Intel Developing New Chip Designs in India

An anonymous person noted that "Intel Corporation, the $39-billion largest chip maker in the world, is developing new chip designs and processors at its India development centre to roll out the next generation of notebooks and servers, says a top company official."

Comments

Work Visa

[zenithcoolest]

Guess they dont have to worry about work visa issues in US :)

Re:Work Visa

[Anonymous Coward]

a great example of how capitalistic free open market with lots of competition can bite us in the ass.
sure its great to have competition, unfortunately one way to be competitive is to reduce your expenses(costs).
overseas is cheaper then the u.s., so everything is moved overseas to help reduce costs, increase profits,
and potentially be more competitive since you will have more flexibility in your prices.

goodbye american jobs, again. pretty soon this will happen to software development as well (been happening with
manufacturing for a few decades already), and its actually already started to have an impact on software development as well.

lets thank all our elected republicans for helping out the middle class families out there /end sarcasm. .|..

Re:Work Visa

[arivanov]

No, they have to worry about people faking expenses and simulating work that has not been done instead. At least this was the result of the previous Indian design effort. If it was not for unauthorised Israeli skunkworks that became the Core series Intel would have been in really deep shit now. I guess that they have not learned their lesson yet.

Re:Work Visa

[Anonymous Coward]

Anywhere other than Israel is fine by me.

Re:Work Visa

[megaditto]

Just shows you how dumb the current aproach to the immigration really is.

Instead of those Indian engineers living in the US, buying US-made goods, paying interest on US-issued loans, in short spending their money here to create jobs for carpenters, car manufacturers, teachers, doctors, garbage collectors, administrators, computer technicians, etc. etc.

Instead of that, our money goes to India, a contry with 50% literacy rate (and a nuclear stockpile), a country with no labor laws or labor movement, where it gets spend to creates sweatshops and child labor camps with forced abortions and whatnot.

Who wins? Not us, and not them, but a few chosen uber-rich assholes.

Re:Work Visa

[drinkypoo]

a great example of how capitalistic free open market with lots of competition can bite us in the ass.

You have to understand no one has ever seen free trade before. Assuming it ever existed, that must have been a long time ago. Today there are taxes, tariffs, government-granted monopolies, and government regulation, which are all contrary to Free (as in freedom) trade.

So the problem isn't the free market, it's two things: First, it's not really a free market; and second, the fact that we had even less free trade for a long, long time means that there will be a period of settling out that, yes, will likely be disastrous for the US. Our economy is based on trade not being Free, because it has been that way for generations. The longer a flawed system is perpetuated, the longer it takes to correct the situation.

Add to the top of this situation the fact that the US has put a lot of effort into keeping other nations down, and you have a serious problem for this country. If those nations had been allowed to grow, they might not be such a threat today; but because people there have nothing, they will work for little more than nothing...

Re:Work Visa

[monteneg]

The forced abortion issue is in China, not India. If you cannot tell the difference between the two most populated countries in the world then maybe you shouldn't be inserting you BS into the discussion. (your comments on immigration are perhaps OK however)

Re:Work Visa

[Z34107]

lets thank all our elected republicans for helping out the middle class families out there /end sarcasm. .|..

Traditionally, Republicans have been protectionist. Free-trade Republicans are a new breed. There are also free-trade Democrats.

a great example of how capitalistic free open market with lots of competition can bite us in the ass. sure its great to have competition, unfortunately one way to be competitive is to reduce your expenses(costs). overseas is cheaper then the u.s., so everything is moved overseas to help reduce costs, increase profits, and potentially be more competitive since you will have more flexibility in your prices.

This is a good thing.

goodbye american jobs

Not true. Granted, if an Indian engineer can design a circuit for $15 an hour and an American won't work for less than $50, the American is going to lose his job to the Indian.

However, free trade also creates jobs, especially in my home state of Wisconsin. With tariffs and other protections removed that make offsourcing and exporting possible, our dairy industry now sells a great deal overseas. This is especially true for the smaller farmers - they didn't have the infrastructure the corporate farms did to effectively deal with trade barriers; now, they have a market to sell to that they didn't before.

Trade works both ways. American engineers may lose jobs in the short run, but everyone who uses a computer will benefit from cheaper microprocessor prices. European farmers may lose jobs, but the EU gets cheaper milk. Although it sure sucks to be the Engineer, the offshoring, in effect, made the rest of the world richer - if everything costs less, you can buy more than you could before, even though you don't make any more money.

Free trade isn't as simple as "goodbye American jobs" - it's a choice between protecting a few industries or seeing a widespread reduction in the price of, well, everything.

Re:Work Visa

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So the problem isn't the free market, it's two things: First, it's not really a free market; and second, the fact that we had even less free trade for a long, long time means that there will be a period of settling out that, yes, will likely be disastrous for the US. Our economy is based on trade not being Free, because it has been that way for generations. The longer a flawed system is perpetuated, the longer it takes to correct the situation.

Good point, first of all. But secondly- if a system has worked for generations, why is it suddenly flawed now? And if it's not really flawed, why "fix" a working system?

Re:Work Visa

[Marxist Hacker 42]

However, free trade also creates jobs, especially in my home state of Wisconsin. With tariffs and other protections removed that make offsourcing and exporting possible, our dairy industry now sells a great deal overseas. This is especially true for the smaller farmers - they didn't have the infrastructure the corporate farms did to effectively deal with trade barriers; now, they have a market to sell to that they didn't before.

This seems to me to be a huge negative from a few different angles.
1. Energy usage- is it really a good thing to be selling parishable dairy products a half a world away at all, essentially creating huge multinational corporations, where millions of local dairies served before and created a fresher product for the mere reason that it didn't have to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to get to you?
2. If we're selling dairy overseas, what is happening to local dairies overseas? Are they losing their market to US Government subsidised dairy products?
3. And what happens to those overseas dairy farmers? Do they end up coming here to compete with us for land and resources (by coming here illegally, as the Oxacan Chicano Indians did when the same thing happened in Mexico) or by committing suicide (as farmers in India are doing)?

None of this seems very positive to me.

Re:Work Visa

[Anonymous Coward]

It is CHEAPER to have Indian engineers in India. Once they come to the US corporations would have to pay them US salaries. In that case they might as well hire Americans.

Re:Work Visa

[drinkypoo]

Good point, first of all. But secondly- if a system has worked for generations, why is it suddenly flawed now? And if it's not really flawed, why "fix" a working system?

Well, keep in mind that IANAEconomist but it's not that it's suddenly flawed, it's always been flawed. The flaw is that it creates artificial imbalances which cannot be perpetuated indefinitely.

There are two reasons for this. One is simply that differentials are where the greatest energy exists. You can see this principle of nature at work everywhere you look. Energy has the property that it affects things, which I realize is an understatement but is part of the logical flow of this conversation... But anyway, what I mean by this is that there will constantly be forces working against it, so that it takes a great deal of effort to maintain it. That effort typically takes the form of regulation - but one of the effects of regulation is that it always creates imbalances of its own, which leads to more regulation. It's a self-perpetuating system, which is why trying to change the system from within is typically fruitless. Just in order to enter the system, you become a part of it. The other reason is that if we really did successfully wall ourselves in, then the rest of the world would just find a way to function without us. This is pretty much what's happening now - e.g. China's currency is no longer based on ours.

So basically, it was a doomed system from the beginning - this doesn't mean it wasn't useful then, it allowed us unparalleled economic growth. But it should have been abandoned when it was no longer useful and started to work against us, and it was not discarded only because certain individuals in power could profit from the status quo.

The attitude that you can get everything you want without helping others is a ridiculous one. The more you have, and the less others have, the more motivated they are to take away what you have. If you help yourself by helping others, then there is little reason for them to try to deprive you of anything. This has never been proven on a global scale because it has never been tried on a global scale.

Re:Work Visa

[linuxghoul]

Way to go Mate!! Hear hear for the misinformation.

