn't like the candidates those dollars were trying to push.

      Besides, there's other forms of influence peddling in exchange for cash ... like the family that ponied up a large donation for the previous presiden't library in Arkansas - and found that their fugitive financier familiy member got a glorious last-minute presidential pardon on his way out of office. You make it sound like the only party or politicians that you think need (even more) financial influencing are the ones who happen to pursue foreign policies you don't like. Well, a lot of people didn't like the policies of the last administration, either, and voted (rather than paid for) a change in orientation on that front. I would save your would-be bribe money and buy a nicer hat, perhaps made of some other, non-tinfoil material.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:Bribery by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

      Why don't we just bribe the government directly? It's called taxes.

      Since taxation is compulsory, it can hardly be considered a bribe.

      And yes, of course, bribery is illegal but it doesn't seem to stop big business getting their way.

      It doesn't seem to matter who you vote for, no matter how amazingly liberal and "for the people" the are. As soon as they are in power they change. You can see this clearly with the Labour party in the UK. Everyone thought they were going to be amazingly refreshing but they have turned out worse than the Conservatives.

      As for my hat made from tinfoil, surely it is sufficient to criticise someone's arguments/ideas on a point by point basis without resorting to logical fallacies.

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    6. Re:Bribery by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ...got a glorious last-minute presidential pardon...

      Hmmm... Seems to be a fairly common practice on both sides. Here's an interesting one:Aslam P. Adam (Bush, 1993; clemency for heroin trafficking) Lest you think that one side is actually better than the other. Not that I want to harsh your high or anything.

      Most people don't vote their conscience. They vote their wallet and against their neighbor.

      Well, a lot of people didn't like the policies of the last administration, either, and voted (rather than paid for) a change in orientation on that front.

      There has been no change. It's business, and war as usual. In fact, it has been this way for at least 50-60 years. And as long as either of the major parties retain their power, there will be no change. They are two versions of the same agenda.

      --
      What?
    7. Re:Bribery by dbIII · · Score: 1
      bribes ... This kind of thing could even work internationally.
      Already been done - look up Nixon, Saharto (former very corrupt leader of Indonesia), Kissenger and Republican Party contributions. Perhaps Saudi Arabia have a similar deal going these days.
    8. Re:Bribery by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

      You're right of course, but its always been the bad guys doing the bribing so far. There is also a lot of delayed bribery going on. I know Bush Snr, James Baker and John Major (former British PM) got their rewards from the defence industry in the form of directorships in the Carlisle Group. "Hey thanks for giving us so much public money during Desert Storm. We could really use you as a director now..."

    9. Re:Bribery by ICA · · Score: 1

      Or don't buy the products.

  43. Re:Rural areas? How about just cheaper states? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the internet porn is the same...

  44. Small town development work by MSBob · · Score: 4, Informative
    I live and work in a small town in Eastern Canada. Now, there are some benefits to living in a semi-rural environment such as less traffic and cheaper housing. At the same time, rural areas of North America tend to be pockets of some dire poverty so it's not exactly the most heartening experience to live like a king on top of a garbage heap.

    Rural America is quite different from rural Europe in that it typically consists of very marginalized societies that live in their own communities governed by their own rules and frequently exist outside the main judiciary system. Yes I'm talking rednecks with shotguns here.

    Rural America, unlike rural Europe does not benefit from equalization funds similar to Europe and resembles Bangalore India much more than it resembles villages in coastal France or northern Scotland.

    When you move to rural areas you also give up a lot that is taken for granted in urban environments, that is selection of foods and products, access to culture and amenities and the ability to mingle with like-minded people. There simply is just a lack of everything.

    Now, the housing cost compensates a little bit especially if you intend to have more than a couple of kids. What you have to offset this against is the real possibility that even if you manage to hold on to your job your spouse may not find gainful employment in a rural or semi-rural area. This is frequently a problem for my co-workers who have well educated but frequently underemployed spouses and girlfriends.

    Rural areas may get hit hard by the impending energy crisis. There is nothing for public transport in where I live and no real chance of seeing any. Having a car is an absolute necessity to even stay fed and clothed. Driving distances tend to be enormous. My work place is 60 miles from my house while the nearest grocery shop is at least 5 miles away.

    As a European I can't get over that I have to travel that far for milk and bread with no walkable community. And I'm actually in the main town's subdivision!

    Having ended up where I am I'm seriously reconsidering returning to Europe. You can make a little more money working here vs Europe but you have to sacrifice sooo much more!

    --
    Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    1. Re:Small town development work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm originally from Antigonish Nova Scotia and what you said is right on the money. Just to point out though that in Canada there *are* equalization payments to keep the poorer provinces up to certain standards (what standards? Trust me, you'd notice if the payments stopped). It's a plain fact that there's very little work in the Maritimes anymore outside the larger towns and cities. One thing you've surely wondered at some point, depending on where you are exactly - where are the young people? The sad truth is they all move away asap, head to Ontario, Alberta or BC. I come from a *huge* extended family but only a few of my scores of 20-39yo cousins still live out there... and few of those by choice. It can be a buccolic lifestyle but only if you have the money/income, if not then you're looking at some horrible pockets of poverty. Rural America suffers in some places because of a lack of state aid (especially in "certain" counties in Confederate states) but at least many of them have a local factory or industry to keep things going. Canada's route to industrialization after WWI was to move manufacturing and production to Ontario and Quebec, leaving the east and west to focus on primary industries. The prairies became the breadbasket, oil was found in the sands, and the Pacific Rim vitalized BC, but the Maritimes were left to their cottage industries and fishing. Equilibrium may be reached eventually, but when? Within our lifetimes? Would you, me, or the wee MacLeods want to stick around until then? Sadly, no. Halifax, St Johns, and medium sized towns will always be "bustling" but the number of ghost towns will only increase.

    2. Re:Small town development work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting...

      I guess that I'm on the opposite end - very seriously considering moving to the Maritimes. I've worked on Wall St. and Toronto, and burned myself out. I hate this life of making so much distance with so little progress.

      I wonder to what extent, in the "macro sense", we can all even it out. When I'm there (and I will be, because I'm as stubborn as I am driven) I'd like to encourage kids in the area to take up what I do if they're inclined.

      I'd thought of the same plan for Ontario, but really I want to make a bigger break. In past, I ran a co. who had an employee out in BC - 3 time zones away from EST, with our local 5 employees. With IM, it all worked out alright. With tools like iChat and video, it's only easier these days.

      Without guile - because I'm terribly guileless - I think that I might be able to provide a little something to Newfoundland, PEI, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia in return for a lot of peace of mind - something that where I choose to live will provide me. I'd really like that.

    3. Re:Small town development work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you move to rural areas you also give up a lot that is taken for granted in urban environments, that is selection of foods and products...

      which has been the key to wal-mart's success and growth.

    4. Re:Small town development work by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Having ended up where I am I'm seriously reconsidering returning to Europe. You can make a little more money working here vs Europe but you have to sacrifice sooo much more!

      That's interesting.

      We (North Americans) always hear about "foreigners" (usually Brits, Frenchmen and Germans) that choose to stay here as the result of visiting/studies, but rarely the stories of Swedes, Finns, Netherlanders or Icelanders.

      Why is that?

  45. Compete with India ? by iyerns · · Score: 0

    You just can't !

    1. Re:Compete with India ? by Wiseleo · · Score: 1

      Sure you can.

      Provide a higher quality of service that in the end costs the customer a reasonable amount. It doesn't have to be lower than India's, as you have other avenues of attack (such as no cultural barrier, for one thing).

      --
      Leonid S. Knyshov
      Find me on Quora :)
  46. Re:Rural areas? How about just cheaper states? by BackInIraq · · Score: 1

    State College is about as rural as Des Moines and Fargo. For city dwellers, I'm sure that it sounds as if it is rural, but it really isn't.

    Yeah, some of these kids have never been to places like most of Montana, Wyoming, or the Dakotas. Go hang out in Cut Bank, MT for a couple years, and tell me you dig the rural lifestyle. Far as I'm concerned, almost nothing east of the Appalachians is "rural"...you're not rural if you're within an hour or two of a city of a million or more, dammit! :)

    State College is a nice town, though.

  47. Oklahoma! by Ranger · · Score: 2, Funny

    If I've said it once I've said it a half-dozen times: "Outsource to Oklahoma. It's like a third world country!"

    We have pockets of high tech surrounded by wasteland. People work hard and the wages are low. So is the cost of living. The roads are bad. You need an off road SUV to drive on city streets. People do have a high school edumacation. And the speak Engrish better than some non-natives. It's a great place to live but you wouldn't want to visit here. Tulsa itself is a mecca for low cost call centers. We have over 70. It's one saving grace is that folks here are pretty friendly.

    "Ignorance is bliss" isn't just our motto. It's a way of life. Oh, and if you ask someone from Oklahoma City what the natural color of dirt is. They'll tell you it's red. Try it.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    1. Re:Oklahoma! by robogun · · Score: 1

      You're leaving out the best fringe benefit of Okla: AWESOME strip clubs full of all-American goddesses who rub all over you for a dollar: places where the "strip" doesn't involve stripping you out of cash.

      I never have figured out how that is the case, when the clubs in Calif have you separated from the stage by a moat filled with alligators and the "strippers" who are mostly mexicans or asian H1-B or student visa overstays wear chain-mail "lingerie" and shake you down for dollars, dances and drinks no matter how far in the back you sit.

  48. Outsourcing and rural tech by markdowling · · Score: 1

    Having tech companies and telecom-heavy businesses is one way of getting optical fibre laid/lit in rural districts. You can be sure those companies won't go unless the pipe is there, so the state/county has to get it done. Good for the locals (unless of course they like their lifestyle without DSL and lattes).

  49. Been there, done that by renehollan · · Score: 3, Insightful
    At one point I left a $100k job in Chicago to take an $85k job in Dallas and bought a new house 50% bigger than the 20 year old one I had for around 80% of what my old one sold for, and had more money to save after living expenses.

    Of course, I didn't move to "Bumfuck, Noplace, U.S.A" -- I moved to a place which had a fair amount of local high tech biz taking advantage of the lower cost of living, not quite the rural extreme depicted dependent on a single remote employer.