In India, a few categories of business expense reimbursements (called "fringe benefits" under the India Tax law) paid by employer to employee are tax exempt. These include things like business related travel expenses, costs associated with having a telephone at home, conveyance, and over-the-counter medicine, house rent etc. Each category has an amount limit, but more importantly, they employee is supposed to submit receipts of these expenses to the employer. The employer is supposed to ensure no foul play and then reimburse the employee the specified amount. This is reported as income for the employee, but, come tax time, it can be excluded from tax calculations as long as the employer certifies in the F16 (the Indian equivalent of the W2) that the expense was truly incurred.

These "benefits" are usually considered part of the pay package of an employee. So if I have an entitlement to Rs 10000 per year as "over the counter medicine" allowance, I can submit bills for the same and get the amount paid to me as Tax free. The kicker is this: Even if I dont submit the bills, the amount of Rs 10000 will still be paid to me at the end of the year! The difference would be that this amount would now be taxed as regular salary.

So essentially, either way, the employer pays out the same amount, and the employee recieves the same amount from the employer; fake receipts or not. The fake receipts are essentially a "tax fraud". And thats why Intel fired these employees. The Tax authorities in India depend on the employer to do due diligence as far as these benefit claims are concerned. So by submiting fake bills to Intel, the employees are essentially creating a legal liability for Intel. Its a different matter that such fake bills are a very common practice in India. Hopefully this will change with the stance taken by Intel and other MNCs recently.

This is a very good move by Intel (though maybe a bit extreme: an initial warning/fine and then firing may have been better). But this has nothing to do with capabilities of the people fired, or their work ethics. They DID NOT try to defraud Intel: they tried to commit a Tax fraud. I am not even sure where the "simulating work" part came from.

-G2

Re:Work Visa

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Well, keep in mind that IANAEconomist but it's not that it's suddenly flawed, it's always been flawed. The flaw is that it creates artificial imbalances which cannot be perpetuated indefinitely.

And where is our evidence for that? If the artificial *balances* have been balanced enough to work for generations, what makes them *unbalanced* now?

There are two reasons for this. One is simply that differentials are where the greatest energy exists. You can see this principle of nature at work everywhere you look. Energy has the property that it affects things, which I realize is an understatement but is part of the logical flow of this conversation... But anyway, what I mean by this is that there will constantly be forces working against it, so that it takes a great deal of effort to maintain it. That effort typically takes the form of regulation - but one of the effects of regulation is that it always creates imbalances of its own, which leads to more regulation. It's a self-perpetuating system, which is why trying to change the system from within is typically fruitless. Just in order to enter the system, you become a part of it. The other reason is that if we really did successfully wall ourselves in, then the rest of the world would just find a way to function without us. This is pretty much what's happening now - e.g. China's currency is no longer based on ours.

This to me is a good thing- each culture needs to learn to function within the budget of their own natural resources, that is, without us. Trade should be limited, and then only between surplusses so that you don't harm those within your culture merely for profit.

So basically, it was a doomed system from the beginning - this doesn't mean it wasn't useful then, it allowed us unparalleled economic growth. But it should have been abandoned when it was no longer useful and started to work against us, and it was not discarded only because certain individuals in power could profit from the status quo.

But the real point is that it WAS working for us- protectionism was working for quite a large number of generations. Insisting that it suddenly wasn't working is quite a shock to the system.

The attitude that you can get everything you want without helping others is a ridiculous one. The more you have, and the less others have, the more motivated they are to take away what you have. If you help yourself by helping others, then there is little reason for them to try to deprive you of anything. This has never been proven on a global scale because it has never been tried on a global scale.

Why not just be satisfied with what you NEED rather than what you WANT, and limit your population to fit within the carrying capacity of your territory?

Re:Work Visa

[drinkypoo]

Why not just be satisfied with what you NEED rather than what you WANT, and limit your population to fit within the carrying capacity of your territory?

Two reasons: One, we're human. We want more than what we need. Two, there are external forces. Others will come into your territory, etc.

There's no reason not to have more than what you need. There is reason not to have more than the planet to sustain. So I Guess there could be a reason - if we're over our carrying capacity. But then the only solutions can be to increase level of technology (to increase carrying capacity) or to reduce population...

Re:Work Visa

[Marxist Hacker 42]

We've been over our carrying capacity since October 9.

And yes, we need to reduce population. The fairest way to do so would be to end international trade.

Re:Work Visa

[be-fan]

But secondly- if a system has worked for generations, why is it suddenly flawed now?

It's a system that works (albiet suboptimally in terms of generating new wealth), as long as our competitors, namely Europe, don't free up their economies. As the EU gets stronger, our only options are to follow suit, or be left behind anyway.

Don't get things wrong. The US still has the most solid and fastest growing (in absolute terms) economy in the world. It'll take a lot of unseat us from first place. But, if we can't adapt to changing conditions, then decades from now we may look on in envy as we are relegated to "middle of the road" status.

Re:Work Visa

[chiller2]

"if everything costs less, you can buy more than you could before, even though you don't make any more money."

If you lost your job to outsourcing and there are no equivalent jobs you don't have any money. If you take a lower paying job, assuming you can beat the increased competition (because it's an easier job) you have less money to spend. In either case, one cannot sustain their purchasing power so really, you're not richer. On the other hand, your old boss who sold you out is raking in the cash.

When costs of living equal out in every country in the world things will be different, but how likely is that to happen?

Re:Work Visa

[be-fan]

But the real point is that it WAS working for us- protectionism was working for quite a large number of generations. Insisting that it suddenly wasn't working is quite a shock to the system.

Actually, if you look at American economic propsperity, it's highly correlated with the breaking down of trade barriers.

That free trade makes you wealthier overall is something that almost nobody who knows what they're talking about (economists) disagrees with. It's been blatently evident for literally hundreds of years in the history of Europe.

The concerns that are brought up regarding free trade are better targetted at social policy. Now, a lot of pro-protectionists don't like talking about social policy, because they see it as a hand-out. But the truth of the matter is that protectionism is just another hand-out. If our consumers pay several times as much for a product just to keep Americans employed, how is that different from just buying the product more cheaply and contributing the difference to job-retraining programs? Either way, society is burdened with the welfare of a particular worker, it's just that in the latter case, there is no pretense about it.

Re:Work Visa

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Ok, I'll answer this backwards:

Don't get things wrong. The US still has the most solid and fastest growing (in absolute terms) economy in the world. It'll take a lot of unseat us from first place. But, if we can't adapt to changing conditions, then decades from now we may look on in envy as we are relegated to "middle of the road" status.

RTFA- we're already being regulated to middle of the road status. This shouldn't worry us very much, as long as our internal economy stays strong. It's when our internal economy is linked to the outside, through foreign trade, that we need to worry. What does it matter if we're the fastest or slowest growing economy, as long as OUR citizens still have jobs and are able to raise their families?

It's a system that works (albiet suboptimally in terms of generating new wealth), as long as our competitors, namely Europe, don't free up their economies. As the EU gets stronger, our only options are to follow suit, or be left behind anyway.

Why should we care what they do? Also, the EU isn't going to be anybody's competitor economically soon- they waste too much time with vacations and spend too much on socialized health care. Our real competitors are in the second world- India and China- and soon to be in the third world as Africa and S. America start investing in infrastructure.

However, if access to OUR market is protected, there still isn't any problem. It's only when we open up our market to outside competition, that a problem exists.

Re:Work Visa

[torokun]

Yes, we should sell more milk and do less processor design work. Great idea.

These things are not the same.

Re:Work Visa

[drinkypoo]

Estimates of carrying capacity vary from below one billion to over 20 billion. Estimating carrying capacity is not an exact science. I refuse to use some arbitrary date as the day when we began to be fucked. Besides, carrying capacity varies widely with technological development and human attitude, which is not fixed from situation to situation.

Re:Work Visa

[be-fan]

Your argument is illogical. Free trade promotes industrialization and economic development. Economic development discourages rapid population growth.

It's easy to see why. If you're a subsistence farmer, having more children is beneficial, because children can work on the farm and increase production. If you consider a country where most of the population is engaged in subsistence farming, then you can see the reasons for rapid population growth. On the other hand, if you work on a factory or in a service job, having more children is a liability. They can't contribute to your production, and you have to feed, cloathe, and care for them.

Ending international trade would have the effect of creating more farmers, not just in developing nations, but in developed nations. That would cause birth rates to increase world-wide.

Re:Work Visa

[mnmn]

Wow. I knew there were undertones in the heading.

Why mention India? Intel works in many countries. Ever heard of Intel discovers @@#$@# in Canada? Or the UK or whatever?

Intel researches new chip (with absolutely no further info provided on the chip) in India!!! (OMG! Hate them hate them!)

Slashdot, the geek CNN. Makes many decisionmakers take sides of companies instead of just buying the quality product, think of the hatred for Microsoft it generates usually in an unobjective way. Intel is far from the only company researching anything outside of the USA.

Re:Work Visa

[be-fan]

You're talking about harm to a small group of people offset against the benefit to a larger group of people. Consider the fact that with American farmers exporting cheap milk around the world, people in countries that aren't amenable to raising large numbers of cattle can now increase their consumption of milk. Wheras thousands of local dairy farmers in one place may lose jobs, potentially millions of children in other places may improve a critical part of their diet.

Re:Work Visa

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Actually, if you look at American economic propsperity, it's highly correlated with the breaking down of trade barriers.

True, but up until 1960 or so, the method of doing so was by creating new States and Protected Territories- that is, by subverting new lands to American Law. This worked well because it insured that the minimum wage would be a federal minimum regardless of where you were- the Philipines, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Hawaii, the Lower 48, or Alaska. It's when we started breaking down trade barriers *without* exporting our labor and industry regulations that we started having trade deficits- and since 1976 we haven't had a single trade surplus.

That free trade makes you wealthier overall is something that almost nobody who knows what they're talking about (economists) disagrees with.

I personally think the last 30 years have pretty much proven that economists don't know what they're talking about with respect to free trade.

It's been blatently evident for literally hundreds of years in the history of Europe.

No it hasn't- pretty much all wealth generation in the first world is protected by regulations and tariffs of various sorts. Without regulation you can't even form a corporation.

The concerns that are brought up regarding free trade are better targetted at social policy. Now, a lot of pro-protectionists don't like talking about social policy, because they see it as a hand-out. But the truth of the matter is that protectionism is just another hand-out. If our consumers pay several times as much for a product just to keep Americans employed, how is that different from just buying the product more cheaply and contributing the difference to job-retraining programs? Either way, society is burdened with the welfare of a particular worker, it's just that in the latter case, there is no pretense about it.

Here's the difference: Human dignity. If the extra price is hidden, the worker feels useful. If the extra price is just charity, the worker feels worthless.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the real numbers show that America has been tossing away approximately 10% of it's gross domestic product in trade imbalances for the past 30 years of so-called "breaking down trade barriers". Either free trade simply does not work, or the imbalance wouldn't have appeared. The data proves the economists wrong. Pretending to ignore the falling standard of living in the United States doesn't help either.

Re:Work Visa

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Estimates of carrying capacity vary from below one billion to over 20 billion. Estimating carrying capacity is not an exact science. I refuse to use some arbitrary date as the day when we began to be fucked. Besides, carrying capacity varies widely with technological development and human attitude, which is not fixed from situation to situation.

In this case they're using natural resource generation vs natural resource usage- which is right now at about 130% of resource generation. Yes, technology can change that somewhat- but there are some very hard limits.

Re:Work Visa

[Anonymous Coward]

Free trade while making the overall pie bigger says nothing about the size of the slices. Everyone always touts free trade but no one ever mentions Pareto efficiency. Shouldn't the dairy farmer compensate the engineer?

Re:Work Visa

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Your argument is illogical. Free trade promotes industrialization

Correct

and economic development.

Incorrect. Industrialization and economic development are not always linked, and the correlation is sometimes negative.

Economic development discourages rapid population growth.

No, it doesn't. At least, not always. Industrialization discourages rapid population growth it is true, but that's mainly due to polution and less time for family.

It's easy to see why. If you're a subsistence farmer, having more children is beneficial, because children can work on the farm and increase production. If you consider a country where most of the population is engaged in subsistence farming, then you can see the reasons for rapid population growth. On the other hand, if you work on a factory or in a service job, having more children is a liability. They can't contribute to your production, and you have to feed, cloathe, and care for them.

True, but that's industrialization- not economic development.

Ending international trade would have the effect of creating more farmers, not just in developing nations, but in developed nations. That would cause birth rates to increase world-wide.

Also not entirely correct- international trade is not the only reason for industrialization, and industrialization by itself creates less need for farmers, because we can use less labor intensive methods to create the same output.

Re:Work Visa

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You're talking about harm to a small group of people offset against the benefit to a larger group of people.

Actually, other way around- I'm saying that free trade benefits a small group of people to the detriment of the larger group of people.

Consider the fact that with American farmers exporting cheap milk around the world, people in countries that aren't amenable to raising large numbers of cattle can now increase their consumption of milk.

And exactly what countries do you think aren't amenable to raising lare numbers of cattle? I'll give you a hint- anyplace that has a climate temperate enough for human beings is temperate enough for cattle.

Wheras thousands of local dairy farmers in one place may lose jobs, potentially millions of children in other places may improve a critical part of their diet.

Wouldn't it be better just to export the cows, thus providing potentially millions of the parents of those children with jobs?

Re:Work Visa

[be-fan]

RTFA- we're already being regulated to middle of the road status.

TFA doesn't say anything along these lines, and its not a viewpoint that is bourne out by the statistics.

What does it matter if we're the fastest or slowest growing economy, as long as OUR citizens still have jobs and are able to raise their families?

Citizens as a whole, or specific citizens? Because in this era of free trade, prosperity and unemployement are pretty much lower than they've ever been.

Why should we care what they do?

Because the standard of living to which Americans are accustomed is largely dependent on our being at the top. How long do you think we can get away with using 1/4 the world's energy when we don't have the intellectual, economic, and military capability to back it up?

Also, the EU isn't going to be anybody's competitor economically soon- they waste too much time with vacations and spend too much on socialized health care.

Are you trolling? The EU now has the largest economy in the world. Their GDP growth rate is generally lower than ours, but in the last few years has been nipping at our heels certain quarters. The Euro is very strong, and is looking increasingly attractive as a replacement for dollars in the international investment market. They've still got a long way to go in terms of technological competitiveness (in most respects, American research is still the best in the world), but that's the kind of thing that doesn't last forever.

Even if we don't slow down, your children might live in a world where the EU has replaced the US as top dog. If we do, they might even live in a world where China and the EU have both overshadowed the US.

However, if access to OUR market is protected, there still isn't any problem. It's only when we open up our market to outside competition, that a problem exists.

What research backs this up?

Re:Work Visa

[be-fan]

True, but up until 1960 or so, the method of doing so was by creating new States and Protected Territories- that is, by subverting new lands to American Law.

This is a crackpot theory.

It's when we started breaking down trade barriers *without* exporting our labor and industry regulations that we started having trade deficits- and since 1976 we haven't had a single trade surplus.

I don't think you really understand what a trade deficit implies. Grab an econ textbook and look up "balance of payments".

I personally think the last 30 years have pretty much proven that economists don't know what they're talking about with respect to free trade.

Yes, the people who spend their lives studying this topic should bow to your crackpot theories.

No it hasn't- pretty much all wealth generation in the first world is protected by regulations and tariffs of various sorts. Without regulation you can't even form a corporation.

Regulations, when used to maintain the existence of free market, are useful. Tarrifs are not. The history of economic development in Europe is correlated with the breaking down of tarrifs. Major growth came when countries like France and England broke down internal trade barriers. Another major spurt of growth came when these countries started industrializing and trading with each other. Yet another major spurt of growth has come recently with the move to a unified European economy.

Here's the difference: Human dignity. If the extra price is hidden, the worker feels useful. If the extra price is just charity, the worker feels worthless.

What dignity is there in living a lie?

However, that doesn't change the fact that the real numbers show that America has been tossing away approximately 10% of it's gross domestic product in trade imbalances for the past 30 years of so-called "breaking down trade barriers".