    What tends to happen is that the high-tech people in a rural area with traditional low-tech employment opportunities tend to be the local "rich folk" that stimulate and reinvigurate the local economy.

    --
    You could've hired me.
  50. When you have kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you have a bunch of kids, things like community and safety weigh more heavily than expensive coffee and live theater.

    Here in Jacksonville, FL the pay is good and there are lots of job. But can't let the kids out of my sight. When I visit my hometown in upstate NY, there are few jobs, but I can throw the kids out of the house at 7:00 am and let them run wild all day, knowing that everyone in the town knows whose kids they are and will watch out for them.

    To a parent, that's worth more than just about anything.

  51. Some More Benefits of Small Towns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In addition to those the OP put up:
    • Ready access to methamphetamines and the Mexican gangs that supply them,
    • No need to worry about terrorists using a suitcase nuke to blow up the city center,
    • Lots of shade - in the city there's too much concrete, increasing water runoff and flooding, reducing available shade and increasing temperatures and contributing to global warming.
  52. Cost of Reproduction by Baldrson · · Score: 0, Troll
    This change is profound.

    People talk about "the cost of living" but what they don't talk about is "the cost of reproduction". Some people think this difference is subtle but really it is enormous.

    Why do you think all the open-borders, guest-worker and outsourcing advocates continually talk about the "greying of America"?

    It's because there has been a demographic collapse caused by movement to the cities. The early boomers surfed the wave of real estate and lots of cheap younger labor from their younger cohort but the mid to late boomers were hit by a crushing confluence of circumstances that effectively sterilized them. No profession was hit harder by this de facto sterilization than programmers who worked in male-saturated ghettos.

    The "leaders" responsible for cramming the boomers into the sterilizing cities, frequently touting the value of "Zero Population Growth" and the "ecological footprint of US citizens" are the same "leaders" who opened the borders and threw middle-aged programmers out on the street to find jobs competing with illegal Mexican laborers in Home Depot and Walmart.

    1. Re:Cost of Reproduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some areas of Japan and Italy give money to Japanese and Italians who have full-blood Japanese or Italian babies.

  53. Outsource to Indiana by suso · · Score: 1

    Don't outsource to India, outsource to Indiana

  54. Things you forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot:
      - Lower tolerance for anyone or anything "different" be that your race, your opinions, your taste in clothes, or hell, even the way you style your hair.

    1. Re:Things you forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please. Somebody mod that as the troll it is.

  55. Seal? by fishmasta · · Score: 1

    How could Seal lose his job to outsourcing? I doubt any Indian singers could hit those notes in Kiss From A Rose the way he does. :::swoons::::

  56. Re:the true reason for outsourcing call centers is by tumbleweedsi · · Score: 0

    So I called up Force9 (a UK internet service provider) last night because a mate had let me know that my website (which I run from my own webserver) was down and after a bit of diagnostics I had discovered that my IP address had changed.

    I was told that the guy who had put notes on the system that I wanted a static IP address had failed to put the order in several months in advance when I had taken out the package so I had been on a dynamic IP address (which, by pure luck, had stayed static up until now).

    The guy in the call center told me that the guy who had made the mistake was no longer with the company and that he could order the static IP which would be actioned on my next billing cycle and no earlier because to do something like that was against company policy.

    So, to recap... they did something wrong, supplied the wrong product in fact, but will not make any effort to rectify the problem until my next billing cycle IN 10 DAYS which leaves me with my webserver pretty much down for 12 days (DNS changes when the little blighter settles down to the static).

    I pointed out that I was disgusted and the guy on the phone held his ground because he was not behind a counter I could jump over to kick his ass but safe on the end of a phone line where the most I could do was watch his smug face on the webcams. http://portal.f9.net.uk/webcams/

    So it does not matter if the call center is in Bangalore India, Buttf*ck USA or anywhere else on this earth so long as they are just out of reach of people like me who might one day make the news because we are on the roof of a tall building with a high powered rifle and a direct line of sight to the exits of the call center.

    --
    Be nice, sponsor me: http://jailbreak.ragabonds.org.uk
  57. This is why I'm content in here in.... by $1uck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Southern ohio. The only thing I really think I'm missing is an ocean. I mean I have access to all 4 seasons, reasonably priced restaurants, housing, insurance, several major metropolitan areas (Cincy, Columbus, Indy, Cleveland, Detroit, Louisville are all 3 hours or less away) when I need some culture. Ok I'd also like some decent public transportation, but having your own car is easy enough and has advantages (visiting people/places 1-3 hours away is easy).

    The big thing that seems to be lacking are jobs though that seems to be changing. I've always thought they ought to outsource to the MW.

  58. You've got the wage thing wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who ever got the idea that the programmers in Bangalore make 5 to 7 dollars per hour? Typical wage of a programmer with a college degree and 4+ years of experience is $20 per DAY. That's expected to be a 12 hour day, BTW...

    That's Ok, since it takes about 5 Bangalore programmers, plus someone stateside to do supervision, to replace a single US programming resource....

    1. Re:You've got the wage thing wrong. by HampiRocks · · Score: 1

      On what basis you are making your observation that "5 Bangalore programmers..take to replace on US programming resource". Your comment is not based on any logic or experience and is simply racist. In some cases the Indian companies allocate more resources than desired to get the job done properly because they can afford it and they value there customers.

    2. Re:You've got the wage thing wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say that based on dealing with close to 100 Bangalore programmers over the last 7 years as a Sr. Architect and Lead Developer. The projects have involved well over 270,000 hours of programming. The languages involved varied from PowerBuilder, to C, to C++, to C#/ASP.NET

      When everything was said and done, it took an average of 5 Bangalore programming resources to do the work equivalent to what could be done by a single US programmer working locally. This evaluation was done based on a variety of statistics like time-per-development-unit, bugs-per-development unit, QC defects and amount of rework required, overall quality observed in code reviews, etc.

      On what basis, exactly, do you say that my comment is not based on experience or logic, dipshit? How about describing on what basis you make that observation?

    3. Re:You've got the wage thing wrong. by seekmit · · Score: 1

      @coward you are BSiting and you know it..

  59. Mark my words by melted · · Score: 1

    Pretty soon the hottest trend will be "onshore insourcing". :-)

    If you've worked with folks from Bangalore/Hyderabad/etc, you know why.

    1. Re:Mark my words by HampiRocks · · Score: 1

      WHy don't you enlighten the people who do not have the misfortune of working with folks from Bangalore/Hyderabad/etc ? God!! You guys have such a complex!!

  60. Competing on price is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now the companies not only get to pay you a competitive salary (according India standards), but have converted you into a captive worker.

    They must be drooling of pleasure right now.....

  61. Re:Rural areas? How about just cheaper states? by TykeClone · · Score: 1

    Like most college towns (real ones where the college makes the town), I'm sure it is.

    --
    A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  62. Re:Rural areas? How about just cheaper states? by Mspangler · · Score: 1

    "The food choices suck." Could you like, learn to cook? I saved me when I first moved to Winnemucca, NV. The food situation did improve by the time I left, but it was pretty desperate when I first got there. As for entertainment, see what the more sober locals do, and go from there. Ignore the bar crowd, all they do is get drunk and fall down a lot. As for the pickups, is the paint peeling (like mine, Thanks a lot Ford!), or did the mufflers rot out? There isn't much you can do about it in either case, so you'll just have to deal with people who are relatively unconcerned with surface appearances. At worst, use the same skills (Some One Else's Problem Field.) you use to not see the homeless in the big city, and blot them out.

  63. Mod parent insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. And not only that, soon a lot of those well paid engineering jobs will be overseas as well. The manufacturing plants are all in Mexico or overseas, why not have the engineers there as well?

    1. Re:Mod parent insightful by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      It's funny you say that. My sister's roomate just graduated with a mechanical engeneering degree, and right now is in India training workers.

      What I would like to see, is a movie where a Fortune 500 company has all it's top executives fired and replaced with cheap M.B.A.'s from Bangladesh.

  64. Electricity, Plumbing, Internet by blueZhift · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, I guess this rural outsourcing could work as long as there's electricity, plumbing, and high speed internet access. The main thing that would concern me personally about living in a rural region is the fact that as a minority, I might not be too welcome. But heck, I'm not that wild about hob knobbing with the neighbors anyway, so if the nearest is miles away, well so what? I prefer the big city for its excitement and diversity, but small towns have their charms too. A bunch of tech people moving out there can only make this better, right?

    [pop open the bubbly for post 500]

    1. Re:Electricity, Plumbing, Internet by lost_n_confused · · Score: 1

      I don't see why being a minority is a problem. I have found people in rural areas a bit more accepting of different people then in the big cities. It just appears that in the big cities they are more accepting it is just that they ignore the entire planet and never get to know their neighbors. If my son can dress it the crap he does and no one shoots him on sight in a rural area they will accept anyone.

      --
      -- To mess up an OS X box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.--
    2. Re:Electricity, Plumbing, Internet by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      I don't see why being a minority is a problem.

      Old farts. But, because they're old, they're dying off.

      In a small town, what you do (and how you work) is more important than who or what you are.

      My guess is that even if your son dresses like Dennis Rodman, but is a good kid, people will know it.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    3. Re:Electricity, Plumbing, Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because someone lives in a small town does not make them racists. I have lived in small towns and large cities like NY and Chicago. My experience is there is an equal percentage of idiots everywhere. There are also alot of good people that will respect someone for who they are, not the color of their skin.

    4. Re:Electricity, Plumbing, Internet by lost_n_confused · · Score: 1

      I would say you are most likely right there. Old people still might surprise you. My parents are more accepting of my kid's way of dress then I am. I find a lot of the old people care less about the appearance then I do. I guess when you have lived a full life you don't worry about the small things.

      --
      -- To mess up an OS X box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.--
    5. Re:Electricity, Plumbing, Internet by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      Interestly enough I found that the most racist people live in cities. ymmv

    6. Re:Electricity, Plumbing, Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Interestly enough I found that the most racist people live in cities. ymmv

      You haven't been to rural Oregon, have you?

    7. Re:Electricity, Plumbing, Internet by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      You haven't been to Chicago have you?