You can't "toss" anything out due to trade imbalances. Really, it's just as bad as saying "the 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes evolution". It's based on a misunderstanding of the theories involved.

Trade imbalances are cash imbalances, not value imbalances. When you have a $1tn trade deficit, you pay out $1tn more in cash than you take in. However, you're not any poorer, because you've $1tn worth of goods to offset that. It's just like if you had $1m, then bought a house with it. You're not any poorer, your net worth is still $1m.

Pretending to ignore the falling standard of living in the United States doesn't help either.

And where is this evidence of a falling standard of living in the US? Because standard indices don't agree with your characteriziation.

Re:Work Visa

[be-fan]

And exactly what countries do you think aren't amenable to raising lare numbers of cattle? I'll give you a hint- anyplace that has a climate temperate enough for human beings is temperate enough for cattle.

Hint: Any place that doesn't have a lot of grassland to spare. Raising cattle is tremendously land-intensive. Countries in eastern Europe often don't have a lot of grassland to begin with, and countries like Great Britain and Japan don't have a lot of unindustrialized land, period.

Re:Work Visa

[Marxist Hacker 42]

TFA doesn't say anything along these lines, and its not a viewpoint that is bourne out by the statistics.

A second world nation is now innovating. If you can't understand the implication of that, it's little wonder you believe the economists when they actively lie to you.

Citizens as a whole, or specific citizens? Because in this era of free trade, prosperity and unemployement are pretty much lower than they've ever been.

During WWII, unemployment was zero. I sumbit the same should be for the GWOT. But right now, you can't trust numbers coming out of the Department of Labor- they've been ordered to move unemployed people to "disabled" status to keep the numbers low and the apparent prosperity high.

Because the standard of living to which Americans are accustomed is largely dependent on our being at the top. How long do you think we can get away with using 1/4 the world's energy when we don't have the intellectual, economic, and military capability to back it up?

If we started energy farming, we could essentially replace that 1/4th of the world's energy entirely with domestic production, and then all we'd need to do is close the borders.

Are you trolling? The EU now has the largest economy in the world. Their GDP growth rate is generally lower than ours, but in the last few years has been nipping at our heels certain quarters.

If you like it so much, why don't you move back there? Europe sucks- it's a horrid place to live.

The Euro is very strong, and is looking increasingly attractive as a replacement for dollars in the international investment market.

Good, then maybe we could get back to American dollars for Americans Only.

They've still got a long way to go in terms of technological competitiveness (in most respects, American research is still the best in the world), but that's the kind of thing that doesn't last forever.

Maybe when they upgrade their sewer systems they'll be better off...but right now I wouldn't drink the water there.

Even if we don't slow down, your children might live in a world where the EU has replaced the US as top dog. If we do, they might even live in a world where China and the EU have both overshadowed the US.

As long as they don't come here, that would be fine with me. Maybe then they'll have an immigration problem instead of us.

What research backs this up?

30 years worth of trade deficits. That and the whole mess of international communism that is the WTO. Economics is simpler when it is small scale- and more human when you know who you are buying from personally (and can punch them in the nose if they cheat you).

Re:Work Visa

[Marxist Hacker 42]

This is a crackpot theory.

No, in fact it isn't- it explains why comparative advantage is a crackpot theory and only absolute advantage exists in today's "free trade" debacle.

I don't think you really understand what a trade deficit implies. Grab an econ textbook and look up "balance of payments".

A trade deficit implies that an absolute advantage exists due to disparity of labor laws. And yes, my dear little naive student, balance of payments is what it really is about.

Yes, the people who spend their lives studying this topic should bow to your crackpot theories.

You mean the people who have spent their lives following the crackpot theories of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, both of whom were in pay to the mercantilists to give them political power over everybody else?

What dignity is there in living a lie?

What lie is there in paying somebody for work done? None that I can see. Rather, the lie is in paying somebody less than the work is worth.

You can't "toss" anything out due to trade imbalances.

It's a waste of time and resources- we'd be better off if the bankers and economists were actually working for a living.

Really, it's just as bad as saying "the 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes evolution". It's based on a misunderstanding of the theories involved.

The theories involved in both cases are nonsense anyway- just an attempt to give political power to a given minority.

Trade imbalances are cash imbalances, not value imbalances. When you have a $1tn trade deficit, you pay out $1tn more in cash than you take in. However, you're not any poorer, because you've $1tn worth of goods to offset that. It's just like if you had $1m, then bought a house with it. You're not any poorer, your net worth is still $1m.

And yet you've just thrown $1tn worth of your own citizens out of work. That is a net loss as far as I'm concerned- because the purpose of the economy is not to gather material wealth, it's to provide your citizens with a living. Anything that can be made here should be made here, as close to the consumer as possible, to provide the most people possible with jobs. Same with India and China- they should be creating their OWN economy instead of parasiting onto us.

And where is this evidence of a falling standard of living in the US?

The falling value of the dollar and the widening gap between the rich and the poor (especially since the rich don't act like citizens, but that's another argument).

Because standard indices don't agree with your characteriziation.

The "standard indices" have been fakes since the Reagan Administration started monkeying with the equations. They can not be trusted.

Re:Work Visa

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Hint: Any place that doesn't have a lot of grassland to spare.

There are forms of cattle that don't eat grass.

Raising cattle is tremendously land-intensive. Countries in eastern Europe often don't have a lot of grassland to begin with, and countries like Great Britain and Japan don't have a lot of unindustrialized land, period.

So maybe they need to deindustrialize?

Re:Work Visa

[mudeth]

Instead of that, our money goes to India, a contry with 50% literacy rate (and a nuclear stockpile), a country with no labor laws or labor movement, where it gets spend to creates sweatshops and child labor camps with forced abortions and whatnot.

You're only displaying your prejudice and ignorance when you say that. In my line of work, I lose jobs to American musicians staying here. Ultimately, it's a matter of making economic sense (I include quality as a factor in this). If it won't make economic sense, it won't come here, and if the quality of products from here isn't good, outsourcing won't survive. If you're so sure that Indian engineers are incompetent, you don't have to worry. The outsourcing market will collapse, and you'll get your jobs back.

Just like in any country, we have good engineers, and we have bad engineers. Intel will have the same standard, good or bad, in India that it does in the States.

Re:Work Visa

[drinkypoo]

True, but up until 1960 or so, the method of doing so was by creating new States and Protected Territories- that is, by subverting new lands to American Law.

This is a crackpot theory.

Not at all. The history of the USA is the history of the subjugation of foreign peoples. Our earliest military actions largely involve "protecting our interests" during coups and the like, and shelling towns to convince foreign governments to sell their fruit to the United Fruit Conglomerate (IIRC, that's what "UFC" expanded to back then, instead of ultimate fighting championship.)

I personally think the last 30 years have pretty much proven that economists don't know what they're talking about with respect to free trade.

Yes, the people who spend their lives studying this topic should bow to your crackpot theories.

Again, I personally believe that we've never seen free trade. In reality we do not have free trade, there are tons of laws and regulations that govern trade. Simply making trade possible with various nations does not equal free trade.

Perhaps a truly free trade system would work. I don't know. I suspect that we shall not find out within a normal human lifetime of now, and much longer besides.

However, you're not any poorer, because you've $1tn worth of goods to offset that. It's just like if you had $1m, then bought a house with it. You're not any poorer, your net worth is still $1m.

Except that the value of those goods depreciates faster than inflation will do to the money alone. Especially when it's a bunch of cheap chinese crap.

Pretending to ignore the falling standard of living in the United States doesn't help either.

And where is this evidence of a falling standard of living in the US? Because standard indices don't agree with your characteriziation.

Not if they're based on the averages; the richest people continue to get richer, but the poor are getting poorer, as per usual. The minimum wage (and wages in general) hasn't/haven't kept up with inflation for over a decade. If you think that doesn't translate into a falling standard of life, think again. The situation is actually worst where there is the most population, which is to say urban New York and anywhere in California - California's population is swinging rapidly non-native because people who are born here can't afford to live here! And again, keep in mind that this is the most populous state.