      Mind it's a different kind of racism and it goes both ways.

      The racism found in West Virginia was mostly out of ignorance and harmless.

      The racism in Chicago was based on the experience.

      i.e. a friend of mine was the only white girl on the girls basketball team.

      After one season of being harassed teased and everything else.

      She quickly came to dislike blacks and their culture.

      She did have some friends that were black but overall she was bitter.

      She was not the only one.

  65. Born in Tulsa! by Xenious · · Score: 0

    Remember the old "Tulsa, a great place to hang your hat" campaign? We always said "Tulsa, a great place to hang your-self!" aahha It was nice growing up and a great place to raise a family. I'm glad I got out tho. Now if I could just earn enough $$ to move to SF bay area. ;)

    --
    -Xen
  66. thanks for the extra ./, ./ ... by GrmpyOldPgmr · · Score: 1
  67. Washington, DC by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
    There's always the option of buying in what's now considered the "ghetto" (Anacostia or whatever). I've seen houses in the 20s NE that were still going for under $300k at the beginning of this summer. There's still good real estate to be found *in* the District itself if you're willing to look. Especially in the fall/early winter when the housing market cools down a bit.

    Or pay a bit more for a house and stick in an "unofficial" rental unit and make $12-24 k a year renting it out (actually, getting "official" units approved isn't horribly difficult).

    -b.

    1. Re:Washington, DC by istartedi · · Score: 1

      When I was looking for places, I looked at a "very nice" rowhouse in an "emerging" neighborhood in DC. I applied the "drive there at night" test. It flunked. Very few people want to be urban pioneers. I opted for a small studio in a much nicer part of town for about the same price. I can walk to my job. I only worry about the little rats that scurry about in the alley, not the big rats that drive by in SUVs and carry automatic weapons. I can walk to convenience stores and feel relatively safe, instead of walking through 10 blocks of urban blight and looking over my shoulder and wondering about everybody I approach.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    2. Re:Washington, DC by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      When I was looking for places, I looked at a "very nice" rowhouse in an "emerging" neighborhood in DC. I applied the "drive there at night" test. It flunked. Very few people want to be urban pioneers.

    3. Re:Washington, DC by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      When I was looking for places, I looked at a "very nice" rowhouse in an "emerging" neighborhood in DC. I applied the "drive there at night" test. It flunked.

      Then again, if everyone had the same attitude as you (well, most people do), "bad" neighborhoods will never improve.

      -b.

    4. Re:Washington, DC by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Don't blame me. I'm not the one who doesn't know where his kid is, and the kid is out on the street dealing or something. I'm not the one who knocked up his poor mama either. Also, gentrification isn't the only way for these places to improve. Believe it or not, sometimes these places get better without help from Whities like me. Right there in the very same neighborhood along with the pushers and thugs, there was a church and a youth center. Once again, not places that would meet my needs, so another good reason for me not to move there. I mean, I can walk to bookstores from where I am now. I have no reason to walk to a Baptist church or a youth basketball league practice. :)

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  68. Sounds like Universal Broadband. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We are still a capitalist society. If someone is willing to do a job just as well (or better) than the guy currently doing it, and for less money, what do you think will happen?"

    *ears perk up*

    Did someone say Open Source?

    Seriously in-sourcing is the one justification for broadband as a infrastructure. Cars and phones were once in the same postion as broadband. A luxury. The cars and phones didn't change, but the circumstances surrounding them did.

  69. Brilliant idea, why only low-level jobs by WiMoose · · Score: 1

    I've always thought that locating suport-desk or other 'low-level' jobs made a lot more sense for a variety of reasons: same language/easier communication, values/social norms, time-zones, transportation.

    On a related issue, I've always wondered why large companies didn't locate programing work centers near large universities in cheaper cities.

    I graduated about 10 years ago from one such large midwestern university and discovered that "all" (most) the good jobs were in the Bay Area or the Boston-NY-DC megalopolis. I can program from the dark side of the moon, and even now most of the people I work with are remote. Yet I have to work in the NY burbs where anything with 4 walls and a roof costs 500K USD. I would much have prefered to live in some mid-sized midwestern city (with good amenties, schools, university), near my family, etc... They could have paid me 1/3 less and I would still come out ahead financially. It costs about 2 times more to live here than in my university town, which means I have to earn 3 times more (gross) to reach parity. My company even has a branch sales office there, just none of the programming/engineering jobs. Those midwestern universites crank out a LOT of grads many of which would like to stay in the region.

  70. Re:Corporate welfare to small, not global, busines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm... The Bush tax cut did that. It was a personal level tax cut. Which MOST small business are a S Corp, Partership, or Sole Prop. or an LLC which can be any. A lot of older family Businesses are traditional C Corps. That dividend tax cut helped them as well as the big guys.

    Plus it makes Medical Expenses for the Self-employed (S, sole or Partnership) 100% tax deductable just like the C Corp has. And that is why unemployment is low and small businesses are growing at record rates.

    The democrats always have hit small businesses hard. Everytime they tamper with the top tax brackets it hammers Small Businesses since many retain earnings at the owner(s) personal tax rates.

  71. Re:Rural areas? How about just cheaper states? by wilgaa · · Score: 0

    Like Athens, GA. Go Dawgs!!!

  72. Re:the true reason for outsourcing call centers is by Pentagram · · Score: 1

    If it helps, I was looking for a residential broadband provider and they've just been crossed off my list.

  73. Re:Rural areas? How about just cheaper states? by Snorpus · · Score: 1
    Go 15 (or fewer) miles in any direction from State College if you want "true rural".

    For really rural, drive 3 hours south to the east-central part of West Virginia (Pocahontas County, for example).

  74. No by cameldrv · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This argument is constantly floating around, but it makes no sense. Oil being traded in dollars makes almost no difference. It's the goods that are purchased that is the issue. Suppose I am a Chinese oil company. I have yuan to buy oil with. I go to the currency market, and exchange my yuan for dollars and pay the dollars to Saudi Aramco. Now suppose the Saudis want to buy some of those $29 DVD players. They go back to the FX market, convert the dollars back to yuan, and buy the DVD players. The only benefit that the U.S. gets from this situation is that both parties briefly held Dollars. This is called Seignoriage. Suppose the money is in dollars for three months while the trade is completed, then if all world oil were traded in Dollars (which it's not), then the seignoriage is only about two billion dollars a year. Two billion dollars doesn't keep a 10 trillion economy floating.

    1. Re:No by MSBob · · Score: 2, Insightful
      We could be butting heads on this one all the time. First it matters enormously because even if both parties of your example hold dollars for even a split second their M1 is controlled by by Greenspan. That's an enormous amount of power right there. Also you forget that oil is a fungible commodity. Most contracts are signed on international exchange markets with the vast majority of them on NYMEX.

      Secondly because the dollar is pegged to oil, which is the real currency of the modern world, you need dollars to buy oil. This makes everything cheaper for Americans vs the rest of the world. The only problem is that dollars in the hands of foreigners aren't worth as much as when they are in American hands. The Chinese found out about it the hard way when they tried to buy Unocal. So much for their paper wealth in US bucks when they can't buy with it what really matters ie. energy.

      As for your other point, not all oil is traded in dollars. Only like 90% of it.

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    2. Re:No by MSBob · · Score: 1

      One thing you forgot is that each $29 DVD player took a lot of oil to make for which the maker had to pay in, you guessed it, US dollars. That's how the scam operates in America's favour.

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    3. Re:No by MSBob · · Score: 1
      Boy, oh boy. Been reading too much Reganomics books lately?

      Greenspan controls the supply of US dollars by setting interest rates. If you don't understand how interest rates affect money supply resit your economics 101.

      The US buck is not pegged to oil on a fixed basis but the fact that demand for oil equates to the demand for US buck (an artificial link maintained by the US through its unbelievable military might) means that anyone who wants to have a working economy needs US greenbacks. Why? Because it isn't possible to have a working economy without ample supplies of oil. China is the prime example here. But the situation is even more skewed in America's favour because not only is the supply of US greenback controlled by Greenspan, how those bucks are spent is controlled by Washington. China discovered that the hard way when they tried to buy Unocal. Now they are looking like idiots stuffed with a bunch of worthless paper printed by Mr Greenspan that they can't buy anything of real value for. I don't think they'll be so keen to stock up on US treasury bonds from now on. And once they unload what they amassed so far things will get very intresting in the ole' US of A.

      Finally, from your comment I can discern that I understand a hell of a lot more about marktets than you do, sir.

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    4. Re:No by ckedge · · Score: 1

      .
      You mix some truths with boogey man stories and scare tactics - making it hard for people to discern whether you know what you're talking about or not.

      http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MoneySupply.htm l

      http://www.mises.org/story/1837

      We can thus conclude that the key-determining factor in the setting of US interest rates is the amount of US excess money supply. Over time this excess is predominantly driven by the supply of money, which is set in motion by the Fed's monetary policies. In this respect the Chinese factor is completely irrelevant as far as US interest rate determination is concerned. So if the economy were to fall into a recession on account of a bursting of the housing bubble we should blame the Fed for that and not falsely point the finger at China.

      the fact that demand for oil equates to the demand for US buck (an artificial link maintained by the US through its unbelievable military might)

      Pardon? "Unbelievable Military Might"? In the research I do, it's all "currency of choice", no one's being forced to trade for oil in USD. I know the company I work for merely *chooses* to price our products in USD for convenience. I think you've got your economics ass backwards. You should be relating the power of the dollar to the supply of oil. The more powerful the dollar, the more drilling there is for oil, the more oil there is for everyone else. The opposite also holds true. (http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a47n33d01 .htm - http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P100650.asp) ...and of course oil being used so intensively to GENERATE products and deliver them to market, the lack of availability and high price of oil itself could cause bad things.

      The way in which oil/USD *might* be linked is that if everyone else stops using USD for oil right now and the link between USD deflation and oil availability is severed it means that more resources will be available to drill for oil and more oil (should) be available. Which will actual DECREASE the economic problems.

  75. Slash-culture. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...access to culture and amenities and the ability to mingle with like-minded people."

    Hey! What are we? Chopped liver?