Re:Work Visa

[muckdog]

I'm basically for free trade myself. If all countries had similar labor laws, free trade would be ideal. However things like worker safty, enviromental laws, child labor laws, etc are all good but cost money. The biggest flaw in free trade is that it rewards the country the exploits it citizens the most in order to produce the cheapest products. Oh, I'll continue to use firefox thank you. Enjoy your updated bug ridden IE7

Re:Work Visa

[megaditto]

Don't put words in my mouth. I am not worried about Indian competence. This issue has nothing to do with relative intelligence or abilities (or looks). What I am worried about is that it costs much less to hire an engineer in India because the rest of the population is piss-poor for reasons I listed.

I am worried that it is cheaper to hire a worker in a Communist country because s/he is a political prisoner at a labor camp.

I am worried that it is cheaper to hire a 12 year old child that does not need to waste time on reading lessons, and who is starved just enough to keep them motivated, and whose young body can handle the industrial toxins just long enough (and whose future funeral the Company would not have to pay for)

There are two ways of leveling the field: One is to lower the standard for everybody by getting rid of our labor laws, minimum wage, insurance, etc. here at home... with the result being 50% literacy rate, life expectancy of 38, and no Freedom to speak of, but huge payoffs to the chosen few.

The other way is to require any company and country wishing to do business with the United States to support civil rights (to Life, Liberty, etc.), allow unions, and pay a fair wage.

Re:Work Visa

[Z34107]

This seems to me to be a huge negative from a few different angles. 1. Energy usage- is it really a good thing to be selling parishable dairy products a half a world away at all, essentially creating huge multinational corporations, where millions of local dairies served before and created a fresher product for the mere reason that it didn't have to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to get to you? 2. If we're selling dairy overseas, what is happening to local dairies overseas? Are they losing their market to US Government subsidised dairy products? 3. And what happens to those overseas dairy farmers? Do they end up coming here to compete with us for land and resources (by coming here illegally, as the Oxacan Chicano Indians did when the same thing happened in Mexico) or by committing suicide (as farmers in India are doing)?

1. If energy was a problem, it would be more expensive to buy imported perishables than it would be to make them yourself. Besides, we have freezers and pasteurization.
2. Subsidizations are a barrier to free trade, and as long as they exist, trade isn't "free." This transcends the example of the few being replaced by those who can do their jobs more efficiently. The flip side with subisides is that now the US government is paying to make foreign dairy cheaper. But, this is a problem with subisides and trade barriers, not with free trade.
3. People jumped out of buildings during the stock crash that began the Great Depression, but that neither makes buildings nor stock exchanges "bad." India is suffering from years of draconian central planning and lack of access to education and other staples Americans take for granted. Although the farmer there commits suicide because his market has dried up, that means millions of others are no longer starving because their food is cheaper. The farmer is always free to find other work - and if there isn't any, that seems to be a problem with India and not trade.

4. Free trade in and of itself is neither good nor bad - there are tradeoffs (no pun intended) and winners and losers. Fact is that everyone is a consumer, and consumers tend to benefit most from free trade, while a country's least efficient industries tend to get the chopping block. Decide for yourself whether or not that's fair.

Re:Work Visa

[Z34107]

Raising cattle is tremendously land-intensive. Countries in eastern Europe often don't have a lot of grassland to begin with, and countries like Great Britain and Japan don't have a lot of unindustrialized land, period. So maybe they need to deindustrialize?

So, Britain and Japan should raze all their factories to the ground and destroy millions of blue-collar jobs, so that a few farmers could have grass for cows that could be purchased elsewhere for cheaper?

Are you a Marxist Hacker?

Re:Work Visa

[Z34107]

Consumers in general are richer - even though they don't have "more money" - because everything is cheaper. The same amount of currency buys more than it did before.

Jobs will be lost in the country's least efficient and poorest performing industries, and that sure does blow for the newly unemployed. However, these losses are usually paired with gains in the country's most efficient industries, because in truly free trade they now have a new market to sell their products. It's specialization and division of labor, but on a global scale.

And, a country doesn't need an absolute advantage in order for trade to be successful - just a relative advantage. Let me conjure a trite example to explaion what this means:

Country ABC can produce a Linux computer for $150 and a plastic widget for $200. The impoverished, imaginary nation of Canada lacks the technology enjoyed by Country ABC, and so it costs them $600 to produce the same Linux box and $400 for a plastic widget.

You would think that Country ABC has little to gain from trading with Canada, because it would produce everything Canada can for less - it has an absolute advantage in both computers and widgets.

The truth is that this doesn't matter. Both ABC and Canada can produce a limited number of goods each month because of the finite amount of factories and workers, and silly things like the laws of physics. If both Canada and ABC can devote their factories to making 5 computers, 5 widgets, or some combination thereof, they can benefit by trading with each other. If ABC trades 5 $150 computers for 5 of Canada's widgets, ABC saved $250 dollars over producing the widgets themselves.

Likewise, Canada saved money. They traded something that cost them $400 to produce (the widget) for objects that would have cost them $600 to produce. Although ABC saved $250 through trade, Canada saved $1000 through trade.

Granted, this is a stupidly simple, asinine, and idealized example - but the point is that real, tangible wealth is created through trade. Trade that does happen, regardless of whether it is "free" or not, is advantageous to both parties - otherwise, the other party wouldn't give up what they had. And as long as Country ABC doesn't do something silly like erect tariffs, taxes, or subsidies, this idealized situation pretty much plays out.

Re:Work Visa

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yes- but more a distributist nowadays. Economics and communism are much easier when human beings are organized into tribes and villages instead of states and nations.

Re:Work Visa

[Marxist Hacker 42]

1 Freezing and pasteurization are now known to destroy some of the food value of dairy products.

2. The WTO calls this free trade- despite the complaints of second and third world nations that their entire local agricultural industry is being destroyed by subsidies.

3. I consider both tall buildings and cities to be bad, and stock exchanges to be basically fraud. All three of these contribute to anonymous capitalism where the end consumer does not know the manufacturer of the goods they consume, thus destroying a vital human relationship that is neccessary to keeping markets fair.

4. Not everybody is a consumer- different people play different roles to different degrees in society, and if you aren't a worker you're usually not allowed to be a consumer either (due to lack of funds to be a consumer). That's why the eternal search for efficiency and profit is a bad thing overall.

Re:Work Visa

[Z34107]

• Neither of these destroy any significant amount of value - shipping them is still profitable.
• The WTO is a start, but generally full of crap. African markets, and markets that would otherwise be open to Africa and have the potential to start a renaissance of sorts are made inaccessible by them. Free trade - the lack of subsidies - would help, not hurt.
• A "stock exchange" is just a place where people gather to sell shares of ownership in a company. You can have a "stock exchange" in the mens room if you feel like selling paper certificates to a person there. No "human relationship" is required to keep markets "fair" - prices are functions of supply and demand, which are equitable where free markets and free trade permit adequate competition.
• Everyone is a consumer. Even the penniless are consumers of public goods, such as a city's roads and sidewalks by living in a metropolis, or of national defense by living in a country with a military. The search for efficiency is good and necessary - efficiency/productivity is the sole long-term determinant of our standard of living. Profit is what motivates people to do something job-creating with their money instead of just keeping it in a bank. With either, we have nothing.

Re:Work Visa

[bagsc]

You have to understand no one has ever seen free trade before.

Firstly, IAAEconomist, though I don't do economic history...

While the powers that be commend your faith in their absolute control, free trade has existed as more of a rule than an exception in human history. Tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade need to be enforced, requiring significant political control. There was long distance trade tens of thousands of years ago, and I'm fairly sure there weren't tariffs back then.

Laws are created and then imposed - lawlessness is the default state. Coke can't enforce their monopoly over their trademark in many places, for example parts of India where they recently found pesticides in "Coke" products. Rumor has it there are even copyright violating files on the Internet! Something like 90%?

Physical security has traditionally been the limiting factor of trade - not legal barriers. Toll roads were invented to protect merchants from highwaymen. Pirates are still a major threat today, off the Horn of Africa and around Indonesia. Often, the only thing to scare them away are the US Navy, which polices trade routes important to us.

The "Wild West" is common, even in the 21st century world. Indonesia doesn't really enforce their trade relations with Singapore - two relevent nations whose trade is estimated by different measures as somewhere between $2 and $8 Billion per year. That $6 billion gap is the difference between "official" and the realistic estimate is the smuggling. Just 75%.

Back in the old days, the Phoenicians and Greeks had trade empires, basically because they invented naval trade. No restrictions but fate. Which means you paid the priests to make sure nothing bad happened...

For most of Roman times, the only "taxes" on trade were more or less whatever the local prefect decided he wanted you to pay. No tariffs. Today, that same "tax" regimen is enforced in a lot more places than you'd think. Later, Diocletian introduced the concept of a periodic tax instead of taking what they wanted when they wanted it.

In 1789, the biggest tariff in the US was 10%, which was probably less than the cost of port fees, longshoremen and porters to break bulk. But it was only really practical to enforce in major ports, even though it was the biggest (almost only) source of government revenue. For all intents and purposes, that's free trade.

Much of the way you view the world is a result of when and where you live. Places like South Africa or Columbia or Sri Lanka today are more concerned with stopping the floods of murders in their streets than worrying about catching tax dodgers or smugglers. Sadly, (unless you're a smuggler) that is the norm on earth today.

Re:Work Visa

[Marxist Hacker 42]

1. Only if you measure value by money alone- I measure it by the full chemical contents of the product involved. By that measure, significant value is being destroyed to make a profit.

2. I'm fine with a lack of subsidies- I'm not fine with allowing access to foreign markets.

3. Selling "ownership" in a company is exactly the fraud I'm refering to. We are stewards and custodians of what we have, not owners.

4. If you can't pay for it, you're not a consumer by capitalist standards; you're just so much meat to be used and thrown away.

Re:Work Visa

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a SMUCK! The "faking" expenses BS was encouraged by managers there to circumvent taxes. Read the whole story and not just the headlines AHOLE. Isreali skunkworks huh. Me thinks Mel Gibson was right!

Processors

[kevin_conaway]

So can we look forward to the new Intel Ganges, Hoogly and Yamuna processors?

Re:Processors

[blueZhift]

So can we look forward to the new Intel Ganges, Hoogly and Yamuna processors?

Well actually, I think they are just laying the ground work for future Indian companies that will compete with them in the processor sector. I'm not saying that this is bad, just that Intel, and others, are not going to be able to leverage low wages indefinitely and they may well be opening the vault of their family jewels. Someday in the not too distant future, the PC may have Ganges Inside!

Re:Processors

[Dystopian Rebel]

Rumour has it the marketing decal on computers with these CPUs will say "India Inside".

Re:Processors

[subodhg]

Just for information, Ganges and Hoogli ( Hugli ) are not different rivers though. Hugli is just a subsidiary of Ganges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Hooghly

Re:Processors

[mnmn]

Presented by (Blue + Brown) Dark Purple guys!

And I can crack that joke because I'm from Pakistan.

Re:Processors

[dslbrian]

Well actually, I think they are just laying the ground work for future Indian companies that will compete with them in the processor sector. I'm not saying that this is bad, just that Intel, and others, are not going to be able to leverage low wages indefinitely and they may well be opening the vault of their family jewels.

This is exactly what they have managed to do. Intel has effectively exported its best IP to its future competitors. Of course with their myopic viewpoint they only see the short-term benefit, and don't see the long-term potential problem they have created for themselves. Typical outsourcing mentality...

Quality?

[iotaborg]

Not to be pessimistic, but I question the quality of Intel's development in the India branch. In India, especially engineers in the big cities, there is a tremendous amount of hiring going on. People do not stay at one job for too long, and there is a lot of turnover. In addition, the Intel branch will be mostly getting the 'B' class engineers, as the 'A' class are already in the US! I think a lot has to stabilize before we will see any fruits in development areas from India.

Re:Quality?

[aadvancedGIR]

Intel is unfortunately already used to turnover.
If a corp fires ten thousands experienced people because they are too expensive, I don't think they really care getting even F grade ex web developers instead as long as they are dirt cheap.

Re:Quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they really care getting even F grade ex web developers instead as long as they are dirt cheap.

Intel doesn't mind maying for quality people. A team of 10k $20 a year developers can't outproduce a $125,000 a year developer. But if 3 $25k a year developers can, why should they spend an extra $50k per year to fulfill your social agenda?

Re:Quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, people are not happy when foreigners get H1 visas and come to work here.

People are not happy when companies set up shop there so they (damn foreigners) don't have to come here. Obviously, if its not America or American, it has to be inferior. And obviously, why would any talented Indian chose to live and work in India?

All Indians in India are just F class engineers and the good ones are already here. Mind you, we still hate them, but still, we have the best ones.

Re:Quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel doesn't mind maying for quality people. A team of 10k $20 a year developers can't outproduce a $125,000 a year developer. But if 3 $25k a year developers can, why should they spend an extra $50k per year to fulfill your social agenda?

Because Intel benefits from the US taxes he and other American pay, while paying relatively little in taxes itself. If they don't want to hire Americans, fine. They can get out and stay out.

Re:Quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup! I work for Intel, and they have already tried this once. The processor design was pretty bad and it it essentially had to be scrapped and work was re-started in the U.S.

Re:Quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, people are not happy when foreigners get H1 visas and come to work here.

People are not happy when companies set up shop there so they (damn foreigners) don't have to come here.

For IT work, the companies can go ahead and set up shop there, for all I care. It doesn't worry me in the least, because it's not a workable business model. Let them go right ahead and keep trying and failing. I'm sure not happy when they come to work here, though, because that does lower wages and working conditions.

Re:Quality?

[TheRaven64]

The most recent Intel chips were all designed in Israel. Considering the volatile situation in that part of the world, it makes sense to move some of their assets away from there (one well-places Hezbollah rocket could cost Intel a huge amount).

This isn't about moving American jobs overseas. The jobs left America ages ago.

Re:Quality?

[geekoid]

Yes, nice and calm India.

Re:Quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot more calm than the US, at any rate. :p

Re:Quality?

[torokun]

That's BS. The main reason people are upset about both H1Bs and offshoring is because it reduces the incentives for people to go into these fields in the U.S., and forces our people to go into less lucrative jobs requiring (and thereby producing) less-educated workers. In other words, it removes these jobs from our economy, producing a more fragile and less beneficial economy for employees. Fewer opportunities for employees.

I do not want my son to have to be a milk producer or a waiter just to make ends meet, when he could have a job as an engineer or something else more stimulating and profitable.

I believe there was a Queen of England who once said "I do not believe it wise to give up that which we have." Sage advice, IMHO.

Re:Quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really like or know enough about this stuff to have any thorough discussions but a quick google search does tell me that the number of total H1 visas is about 115,000 or something like that.

That's a pretty small piece of the pie to be fighting over when compared to millions of IT jobs. Seriously, if we are worried about those 100,000 jobs, its time to rethink our own education/workforce policies.

Re:Quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

"people are not happy when foreigners get H1 visas and come to work here."

Because it increases the competition and drives down wages. Less competition = more leverage for you and no other option for company.

"And obviously, why would any talented Indian chose to live and work in India?"

Because we dont let them in our country. Look at the immigration fiasco. We would rather have uneducated masses to do our work.

Actually the public does not want any outsourcing or foreign workers here and we also do not want to pay high prices for our products because workers charge high prices. Impossible, you say. Hmm Maybe another war will achive this.

Re:Quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only Western man really gets Western technology. More innovation comes out of France or Sweden in a year than will come out of Asia for the foreseable future. Engineers are born, not made.
The Indians are good are good for staffing bloated projects and passing .NET exams, but not for increasing the store of technical knowledge.
I have worked with a lot of Indian programmers. They are willing and hardworking and will kick your ass at cricket, but technical wizards they are not.
Every since the first CEO found himself at the mercy of his techies, management types have been trying to get the upper hand. They had high hopes for CASE tools--anything that would let them get programs without needing programmers. The whole warped Dilbert culture is the result of management thrashing around trying to escape from the fact that if you want technology, you have to pay for it.
Outsourcing is their latest attempt to avoid reality. It will fail.