  76. Come join me! by GweeDo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I live in a great town of just over 2000 people. It is very different from when I lived in the Kansas City area, but I wouldn't trade it for the world. I work as a software engineer for a small/medium size company that has a great work environment. I just bought a 1603 sq ft house four months ago for $45k. So lets see...
    1) work in the IT world (check)
    2) have a great house for little money (check)
    3) have 3MB DSL to my house (check)
    4) 3 minute commute to work...on my bike (check)

    Yup...I love it here. Outsource to these regions would be a very nice alternative.

    Got any questions about rural America and IT works? Feel free to ask.

    (wow...am I an info-mercial?)

    1. Re:Come join me! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Just curious, where are you, exactly?

      (I already ranted somewhere above, about how ...you're right!! :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Come join me! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Heh, I know where that is, tho I've never been there.

      Not too different from where I used to live (Belgrade, MT) tho since then the yuppies have invaded and taken over, and it's no longer a small town environment.

      In my observation, the turning point that signifies runaway growth is when a mall comes in. It changes attitudes, and the old downtown dies and the sense of community with it.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:Come join me! by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      While here in Plainville we aren't experience that problem (yet?) Hays, KS is. The old downtown (The Chestnut Street District) is a really cool place, but the bigger, new stores like Walmart and Home Depot are on the North side of town (where old downtown is on the south). The company I work for works very closely with the Chestnut Street District to bring about new business there, but it can be a real challenge. We want downtown to stay in Hays and here in Plainville.

      We actually just opened a new diner/micro-brewery in Hays. Check it out here.

    4. Re:Come join me! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      That'll be good if they can keep the old downtown alive. It really makes a huge difference in local attitudes -- and it keeps the malls honest, when they do come in.

      Great Falls MT (pop. hovering around 60k) is a good example. Downtown tried to die when the first mall came along in the late 1960s, but the downtown stores bucked up and made themselves more attractive to shoppers despite the area's parking woes, and at least as of when I was last there (early 1980s) downtown was a more happening place than the mall, and the malls had to make themselves more like downtown to compete (which kept quality up).

      It probably helps that there's no reason for yuppies to move there, tho -- GtF lacks immediate proximity to resort areas, and its main reasons for existence are still farming and the air force base. So the yuppie mentality remained happily limited.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  77. Re:Rural areas? How about just cheaper states? by Cerdic · · Score: 1

    I could care less what people's vehicles look like. I'm referring to the pickups spewing thick black clouds over 100 yards. Way too much of that where I am.

    --
    Advice for my fellow geeks: before seeking out that threesome you dream of, you might see what a TWOsome is like first.
  78. Obligatory Cletus quote... by thrill12 · · Score: 1

    Cletus: Stranger! You're tresspassin' on my dirt farm!

    Man: Ah, do you happen to need a mesiah?

    Cletus: No, but I'll take them sacks of money from ya.
     

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
  79. crossUSA is not a solution to the problem. by twitter · · Score: 1
    ... as soon as the subject of current employees working from home comes up, it immediately gets dismissed ...

    This is a bummer. I looked up crossUSA right after reading the article. I really got excited when I saw a health care systems job, until I saw it involved moving out of state. The cost of living here is one of the lowest in the country, so I'm able to compete if only they would trust me to get the job done. I've got a cable connection and a cell phone, so I'm as easy to reach as anyone in an office and trust is not really required.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  80. Success by failure by heroine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sooner or later you have to make money. Holding up in the most remote location you can find so you'll get hired for the least money can keep you alive but around the age of 30 you'll realize you can't work forever and you'll need to start accumulating massive amounts of money if you want to partake of modern medicine.

    You'll die young because you wanted to stay in software, but whether dying young was necessary or not, a lot of people are going to still be around after you pass away. You'll have achieved nothing but miss out, and no-one's going to care why you missed out.

    The other thing you'll realize is that Indians are buying bigger houses. Chinese are buying bigger cars. Your college buddies are moving to more extravagent neighborhoods. But you're in the same situation you were in 10 years ago.

    Most humans want to be in a better situation than they were in 5 minutes ago. Whether you feel a poorer situation is mandated by the decline in software jobs or not, the world is going to be richer tomorrow than it is today.

    Meanwhile you're degrading your situation and making sacrifices to stay in software. You know, no-one else cares.

    1. Re:Success by failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well put

  81. China and India by zogger · · Score: 1

    Are building their infrastructure so that their internal economy can take over. They are WAY large enough to only really need raw materials and energy soon, they won't need to export much-just like the US in the 50s and 60s. The bulk of our trade then was internal. We existed more on an cooperative economy then, the same dollar travelled around the region, funding a plethora of jobs. Now the dollar funds one or two jobs, then a few government jobs, then overseas it goes to be invested there. And back then when we didn't do that as much is when we grew the largest middle class ever seen before in the planets history.

    We are in a transition now, we'll see the results IF China and India can lock in their energy and materials supplies. China in particular is doing it the smart way, they either are signing government level 20 year contracts for energy (all we do is let middleman skimmers jack the price up), or are outright buying up oilfields and mines wherever the greenbacks they have horded are still good. And building POWER, any way they can, they understand that true wealth has to be produced,it has to be manufactured, mined or grown, that's IT, anything else is just static, it's wealth rearrangement, with social/economic entropy thrown into the mix. I'd say they have completely trounced the US and Europe when it comes to long range planning, they have been playing us for suckers and letting us build their infrastructure for them. So when that time comes-which it will-when the US market is not needed, they won't care. They will have over a billion people in their own market.

    Yes, it will suck here bad, sometime in the upcoming decade is my best guess. You can't have a leveling without the high areas dropping. The part not talked about as much though that will really screw the pooch is that alternative cheaper level jobs are being "insourced" to highly illegal aliens. the IT world doesn't see it, but I guarantee you the blue collars are noticing it, and when the housing bubble crash comes with the resultant lowering of the entire economy there IS going to be some political backlash over both "sourcing" in and out.

    I live serious rural now, on a huge farm, and no way would I move now to the big city. I don't make much, but I know I can continue to make *some* and food and water and shelter and heat are guaranteed, and I have some solar all paid off so electricity for the next 20 years or so is guaranteed. and while some might havbe been watching the big game on the widescreen or improving their score in some FPS, today I was skinning our new greenhouse. We just went from 9 months to 12 months growing season in a big way. what we can't eat, we sell, simple concept. No matter what the economy does, people will need to eat, and if fuel prices keep going up, locally produced means locally shipped = "cheaper" to buy.

    I like covering the options.

  82. Why don't companies creativly keep jobs in US? by vparikh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am getting sick and tired of companies claiming that they can save a lot of money by outsourcing to India, China, Phillipines or Europe. This is all bull. Let the employees work from home and make them come in on a designated "meeting day" for face to face meetings. Your day to day interaction could easily done with video conferencing and IM. Companys can save on office space, electricity, computers, etc. Besides most programmes have better equipment at home then what the company will be willing to spend anyway. Employee would be much more loyal and productive. I know I would. No more dealing with rush hour traffic. No more interruptions from rediculous office politics. I would probably end up working more hours because I can work around MY schedule as opposed to the 9to5 corporate schedule. I know what most employers would say about this. Exactly what my managers said - "Then I couldn't manage you". Last I checked managing involves more then what time I came in and what time I left. That argument doesn't hold any way. After I got this answer to my suggestion they sent a few projects to India - how the hell are you going to "manage" people on the other side of the planet who work in a time zone with a 12 hour differntial who you have never met? I don't know - maybe I'll have to get an MBA to understand "the business side" of it.

    1. Re:Why don't companies creativly keep jobs in US? by cybpunks3 · · Score: 1

      Here is a curious situation. I live in an apartment in Culver City,CA and I work 10 minutes away from the office. I'm paying as much money for this apartment as you'd normally pay for a cheap home mortgage. Houses around here are priced so high it would be hard to buy into them for fear of the bubble bursting.

      What a lot of my peers have done is bought houses pretty far away from work. We have one person who bought a house for a half a million dollars halfway to San Bernardino. He considers the house a bargain even though he is "house poor" (i.e. all his money goes to the mortage).

      What happens when the gas prices increase commuting costs to the point where people just can't make ends meet?

      I think a big problem with businesses is they feel obligated to locate their offices in areas that have no affordable housing. Wouldn't it be better to move the office towards where people actually live? No. We have offices in places like Beverly Hills.

      Do you think businesses want to pay higher salaries to subsidize the average person's commuting costs?

      I really think that business themselves have to relocate.

    2. Re:Why don't companies creativly keep jobs in US? by debiansid · · Score: 1

      Exactly what my managers said - "Then I couldn't manage you". Last I checked managing involves more then what time I came in and what time I left. That argument doesn't hold any way. After I got this answer to my suggestion they sent a few projects to India - how the hell are you going to "manage" people on the other side of the planet who work in a time zone with a 12 hour differntial....

      Alright, lets say I let you work for me, from home, just like we have employees away from the office in India. And to make conditions even more similar, I'll pay you as much as they're paid. Will you agree to it? Will you agree to $7500 per annum? $7500 is, by the way, for a senior developer, a beginner will usually get just about $4000 per annum.

      I guess now you get the *business side of it*.

      Ofcourse, its not that simple. There are costs involved when outsourcing, like communication, infrastructure, language barriers, low quality which contributes to the overhead. But its so low compared to the savings that companies are always willing to take it in their stride.

      I do believe that companies like IBM, HP, Motorola, Oracle, etc. are much smarter than the average slashdotter and they actually think and plan their step rather than *follow the hype* as you seem to suggest. They didn't make their billions by merely following trends and hypes.

  83. Dave La Reau by $exyNerdie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is the first time on slashdot, I can comment from my first hand experience as this company is where we outsourced outr work and I met Dave La Reau about a month ago in person. What they won't tell you is that they took a 3 month project last one year and it is still not complete!! His company hired people and sent them to our site as experts when they barely had any knowledge of the platform/technology. They were learning on the job while charging over $40 an hour rate. It is shocking to see them trying to get publicity on ABC news when they provide such crappy skills that mediocre offshore contracting firms can provide much better!!

    1. Re:Dave La Reau by HampiRocks · · Score: 1

      What is the point you are trying to make here ? American companies and programmers can be equally bad. Why do u think that so many other companies are still outsourcing , if there work is not getting done??

    2. Re:Dave La Reau by Erinnyes · · Score: 1

      I watched the same program and reached the conclusion that $40.00/hr is a bargain. Where I work, we have a tech. dept. with coordinators and staff on our payroll collecting salaries and benefits, yet we still require the services of our $85.00/hr independent contractor (who works from home in a nearby suburb here in the USA) to keep the bugs out of our system and undo the mistakes of those on our payroll. Rather than replace our valuable contractor, who has been with us for several years, and outsource to a foreign country for $20.00/hr (who can't come in when needed, not to mention encountering problems involving cultural differences and loyalties), we would fare better to pay the American contractor triple and eliminate our salaried deadweight. With this in mind, wouldn't you say that you were getting off fairly easy by paying only $40.00/hr?

  84. 500k? by heroine · · Score: 1

    Where in America can you get 4 walls and a roof for 500k?

    1. Re:500k? by WiMoose · · Score: 1

      In June 2005 of this year, the median sale price of pre-existing homes was: 739K$ in Westchester County, NY 419K$ in Putnam County, NY 356K$ in Dutchess County, NY 500K$ seemed like a good average. (Source: http://www.nysar.com/pdfs/monthmedian.pdf)

    2. Re:500k? by smithmc · · Score: 1

        500K$ seemed like a good average.

      Perhaps, though "average" and "anything with four walls and a roof" aren't the same thing. $500K in the NYC suburbs gets you a pretty decent house, though not a McMansion.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  85. Re:Rural areas? How about just cheaper states? by CoolMoDee · · Score: 1

    I am having the exact opposite response to living in a rural area after living in a metro area my entire life. I moved to Wimberley, TX (about 35 miles south-west of Austin) a few months back for school at Texas State. Sure, there aren't as many choices for food here in town, I can walk most everywhere. And if I can't walk there, it's less than a mile away. But when I go back to town, I look around, and everything is so fake and fabricated, it's horrible.

    When living in a metro area I would look out my window and see my neighbor's house. Now, when I look out my window (well, one of the 4) I see a nice creek, trees and deer. Did I mention it actually gets *dark* at night..and so quiet the only thing I can hear is the crickets?

    I guess it takes the right mindset to really appricate living in a rural area, and it doesn't seem that one can enjoy it unless they really open up their eyes and ears and realize how awesome it truely is.

    --
    Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
  86. Re:I'll work for 15$/hr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just moved to Miami beach from N.E. a few months ago. The wages here seem terrible. The loaded barrons, tycoons and drug lords out of Russia, Columbia, Latin America, and the rich retiree's from up north don't make life any easier.

    I'd be happy to do some tech work at 15$/hr, I didn't think there was a market down here. (em: mpmiami55 'at' yahoo dot com)

  87. Dell plant opening in NC by bach37 · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Dell plant opening in NC by computechnica · · Score: 1

      Dell is also opening one in Oklahoma City,OK. But then they started in rural Texas.

  88. I often find the least tolerant people to be ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The so called progressive liberals elite that denigrate the "red" states and the "nascar" fans that listen to "country" music and the "bible" thumpers. Having lived in both "red" and "blue" states and big cities and small town, I find the least tolerant areas of the country to be Boston, MA, San Francisco, CA and Seattle, WA, and some of the most tolerant to be Rawlins, WY, and Manitou Springs, CO. Although, antecdotally, I've heard places to avoid are big towns in the midwest and southeast (Indianapolis, Chicago, Atlanta)...

    Of course that's probably just because I'm "misinformed" or a "red-neck" (oh yeah, I'm asian, but a redneck at heart), but if you don't believe me, try wearing a cowboy hat and boots in downtown seattle or san francisco sometime, or drive with the windows rolled down with country music booming on your radio. People who don't give a shit about rap booming, will for some reason they'll go out of the way to give you shit if it's country music. Oh yeah, don't even mention you're a republican unless you want someone to throw starbucks coffee on you, or your house TP'd and egged if you put a republican political banner on your front lawn...

    New York, however seems to be decently tolerant, although maybe I didn't notice, because in NY everyone is being an asshole to everyone regardless of their group identification ;^) And in LA, they sort of just ignore people who are different, so I guess it depends on what big city you are in...

    But don't feed me your "lower tolerance" shit okay? ;^)

  89. Re:the true reason for outsourcing call centers is by wilgaa · · Score: 0

    Well Charter has All-Ammerican tech support and customer service.

  90. sure- lets go live in the 'company town' by justdrew · · Score: 2, Funny

    this is like shadowrun becomming reality. these big businesses will basicly end up running these small towns.

  91. I don't buy it by khallow · · Score: 1
    Cost of living may be less, but a lot of it is made up for by the fact you have to drive further to get anywhere. With the price of gasoline going up this only gets worse.

    I simply don't understand this argument. Let's assume that he drives 70 miles extra each day and uses up 2 gallons of gas. So that's rough $5 per day and less than $2000 per year. And frankly it's not going to be much more than that since he'll group tasks together and do them in one trip. Even if gas doubles in price, that's $4000 a year in gas.

    We ignore cars with better fuel economy or other strategies for saving gas.

    In comparison, how much does the house cost? I figure based on my own casual research, that he's probably looking at a 20-40% markdown in home price due to his more remote location, maybe 50-100k in savings for what sounds like a sizeable house.

    Even with a sharp rise in gas prices, I don't see a real issue here. You just aren't saving money through shorter commutes. The real savings is in time, that's what people pay for.

    In fact many people actually lose money selling their houses in a rural market. (Hint: Never buy in a market in which you are able to talk down the owner by 15-20% of their asking price... the same will happen to you!) And with gas prices and people moving closer to the city it is only getting worse. I've heard 12-18 months to have a decent chance of getting your money back.

    The urban markets aren't going to do that well either. I imagine that within a few years, these big urban markets, adjusted for inflation, are going to be big money losers. In such a situation, you probably are better off buying based on what current value it has to you rather than planning on some future nebulous profit. So a cheaper house serves the same function as a more expensive one.

    Comparatively speaking crime is lower. However the town I lived did have quite a bit more crime then you might expect. Murder, drugs, sexual misconduct, vandalism.

    More than you'd expect, but less than an urban setting. I guess whether that works for you or not is subjective.

    In fact many people actually lose money selling their houses in a rural market. (Hint: Never buy in a market in which you are able to talk down the owner by 15-20% of their asking price... the same will happen to you!) And with gas prices and people moving closer to the city it is only getting worse. I've heard 12-18 months to have a decent chance of getting your money back.

    Maybe different regions of the country have different behavior. Here in California, there is this huge decades long move to more rural (not necessarily true rural, I count here moves from San Francisco to a Sacramento suburb) areas. There are huge differentials in home prices. For example, a home that is $400-500k in the big city might be $250k in that Sacramento suburb and $200k in some small community off one of the Interstates. That pays for a lot of gas.

    Also, if you move to a rural area, what happens if things don't work out with the (probably only in the area) company you are working for and you have to move quickly?

    He lives within 35 miles of an urban area, so this is moot. Deep rural is a different story. You would have to move and wait that 12+ months for your house to sell, or find a local nontechnical job. But living near an airport gives you an important option. You can literally commute to a job anywhere in the States, particular the expensive urban areas. I know, because I've seen people commute from out of state (Florida, Oregon, and New Jersey) to IT jobs in San Jose, California. It's ugly, but doable. Usually, the person stays in a studio or motel for the week and flies back and forth to their real home over weekends. Only works if you live relatively close to an airport. If you can telecommute, then that option really becomes viable.

    1. Re:I don't buy it by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Two folks argue,

      1) Comparatively speaking crime is lower. However the town I lived did have quite a bit more crime then you might expect. Murder, drugs, sexual misconduct, vandalism.

      2) More than you'd expect, but less than an urban setting. I guess whether that works for you or not is subjective.

      Crime is everywhere. The real difference is that in a small town or rural area, everyone knows who has a nasty temper or is lightfingered or whatever. You don't have to worry much about being robbed or killed by random strangers, because, well, there aren't that many of 'em, and you get to know who is trouble on the hoof.

      Not only that, but people are more likely to solve their own problems rather than running to the law. And if you do wind up having to defend yourself, the attitude is likely to be "yep, it's about time Joe Trouble got hisself shot," not the big city's "do you have a gun permit? And here's your wrongful-death suit."

      And yes, I've lived in both environments, so I do know of what I speak.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:I don't buy it by khallow · · Score: 1
      Originally, I was irked because the prior poster was gabbing about how people were returning to cities because of gas prices, hence my lengthy discussion on the economics of a move to the countryside. The thing is that people have been fleeing cities for a long, long time in the US. I figure probably since the Second World War ended. Slightly more expensive gas isn't going to change that dynamic.

      But the discussion on crime brings up an interesting, if ironic point. These migrants bring their problems with them. The same ease of access that attracts commuters also attracts the criminals that prey on them.

    3. Re:I don't buy it by Reziac · · Score: 1

      You're quite correct about the gas-price issue, tho the flow of population migration is still overwhelmingly toward metro areas -- because that's where the big money is. Of course, the city is also where the cost of living is high, and you'll probably have to commute to work 50 miles each way (if you're lucky -- there are people around L.A. who drive over 200 miles a day, because that's how far away they were from work before they found housing they could afford).

      At the end of the day, what counts is your net income, and how far it goes beyond the bare necessities. If you make $40/hr but had to work an hour just to cover your commute costs, and 6 more hours to cover that day's mortgage, taxes, and insurance, you've only got one hour worth of real income. If you make $10/hr but walked to work, and it only takes 4 hours of work to cover your cost of living, you've got 4 hours worth of real income. Yeah, it's still the same $40 at the end of the day, but that $40 buys a whole lot more in a small town than it will in the big city.