Re:Quality?

[student4ever]

"And obviously, why would any talented Indian chose to live and work in India?" As India progresses and the infrastructure and other civic facilities are getting better here, its a no brainer that a smart Indian would prefer to stay back in India and do his work than go to some far fetched land!and imho thats slowly being the case now.... so all ya americans who think superiority is hardwired in your genes, stop being delusional about yourself..talent is well spread out outside of US too!

Project Code Name

[Billosaur]

Vindaloo

Re:Project Code Name

[Anonymous Coward]

Vindaloo

I heard about that project. I hear that the processor runs hot, though.

Ah, thank you!

Re:Project Code Name

[BSOD DOC]

The Turban processor

Is it really for cost savings?

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems unfortunate to me. Other than people from India, the world's top minds simply don't want to live in India. This means that the chips will be designed almost exclusively by people from India. There is no lack of intellect in India. However, a monocultural design team was fine back in the days of the 8086 when a small team or even an individual could design a microprocessor, but nowadays you need extremely large groups of people working in concert. When all of these people have the same background, you stifle innovation. Why Intel is willing to limit innovation by essentially ignoring Europe, the Americas, the Middle East, and the rest of Asia is hard to speculate, unless they really and truly believe this is a cost saving measure. It seems odd, though, to attempt to save money in R&D rather than in production and support. It seems an R&D laboratory in Switzerland, for example, would make more sense if they are hoping to attract top talent.

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[joshetc]

I think it may have something to do with the Banias and Dothan cores which IIRC were designed in India. That architecture is part of what led Intel to the Core 2 Duo processor we have today. I'm sure they are being thrown a bone for the good work they did as far as getting power consumption down and performance per clock up.

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[gEvil (beta)]

Those came from the Israel development center, not India.

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[speculatrix]

the cost of the engineers, designers and testers are largely irrelevant compared to the cost of the actual silicon foundries these days.

I would thus speculate that Intel are seeking to gain some sort of political foothold in the huge developing market in India and the region.

haven't Intel also done some deals to set up design centres in China to also gain political leverage and fast-track approvals for their products there?

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[joshetc]

Agh. Mod me -1 uninformed. I knew it started with an "I". Reguardless I can still see the same advancements coming out of their India facility. I'm looking forward to see what happens.

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[gEvil (beta)]

Sorry, I didn't mean to get you downmodded at all...

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[wsxyz]

but nowadays you need extremely large groups of people working in concert. When all of these people have the same background, you stifle innovation.

Do you have any proof of this unlikely assertion, or have you simply been brainwashed by diversity ideologists?

I, for one, have not noticed that Toyota cars are crap, even though they are designed in Japan by a monocultural group of japanese engineers. Likewise, I have been unable to ascertain that Samsung has problems selling their products around the world even though they are designed by monocultural teams of koreans.

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[Sun]

But this does begs a different question. Why is outsourcing development to Israel any different than outsourcing it to India?

Don't get me wrong. I live in Israel, and I have nothing against seeing some of this money staying here. It's just that, putting on American goggles, I don't see how it makes any difference where money not spent in the US is spent. Is it that Israel is already a "R&D center", and therefor not a "new threat"?

Shachar

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[sarhjinian]

It's because Israelis are "white people" and Indians are "brown people."

Americans don't like brown people doing work that (white) Americans could do. You'll also see this in the uproar about manufacturing (usually auto) jobs going to Mexico, but hardly a peep about the same jobs going to Canada.

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[Dark_MadMax666]

Well because jews are smarter? :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

  There are links to actual research there if wikipedia is not good enough

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

I would suspect that it is easier to build and to get foundries running with the development engineers close bye. Expect some foundries breaking ground in India 4-5 years from now.

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because bitching about jews is too dangerous. The jewish media mafia will get you. Look what happened to Mel Gibson. It's pretty safe to bitch about indians though.

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[Anonymous Coward]

The last chip they wanted designed in INDIA failed so much I didn't think they'd go for it again.

I think it was the 8core chip; apparently they were building it, scrapped it, changed management, had people from the US fly over and help, then scrapped it again, then INTEL scrapped the team. I really don't think this is a good buisness move. We have brights minds in the US and Isreal that can do this quicker and better...

Next thing you know we're going to move chip design teams to china!

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[imagin8r]

BTW, India is hardly "monocultural" -- the country has 23 official languages, and numerous "unofficial" ones, each spoken by more people than live in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Slovenia and other such "different" cultures. The Indian subcontinent (including Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and the Maldives) has more than three times as many people who live in Europe, and if you exclude Russia, the subcontinent is larger than all of Europe. BTW, there is no reason for Europe to be called a "continent" -- it is not an independent land mass at all. There are more cultures to be found in the Indian "continent" than in all of Europe.

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[joe_bruin]

There's a simple answer, and it's not about white and brown.

Israel has a high standard of living in the ballpark of European and North American nations. Opening up a development plant in Israel, or Germany, or Ireland is not thought of as "outsourcing" because there is not a (significant) cost savings versus American employees, it's simply a matter of going to where the talent is. Outsourcing to India or China, on the other hand, is seen as a pure cost move because of those nations' considerable cost difference. While there may be many qualified Indians, the perception is always that America jobs were transitioned to India because of cost. People don't have that impression from jobs in Israel, because the view is that the jobs there are being done there because of short supply of talent in the US.

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two places in the world, "America" and "abroad."

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[incom]

Warmer climates have higher carrying capacities. If a few thousand bangladeshis were placed in norway 2000 years ago, and a few thousand norweigans placed in bengladesh 2000 years ago, there would be many more of the later around today. Higher population doesn't cause greater diversity, look at the low diversity in china compared to africa, it's not a direct relationship. Now, people do often gloss over the depth of the subcontinent in the west, but your characterization of there being more cultures there than in europe is just ignorant in itelf. There are many distinct local level cultures within european nations, you can't sum it up by just using the nationalized capitol city culture. And as far as languages, there are historical reasons for so few being around in europe today, like greek and roman empires eliminating local tribal cultures and languages, the only remaining non-anatolian(indo european) derived language is in the isolated basque region, but this is all accident of history stuff. It's like using the lack of languages i n the muslim world as evidence for anything, it obviosly cannot be, arabic was given supremacy for religious and imperial reasons. Population size and language number aren't good metrics for diversity, it's history and isolation that creates diversity.

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[imagin8r]

Having traveled and lived in the US, Europe and India, and also in the "Muslim world" I harbor the conceit that I know a bit about cultural diversity. I merely quoted population and linguistic figures as surrogates for cultural diversity -- they are indicative of diversity. How much religious diversity is there in Europe today? Yes, there have been fairly recent immigrants of the Muslim persuasion and isolated populations of "pagans", and besides, gypsies of Indian origin. But among the Christian majority -- Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Lutherans etc. -- they all ultimately worship Jesus Christ. I suppose you know little about Hindu Dharma, and by your comments I imagine you haven't visited India for any length of time. There ain't just one prophet, dude -- there are, in principle, 300,000 or 300,000,000 of them, depending on who you ask. How many varieties of classical music are there in Europe? How many varieties of classical dance? How many varieties of traditional attire still worn today? And your comment" "And as far as languages, there are historical reasons for so few being around in europe today, like greek and roman empires eliminating local tribal cultures and languages, the only remaining non-anatolian(indo european) derived language is in the isolated basque region, but this is all accident of history stuff." Whose talking about history? We're talking about the state of things TODAY. Else we could talk about the hundreds of tribes and languages spoken in North America. I would recommend you travel a bit; reading, watching television and taking college courses just isn't enough. Trust me on this one.

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[Sun]

Israel has a high standard of living in the ballpark of European and North American nations.

Same ballpark, not same level. I charge around 60$/hr for FOSS consulting (depending on precise type of job, of course). I'm given to understand that a similarily sized company in the US charges about double that. There is very little doubt that an Indian company will charge a fraction of that.