      The problem comes with "disposable-income purchases" that have a fairly high cost to produce no matter where you make them -- you won't sell them in rural America, unless you're willing to take a loss. There's little demand and you can't make a living at it. In terms Slashdotters can grok, you ain't gonna sell your services as a middleware programmer to a shopkeeper in Sand Hills, Nebraska, because he has no need for your product at ANY price. So either you find a way to telecommute, or you live in the city. This issue became more prevalent as we turned from a nation of farmers, basics, and small businesses, into a nation of CEOs, specialists, and gadgets (bringing with it a "need" for heavy-handed regulations).

      The number of people going the other way (toward rural areas) is relatively minimal, and only looks as large as it does because the total population is increasing (note the runaway urban sprawl around major metro areas). But farm towns are still dying all over the midwest. And as I griped in some other post, one big problem is that as these city folk move to the country, especially in areas outlying from major metros, they bring their city ways with them, ultimately destroying the rural lifestyle they supposedly want to get back to. I've seen this over and over, everywhere that people move out to the country in clumps.

      Anyway, the root point remains -- someone who hasn't actually lived in a true rural environment (not just urban-to-rural sprawl like we have in SoCal) has no idea what they're talking about -- or what they're missing.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  92. Afraid of competition by HampiRocks · · Score: 1

    Is is amazing how so many techincal people on this forum are afraid of competition. In this forum there have been so many sly reference to hiring programmers based on merit and not on skill. DO YOU GUYS BELIEVE THAT MOST OF THE COMPANIES WHO GET THERE WORK DONE IN INDIA WILL BE THERE IF THEY DID NOT RECEIVE QUALITY ? YOU GUYS ARE JUST DREAMING !!! Almost all the big American corporations get there work done in India. They are demanding customers and get quality and value for money because of which they stay there. If you guys really feel that Indian programmers are not up to the mark then you should have a look at your universities research programs and see how it is dominated by Indians and Chinese !! A lot of people on this forum has correctly observed that outsourcing to India is perhaps not that cheap. I think it is true. I find it pathetic that instead of competing on merit and skill, most of the people in this forum are concenterating more on invoking jingoistic sentiments. There have been tons of posts questioning the skills of an Indian programmer. The post includes a comment about "going to India" for training your replacement. I think it should be clarified what this training is. It is nothing more than a handover. Just telling the new person where the stuff is. The handover is a part of professional etiquete and an american programmer is all welcome not to do that.

  93. because they're assholes by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    What is it with some people and antennas?

    I have a cousin who lives in a very nice neighborhood in Minneapolis, and there are a couple of real assholes in his homeowners association. One of his neighboors had a tree in his backyard blow over in a big storm, and they moved their trampoline from the backyard to one side of the house so a crew could get around the other side and cut down the tree. The assholes in the HOA actually bitched that a trampoline was visible from the side of the house (it wasn't even in the front), even though it was a very temporary placement.

    Obviously, these people need to get a job, if they have so much time on their hands that all they do is sit around and think up ways to be complete dicks to their neighboors, rather than minding their own damn business/bills/kids etc like normal people.

  94. Moses Lake is a scummy mess by CatGrep · · Score: 3, Informative

    My parents have lived in Moses Lake for the last 12 years. They're trying to sell their house and get out of there; unfortunately for them the housing market there is not as hot as it is other places. In fact they haven't had any bites in the last couple of months it's been on the market.

    You mention water skiing in Moses Lake - However whenever I have visited the lake is full of algae scum. It's a rather stagnant lake. Not anything I'd want to swim in.

    And the weather? It gets very cold in the Winter (down around 0 is not unusual) and very hot in the Summer (100 is not unusual this time of the year). And it's a desert landscape without much of anything interesting. There's a park nearby called the Potholes Park (sounds just lovely). Lots of farms around so you can get plenty of pesticide spray wafting your way (one of the reasons my parents want to move - it has become enough of a problem that it's effecting their health). Oh and then there's the Hanford Nuclear Reservation not an hour away - lot's of glow-in-the-dark fun to be had there!

    No, Moses Lake is not the beauty spot you make it out to be. I actually find it to be one of the most depressing places I've ever visited - but maybe it's partly because I prefer the green side of the mountains.

    1. Re:Moses Lake is a scummy mess by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

      And the weather? It gets very cold in the Winter (down around 0 is not unusual)

      If by winter you mean October, then yeah, that would be "very cold". Otherwise...no.

      (minnesotan)

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    2. Re:Moses Lake is a scummy mess by getwhipped · · Score: 1
      No, Moses Lake is not the beauty spot you make it out to be.
      Well, beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. The only response to your post's parent is "Okay.", because to that poster, no amount of arguing will ever change that.
      --
      get whipped (you know you like it)
    3. Re:Moses Lake is a scummy mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live nearby to Moses Lake. I agree. The place has very few redeeming qualities. The area is a desert. Pesticides is a huge problem in central Washington. We have the highest cancer rates in the state. Absolutely no nightlife. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation had some leaks not too long ago too.

      As far as lakes go... Chelan beats it hands down... but just as crappy in the winter.

    4. Re:Moses Lake is a scummy mess by Reziac · · Score: 1

      [laughing] Balmy fall day. Come to central Montana and enjoy a cool -65F January evening, after a daily high of a blistering -45F.

      No, I'm not exaggerating, I lived there for 20 years... but Montana gets 70F in February, too. Unlike Minnesota!!

      [Former resident of MT, ND, and MN, current resident of SoCal, and future resident of some farming area a Long Way from metro sprawl]

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Moses Lake is a scummy mess by superflippy · · Score: 1

      As far as radioactivity goes, I'd rather live within 5 miles of a nuclear facility than within 50 miles of a coal-burning power plant.

      Which is good, because I'm moving to the Hanford tri-cities area, probably next year. Yeah, it's a desolate desert. But it's where my spouse's job is, so I'll make the best of it.

      --
      Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
    6. Re:Moses Lake is a scummy mess by coreymichaelbarr · · Score: 1
      My parents have lived in Moses Lake for the last 12 years. They're trying to sell their house and get out of there; unfortunately for them the housing market there is not as hot as it is other places. In fact they haven't had any bites in the last couple of months it's been on the market.
      He's obviously trying to sell before the bubble bursts! Just be quiet and let him do the marketing work for your parents' property, too.
  95. Re:Why don't -- RIGHT ON by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    the actual cost savings after all the hassle and risk of outsourcing to India has been shown to at best be about 21% .....there's plenty of ways we could get that kind of savings and keep the work here within the country. It was fashionable and hip to outsource to India, and managers have been cooking the numbers ever since to show it was a good thing.

  96. Re:the true reason for outsourcing call centers is by HampiRocks · · Score: 1

    Is it not possible that you have a prejudice against the Indian/Paki service desk rep (pretty much reflected in your post) which was reflected in your conversation with him because of which you got a bad service ?? American reps can be equally bad if u r not polite to them !! American prosperity is because it can do business in all the countries of the world. You can go back to medieveal ages (like britishers did) and force these countries to leave there markets open for america and at the same time do not let any american jobs go there. Is it not this that u want ??

  97. Re:the true reason for outsourcing call centers is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get the facts buddy. Even if the guy was sitting on the other side of desk and you would have killed him, the American LAW would put you off the streets for a time you don't want to be there!!

    Please keep shut. You don't even know what you are talking about!

  98. Re:The catch ? Get over Starbucks by N3Bruce · · Score: 1

    Many, if not most rural towns have a local institution known as a diner, which for slightly more than the price of a Mocha Grande at Starbucks will give you a drinkable cup of Colombian coffee, with free refills. As a bonus, you will also be served a plate with two eggs, toast, home fries, sausage, and a glass of orange juice, all served up by a friendly waitress named Flo. You will have to get used to the fact that many of the patrons will be wearing designer baseball caps imprinted with the logoes of John Deere, Caterpillar, Peterbilt, and Mack.

  99. No by HornWumpus · · Score: 1
    Their money supply is controlled by Greenspan because they hold dollars for the duration of a transaction? How? Please enlighten me. Does Japan control our money supply when we pay for things in yen?

    The dollar is pegged to oil? Last time I looked oil was priced in dollars but not pegged. Which part of markets don't you understand?

    Where do you get your crack? It must be good.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  100. Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although it still achieves the same result of lowering the value of a job,

    So you'd rather be unemployed, is that it? The value of a job is not your salary. The value of a job is HAVING a job instead of being a parasite on those of us who HAVE jobs.

  101. It depends on the place. Just like in the city. by Hartree · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Rural areas run the gamut, just like neighborhoods in a big city run the gamut. Some are great, some are terrible. Just as you choose a neighborhood to live in in a city, you have to use some choice about where you live in rural areas.

    You paint a pretty bleak picture compared to what I've seen living in rural areas of the US for 40 odd years. I'm in a town of 1200 and have better cable modem throughput than a lot of people in cities.

    One thing I notice about rural areas, is that what poverty there is is less shoved off to the side than in cities and suburbs. When the town is a half mile square, the other side of the tracks is still just up the block. In some ways, I think that's healthier than in some of the Chicago suburbs I visit where the only minimum wage earners you see are the ones working in fast food joints. The poverty there is miles away, and easy to ignore.

    1. Re:It depends on the place. Just like in the city. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I know it's worse in some areas, such as the old south, but the poverty level in midwestern rural and smalltown America is not starved and shoeless, either, nor is there so much contrast between poor and middle-class. And there typically is not a welfare class.

      As to the parent poster's comment about food and culture -- it's not that it's lacking, rather than you don't get so much of it that comes from outside mainstream American heritage. In fact, quite the reverse applies to American-style food -- what you can get in rural America is of much better quality and variety than what's seen in metro areas. But yeah, there won't be restaurants dedicated to Thai and Greek and Korean food, nor will there be an opera house (tho you do get stuff like Shakespeare in the Parks).

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  102. Art & Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out Art & Logic, Inc. They hire programmers from rural USA and put them on monumentally cool projects. The company has thrived during the so-called "outsourcing craze" and is desperately trying to find programmers that live up to their standards.

    Disclaimer: I've worked with them for many years, and they do indeed live up to the hype.

  103. Minimum wage doesn't help by unclocked · · Score: 1

    This is a very old news. Not sure why making rounds on /. now. Whatever it is, minimum wage in US is about 5$/hour. That's sort of salary someone in India/China gets per day. This is true at least until wages in India come up to comparable levels, i.e, 2$/hour. Only then we'll see measurable shift from outsourcing to insourcing.

  104. Larger Trash on smaller Economy, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "btw, on this point, most rural industrial waste or similar issues is due to us being the dumping grounds for YOUR city waste. It's gotta go somewhere, and where it's going is right next to the crops we then ship back to you to ingest. Lovely circle."

    Bump this AC up a notch or two. On the export of city trash to elsewere? Remember a couple years back that New York trash barge that no one would take? Eventually ended back home. But the AC is correct, and tough economic conditions for states has loosened the restrictions on other states taking city trash.

    --
    The "are you a script" word for today is [trash] parade.

  105. Re:3rd world what? by joey_knisch · · Score: 0

    Whoever marked this as flamebait obviously has not been there. It was harder for my research group to get supplies for a dig in Nebraska than in Senegal.

  106. need more outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i wish US companies would do more outsourcing... why you ask? so when that one time i have to call up some TS or CS, i dont have to talk with some hick with a thick sothern accent, atleast with people out of country, you just cant straight up understand them, or their accent makes you laugh... but i just cant stand the strong southern accent...

  107. The economic cycle... by i_ate_god · · Score: 1

    So uhm, some nerds still like to party you know. Small towns only offer teenager parties in the woods, and you know 99% of those teenagers will not go further in life than assembly lines or mining coal.

    And after blue collar towns turn expensive, then what? export human resources to trailer parks? Will Bubbles turn into a hacker? And after that start rehiring bums off the street that were put there by the same companies that laid them off in 2000 in the first place? And when that gets too expensive, come back full circle and hire all of us back again?

    I swear, cheap talent should be a contradiction in terms. No matter how you achieved your talent, if you developed it well, you should be rewarded for it. That does not just apply to corporations, but to people who sell their talent for pennies.

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
  108. Re:Rural areas? How about just cheaper states? by Reziac · · Score: 1

    I grew up in rural America, but in 1984 [!] moved to SoCal for business reasons. In 2001 I got a place out in the desert, miles from anything, and for a couple years it was stars and crickets again, like I hadn't seen or heard in years.

    Now development is coming my way, the stars are no longer visible, and the rural midwest is starting to sound pretty good, even tho it means I'll have to give up my primary business (no market).

    So I know exactly what you're talking about... but I've met city folk who find the dark and the quiet too frightening. (Hey, then stay in the bright and noisy city, and stop moving out to the country in hordes, ruining it for rural folk!)

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  109. grass killed by steps by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

    In high traffic areas the grass dies if too many people shortcut.

    So you get yelled at for crossing lawns as kids by the home owner.

    If you are nice you stay on the side walk.

    (to really kill grass fast ride bikes across it!)

  110. Yea, screw the costumers. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    It is not like we owe our living to them or anything like that....

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  111. For bunnies sakes, cities are not only that. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    As they say, if you don't want to burn, yeah, don't get close to the fire.

    For each and every bad point that you blissfully remerkaed there is one that counterbalances them.

    Of course people are voting with their feet to the best place to live: urban centers keep growing.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  112. Global force: USians are sissies. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Look, the current Mexican President proposed your Bush to allow free movement of workers between the NAFTA area.

    Bush was lukewarm to the idea. The usual suspects (far left, far right) made sure Bush Jr. would not think about it.

    If the US is not part of any extended labour markets it is because the populace and its politicians don't want to.

    In Europe, South America, South East Asia people recognize that free movement of labour may be inevitable and are facilitating it.

    In the meantime people in the US whine about economic reality.

    With the US disowning international treaties (the latest was taxing Canadian lumber against NAFTA rules, and against an international panel of judges for bunnies sakes!) you will be very idiotic as a nation to go into a commercial treaty of any kind knowing that at the end the other part does not feel any compulsion to abide by any treaty if it "harms US jobs" as somebody we all know famously put it.

    You think globalisation is harming you? You are right, but it is mostly a problem of your own making because you don't want to embrace it.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  113. With only one condition kemosaby. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    That you make illegal to seel US products in foreing countries.

    Stereotypical egoistical USian: wants to have his cake and eat it.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  114. Then make a fucking free trade agreement. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    But a real one, not the joke NAFTA is where as soon as Mexico's President suggests people should work wherever they want in the NAFTA area all USians go bananas.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  115. Come join me! by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I live in a great town of just over 8000000 people. It is very different from when I lived in the Podunk, Nowhereville are, but I wouldn't trade it for the world. I work as a software engineer for a Fortune 100 company that has a great work environment. I just bought a 400 sq ft flat four months ago for $396k. So lets see...
    1) work in the IT world (check)
    2) Have a great place in a vibrant area (check)
    3) have 3MB DSL to my house (check)
    4) 20 minute commute to work...walking (check)
    5) Classical music concerts every day (check)
    6) Uncountable book stores. (check)
    7) Several big parks to unwind and relax. (check).
    8) Amazing selection of any goods imaginable. (check)
    9) Meeting people from all around the worl. (check)
    10) Cinemas showing movies from all around the world. (check).
    11) Art galleries with blockbuster exhibitions regularly. (check).
    12) Easy access to the rest of the worl.(check)
    13) Tolerable levels of criminality (hint, no guns allowed). (check).

    Yup...I love it here. Outsource from these regions will be a real tragedy.

    Got any questions about big cities and IT works? Feel free to ask.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  116. You always better youself. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I think one day somebody will give you a trophy or a medal.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  117. You don't want our workers? Then keep your stuff by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I am so fucking sick and tired of USians whinning about this.

    At the beginning it was funny, but now it is tiresome and irritating and even dangerous.

    Companies have no reason to be patriotic dumbass (sorry, I need to convey all my feelings). The only patriotic companies I can think off where the ones in the former Soviet Union and its satellites. Look where they ended: improductive, uselese piles of junk that where not work the value of the scrap metal they were built in.

    The only other example of "patriotic" industry I can think off is the arms industry, which for obvious reasons is contrained to what they can and can't do. And what happens with these? They entirely depend in goverment contracts (i.e. subsidies by another name). The situation is so bad that the goverment has to organize spurious wars once in a while in order to increase the necessary output of those industries and keep them running. Or declare that the country needs intercontinental misiles to combat a threat whose weapons are sharp cutters and fertilizer bombs, these keep people in the arms industry in "gainful" employment (look at your country's military budget and tell me I am derided).

    You want that those same companies that have exploited so well one side of the market (foreing costumers) stop exploiting the other (foreign labour).

    Well, if you are prepared to pay for it good luck pal, but I hope you are consistent and also demand with the same energy that those unpatriotic companies stop selling goods in foreign countries and are forced to suply the blessings of their goods and services only to the US citizenry.

    Markets are like the old conception of the atom: indivisible. You want the customers? Fine, but alternative labour markets come attached in the package.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  118. A job is a fucking contract. Get over it. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    What would you say to a plumber that claims that to fix your toilet is his job?

    Even if he is the most expensive game in town.

    And the less responsible and lacks the most skills.

    I know, you would say "stuff it mate, you are not up to the task".

    A job is not yours. Specially if you are too expensive, too incompetent or both.

    Does that make you fell bad, lonely and unloved? Tough.

    Grow up people, that is part of living in a free society, you take responsibility for yourself and stop dreaming things that you wished for but are nothing but pipe dreams.

    When you sign an employment contract you are agreeing to provide a service: your labour. To claim you own that contract is such an stupid idea that I don't see how it took hold of people minds at all.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:A job is a fucking contract. Get over it. by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      When you sign an employment contract you are agreeing to provide a service: your labour. To claim you own that contract is such an stupid idea that I don't see how it took hold of people minds at all.

      It's amazing how people like you use the term "contract" and then assume that only one side owns it. That's not a contract, stupid. A real contract is owned by both signatories -- that's what MAKES IT A CONTRACT.

      Furthermore, contracts are made in societies that have laws governing how they are made. These laws tend to give the weaker signatory rights, even some that the contract cannot legally remove.

      I know your best buddy Rush Limbaugh wouldn't agree with any of this ... but he IS a big fat Republican propagandist, so we shouldn't be surprised. So I know how that stupid idea got into YOUR mind. Isn't it about time you owned up to it?

      (In case you missed it, buddy, you JUST GOT OWNED.)

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  119. Be serious. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    People talking about "their job" in that context are implying that somehow they are the best ones to hold it (mostly on fuzzy reasoning like patriotism and what have you).

    It is foolish to say this job is mine when in your employment contract there are at lest two interested parts involved.

    To say "I have a job" is a figure of speech that when confronted with the cold facts of the law probes to be innacurate.

    People don't have jobs, they don't own them. What they have is an agreement to exchanges money for their services which very often ca be terminated at short notice, and for reasons strange to the worker.

    That is the work we live.

    People in Socialist societes could genuinely claim that they owned a job. Once you got it it was pretty much impossible you could lose it. I frankly don't want to own a job in such socieities or in similar conditions, but many free people in mature Western democracies seem to want just that.

    Obviously History is not being tought properly in some places.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  120. Rural Bigots vs. Urban Bigots by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    I think that you'll find the numbers of KKK types hanging around in rural areas to be less than you think. Sure, there are some small towns with issues, but they're fairly rare. It's going to take some time for you to be accepted, but then, that's to be expected when you are around people to can name every single person in their graduating class, and often every person in the school.

    As for violence, I'll counter with the point that cities, which are democrat strongholds, have far higher violent crime rates than mostly republican small towns.

    all those Republicans who mysteriously disappeared. Or, maybe a few staunch 'Ditto-heads' who were found swinging from a tree?

    Where's the Democrats & NPR listeners hanging from trees?

    As for history, I'd like to point out that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and the KKK were mostly Democrats(IE the non-Lincoln party).

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  121. Outsourcing is not matched by law of one price. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    Outsourcing is another and newer angle on "voodoo economics". They save money on production, but keep the revenue for themselves rather than pass it fully on in lower prices. In economic theory, outsourcing would result in no net loss to the US because prices would drop proportionally to the loss in wages. In economic reality, outsourcing is making ceo's and the (for lack of a better term) "wealthy elites" richer because they take the margins provided by outsourcing for themselves rather than passing it on in the price of their products. As such this is nothing more than supply side economics, something which already failed in the reagan era, and which the majority of what many snubbingly call 'blue collar' america recognizes through all the BS. In the mean time, people here in my international finance courses put on a presentation which basically tells me they're not considering the reality side of the equation, and thus will be another generation (with me exempt) to continue the trend of giving away US jobs and selling out our standard of living.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  122. Libertarian Outlook... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Just to make it clear, this sort of stuff is why many libertarions support the elimination of business and payroll taxes and going with a sales tax. That way you're not penalized for producing the product in the USA, as about a third of the cost of employing a low wage worker in the states is taxes. This is true until you get quite high in the pay grade.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Libertarian Outlook... by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      Wow, yeah, the Libertarians. What a laugh. Corporations (and thus, the wealthy) will exempt themselves from many sales taxes anyway.

      The exemption processes have already been planned and are currently in force. Companies now "exchange" things instead of buying and selling. The most famous example is in buying an entire company. You -- the worker bee, or "sap" -- would think that THAT EVENT would trigger a sales tax, since it's, well, a SALE ... but no, the Libertarian-leaning executives, lawyers and accountants have re-defined it in their board rooms while you spent your time working yourself to death. So instead of a SALE, what actually happens is that the neo-buyer "gains control of company operations" while the neo-seller "gains control of financial assets". See? No "sale" occurred at all! What actually happened instead was a "new" form of transaction that -- what a coincidence! -- is defined so that it's not subject to tax.

      I think I'll stop by the gas station and give the attendent "control of some dollar bills" while in exchange he gives me "control of some gallons of gas". We can then eliminate paying that silly gas tax since, after all, it wasn't actually a SALE.

      Americans are going to fucking have to face the fact that taxes are the cost of running a civilization. If we progressively refuse to tax wealth, and then watch sustainable jobs either go overseas or get filled locally with cheap foreign labor, we'll have no civilization worth speaking of since there will be NO TAX BASE to fucking support it!

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    2. Re:Libertarian Outlook... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      1. I'm a libertarion, not a Libertarion. I'm a moderate.
      2. I never said corporations would be paying sales taxes among themselves. For one thing, this encourages excessive vertical consolidation*
      3. The wealthy always manage to avoid taxes. However, they're going to have a hard time avoiding sales tax on their home, cars, clothes(unless they visit another country), food, etc. If they try to shelter it under the aegis of a 'corporation', well, that 'business' is subject to audit.
      4. It sounds like you're talking more about a merger. I know, it's wierd, but I don't worry about taxing that stuff. Only retail level stuff. Look up Fairtax.
      5. Sure, and we have this big problem about people avoiding taxes by working for a business for free, while the business gives them gifts of vehicles, a house, and generous amounts of cash. Which would you rather try to audit, which is more likely to be correct(within a reasonable margin of error for the amounts of money involved): 10% of american households, or 10% of businesses with retail operations?
      6. Why do you think that taxes are part of the cost of running a civilization? Why do we need to tax wealth(instead of income)? How about we just mandate that every worker work for the government one week out of the year? Besides, it's not like I advocated eliminating taxes entirely. I suggested the idea of eliminating payroll taxes, and going with a sales tax. It's relativly easy to avoid income tax. It's a bit harder to avoid a sales tax. Even drug dealers, prostitutes, and politicians will end up paying the sales tax.

      You -- the worker bee, or "sap"
      Guess what, comrade, I'm hard to categorize under the old communist ideas. I'm a working bourgeoisie. I own stock. Not enough to support myself yet, but I'm working my way towards that point.

      Besides, have you ever wondered why so many of the 'socialists' and people who encourage large amounts of government are rich? The huge amount of complex tax regulations helps to ensure that their exclusive little club remains just that. It puts barriers in the way of joe schmoe who's the first to graduate from college in his family, and is looking to build a business from scratch. It means that a business of five people needs a dedicated accountant, or hire a firm. They definitly need a lawyer on retainer. Meanwhile, they pay for a staff of lawyers and accountants to hide most of their income.

      A simple system is usually far harder to 'game' than a complex one. It levels the playing field.

      *Example: A breakfast cereal company owns the Farm, the factory, the delivery trucks, maybe even the stores, fertilizer plant, box&liner manufacture.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  123. Strawman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you actually think that Saddam's actions played no part in America's decision? Are you so set up in your beliefs that you have to create a strawman that America only went to war because of WMDs?

  124. Of course this is USA centric right? by dezb · · Score: 1

    Of course this is USA centric right?

    when they say "companies" they are only refering to companies "within" the Northern American continent.

    I think it's fair to say that outside of Northern America, comapanies as it were are hardly likely to "outsource" to service providers in "Small Town USA" as apposed to the likes of India, Indonesia, Ireland, Wales, China, et al.

    I could be horribly wrong, but I'd say that on average the level of education of Indian's working in India based call centers for example would be higher than that of rural USA - I hope I'm wrong for the USA's sake but I suspect I'm not ( time to do the home work I guess Dez ).

    But most Indian's know where other countries are on the map for example, where as most Americans, rural USA that is, don't know many countries outside of the USA, so I'd rather not send my follow the sun support to rural USA if the local's are not able to even picture in their mind where my Australian customers are on the map ;-(

    Dez

    --
    --- Dez Blanchfield http://WebSearch.COM.AU "Will work for bandwidth.."
  125. Sure they are. by khasim · · Score: 1
    People talking about "their job" in that context are implying that somehow they are the best ones to hold it (mostly on fuzzy reasoning like patriotism and what have you).
    Sure they are.
    It is foolish to say this job is mine when in your employment contract there are at lest two interested parts involved.
    Really? Aren't those two parts the "employee" and the "employer"? Why is it "foolish"?
    To say "I have a job" is a figure of speech that when confronted with the cold facts of the law probes to be innacurate.
    Keep claiming it, but never support it. Maybe you'll want to repeat yourself a few more times?
    People don't have jobs, they don't own them.
    Just like they don't have opinions and certainly don't own their opinions.

    He was getting paid for doing a job. If it wasn't his job, then why was he getting paid for doing it?
    What they have is an agreement to exchanges money for their services which very often ca be terminated at short notice, and for reasons strange to the worker.
    Hmmmm, "exchanges money for services", that certainly sounds like a job.

    But you say they don't have a job.

    But they do have a contract to perform services in exchange for money (but that isn't a "job").

    Right.
    People in Socialist societes could genuinely claim that they owned a job.
    Really?
    Once you got it it was pretty much impossible you could lose it.
    So, in your opinion, it isn't about being paid to do work ... it's how easy it is to be fired?

    So, if you're the boss's son-in-law, then you have a job because the boss isn't going to fire you (unless you get divorced).

    But if you were the guy doing the same job for the same money before the guy who married his daughter moved in, then you didn't have a job.

    So what differentiates whether it is "my job" or not is ... "marriage".

    It isn't "my job" unless I'm doing the boss's daughter in a religiously acceptable manner.

    You might really want to re-examine the basis of your hypothesis.
    Obviously History is not being tought properly in some places.
    Nor, it seems, "logic".
  126. nonsense by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    Do you actually think that Saddam's actions played no part in America's decision?

    It was about WMD's, period. Arguing that we should invade Iraq because Saddam was an evil dictator would have been a very hard sell, even post 9/11. That's why Bush said that Saddam was an immediate threat because of WMD's, and we had no choice but to take him out, right now. No amount of spinning from the Administration or Fox News that this was a war "to protect our freedom" or to "free the Iraqi's" does anything to change that fact.

    Are you so set up in your beliefs that you have to create a strawman that America only went to war because of WMDs?

    Straw man:As a rhetorical term, "straw man" describes a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a "straw man" argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous.

    It's no straw man to call a turkey a turkey, and WMD's was the justification for invading Iraq, end of story. Deal with it.

  127. IT outsourcing follows other outsourcing trends by Kodack · · Score: 1

    If you want to see where IT is heading then take a look at manufacturing. When was the last time you picked up a pair of sneakers that were made in the USA? How about a shirt or a childrens toy? I liked one persons comment about America becoming a services country. It's a true statement because we don't really manufacture a lot of what we use. Even American companies often build their products in other nations. Chrysler PT Cruisers are built in Mexico for instance. The only reason this hasn't happened as much in the automobile industry is because of unionization and tarrifs. Is it wrong to buy a Honda when its made in the USA at a Honda plant? The only industry I think I could confidently say is outsourcing proof is defense. That's is only because we spend more money on our military than just about any other nation on the planet. The fact is, that outsourcing will continue but that eventually the market will stabilize. And it's pretty true that the only people that really profit from outsourcing are the rich. After all, Nikes are still $50, that didn't change when they went over to cheap labor and $25 an item profits. It's funny to think that we live in a large country with billions of acres of undeveloped land, yet one of the highest costs of living we endure is housing costs. Hopefully as our work habits change and working remotely becomes more mainstream it will be possible to live in Wyoming where land can be had for a song and still make a good living. People go to cities for the jobs, but what happens when the jobs become de-centralized?

  128. Great candidate: Rochester, NY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in a suburb of Rochester, NY, home of Kodak, Xerox, Bausch & Lomb, Wegmans. My 3 bd. 1600 sq. ft. house cost me $86k (about 115% of annual salary). I have all the tech services available to a big city home (DSL, Digital Cable, Voice over Cable, etc.). Salaries are not small, except when compared to big cities. I performed an outsourcing to small town USA project for a company in NYC. Have to visit for an all-day onsite meeting? No problem, fly r/t on JetBlue for $110, leave at 6am and return home at 8pm. Other days, need to go to Boston? No problem, just a 6 hour drive. On the weekend, want to see the sights in Toronto? No problem, the ferry leaves from the Port of Rochester daily. However, with 7 universities and plenty of culture in town (George Eastman, Strong Museum) there is plenty of reason to stick around. Don't forget it was recently named the top minor-league sports market in the country (players almost as good for 1/4 the cost of tickets and hockey, basketball, baseball, lacrosse, soccer to choose from) and is one of the top golf markets around (30+ courses, annual LPGA and Nationwide tourney, occasional men's major and Ryder host at Oak Hill)