HOWEVER

While you can get away with outsourcing support centers or IT for cost alone, it would be suicide to think that you can outsource R&D on cost, and I highly doubt that that's what Intel is doing. As much as some white/brown people here would like to think, if Intel is outsourcing this part, it's probably because it found Indian engineers that are capable of doing the job, and doing it well.

Shachar

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[romit_icarus]

I says they are designing chips, not making them! The cost of designing chips is the cost of designers alone.

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[Reservoir Penguin]

You forgot about hungarian and finnish. Neither is indo-european.

Re:Is it really for cost savings?

[Viol8]

"the world's top minds simply don't want to live in India."

Bad food , bad hygiene, poor infrastructure, 3rd world poverty...

Shall I go on?

Great!

[DinZy]

Next thing they will be eliminating all the high paying R&D jobs in the US. Way to go Intel!

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Next thing they will be eliminating all the high paying R&D jobs in the US. Way to go Intel!

Well, if they can get the same job done for cheaper in India, then that's exactly what they *should* do.

What you may not realize is that 1/3 of a typical US salary is quite a nice living for someone in India - it isn't any kind of abuse of someone there, it's a really good amount of money.

So it helps bring up a new upper middle class in India, which can only be a good thing, and Intel gets the work done cheaper than it would have otherwise, which lets it sell products cheaper, which benefits literally millions of people who buy those products.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Next thing they will be eliminating all the high paying R&D jobs in the US. Way to go Intel!

This is the exact mentality that will continue to hurt the US in the future. Before globalization was significant, US was on top of the world. Now instead of stepping up their game, Americans concentrate on protecting their jobs.

America: either embrace globalization, or you will soon be falling behind the rest of the world.

Re:Great!

[cryfreedomlove]

What would you do if you were running the USA as absolute ruler? Would you let Intel make this change?

Re:Great!

[chrismcdirty]

It's not about "stepping up your game," it's about lowering your standards of living. I very much doubt that if a $125K/year engineer would keep his job if he starts working harder. They can hire 4 or 5 engineers in India for that price. And unless the American engineer can do the job of 4 or 5 people, he's out of luck.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

>> which lets it sell products cheaper, which benefits literally millions of people who buy those products.

Lets do a reality check shall we?
Intel ain't gonna sell processors cheaper just because it gets cheaper to R&D them. They will sell them at a higher price (like every other new generation processor) and proceed to rape their new Indian employees for every cent they are worth.

This won't benefit anyone but Intel. Don't kid yourself ; ) Idealism is very much alive in India, don't worry it won't be long before that's been destroyed LOL.

Then, when Indians demand a fair salary for the 80-120 hour work weeks they are putting in, they'll move R&D to China or Thailand and rape them.

Don't get too comfortable m8...

-AC

Re:Great!

[Eli Gottlieb]

America: either embrace globalization, or you will soon be falling behind the rest of the world.
I honestly don't see why anyone should have to "keep up with" the rest of the world, as if life were some kind of race.

Wait, what's that? Overproduction created an economy that can only be kept alive by artificially stimulated demand? The only way to keep the economy going is to make useless crap we don't need, and do it in America?

Globalization is only a small piece of the puzzle.

Re:Great!

[CoolAccent]

I fully agree - there goes another big chunk of work to a foreign country. It seems that corporate America is perfectly happy to dish out all the jobs (and in the long run, the high tech experience) to other countries. America will pay the price for this in the long run.

Re:Great!

[Travoltus]

This is the exact mentality that will continue to hurt the US in the future. Before globalization was significant, US was on top of the world. Now instead of stepping up their game, Americans concentrate on protecting their jobs.

There is no game to step up any more.

There's no point in getting a college degree in any technological field because even DOCTORS are vulnerable to tele-surgery.

America is shedding its high tech education base because there's fewer and fewer jobs for high tech educated people.

That means if we DON'T protect our jobs, we'll descend into a third world country where it's not worth it to get educated.

Re:Great!

[Doctor Faustus]

If you're going to paraphrase The Communist Manifesto, at least give some semblance of attribution.

Re:Great!

[Yvan256]

America will pay the price for this in the long run.

Haven't you heard the news? Only short-term profits for the shareholders matter anymore.

Re:Great!

[Eli Gottlieb]

I paraphrased the Communist Manifesto?

Re:Great!

[Doctor Faustus]

Overproduction created an economy that can only be kept alive by artificially stimulated demand?
One of the major premeses of The Communist Manifesto was that the overproduction caused by industrialization required imperialism, to forcibly open new markets.

Re:Great!

[Overzeetop]

What you may not realize is that 1/3 of a typical US salary is quite a nice living for someone in India

Hell, 1/3 of a typical silicon valley engineers salary is a decent living in about 80% of the US (by land area, not by population). You'd be suprised what $50-$60k will get you outside of the insane market-peak areas of the US.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems inevitable at this point that service and entertainment jobs are the only jobs that will last long-term. Indeed, if transportation becomes cheaper then "telesurgery" will be the last of the problems of U.S. medical practitioners not specialized in emergency medicine or clinic work, because insurance companies will just pay to send their customers to foreign countries. Given sufficient time even legal representation will be exported to foreign-living people who specialize in U.S. law that have passed various state examinations. R&D in terms of chemistry, asic design, and other such matters are already on their way out.

This trend will simply continue until the U.S. is divested of its disproportionate wealth, and in all likelihood after it has become ridiculously indebted. The U.S. is going to find that there is only so much demand for intellectual jobs and manufacturing has already been more than taken care of, leaving a large number of people to find what it's like to live in one of those countries they couldn't find on a map if it were labeled. On the bright side at least the offspring of the companies selling out the country will suffer the same reproductive disadvantages as everyone else, because their family assets will be worth dick .

Re:Great!

[Znork]

"it's about lowering your standards of living."

A large part of what you call 'standards of living' is actually everything ranging from state military spending through pharmaceutical patent regimes and other 'intellectual property'.

How do you expect a US worker to be able to remain competetive, when you look at what he actually has to finance?

"And unless the American engineer can do the job of 4 or 5 people, he's out of luck."

Yes, well, the trouble is, that engineer probably is doing the job of 4 or 5 people, or rather he's paying for them, whose actual activities do not produce sellable competetive value, except as designated by the state.

Looking at the 'expensive' label on western labour is pointless. Take a good long, hard look at exactly why western labour is expensive, why the cost of living is high, and who exactly is paying for all those lawyers, marketers and spooks. Because once the productive sectors of the economy are gone, there will be no end to the fun and games the trade deficit will play with the tattered remains of the US economy.

Re:Great!

[Eli Gottlieb]

Funny, 'cause I haven't read the thing in a couple years. I was thinking of how the modern American economy was created in the 1920s, when business leaders worried that overproduction would ruin everything. Their solution? Sell American consumers shit they didn't really need.

Re:Great!

[incom]

Heck, I'm anxiously awaiting massive economic corrections! It would cut down the supply of immigrants, because they wouldn't be getting a richer life anymore, and this would force the government to employ a payment system enouraging at least replacement level birthrate. This would be more in tune with my biological interests than having a bourgouise economy, bring it on!

Not to mention, I'd be far more fullfilled in a more visceral culture, free from the distasteful luxuries of bleeding heartisms and general naivete. We cannot afford too many more generations of having weakness bred into us before we lose the ability to compete in the more resource scarce future, our governments are shortsighted assholes who only care about corporate profits and soundbites, we need some forced vitality.

Re:Great!

[Grishnakh]

No, I wouldn't, at least not at the current time. Any smart country will do all it can to protect its technical resources and prevent a "brain drain". Allowing all your technical talent to stagnate, leave the country, or go into other professions (like installing swimming pools: I met an ex-Intel employee a while ago who did just that) is a recipe for long-term disaster for an industrialized country.

However, if I were absolutely ruler, I'd also start changing things fast, so that the cost of living was lower and companies wouldn't need to offshore very much. I'd also impose trade restrictions to protect the industrialized base, only allowing equal trade with countries with similar laws (child labor, worker protection, pollution, etc.), so that companies are competing on an level playing field. For instance, if you're shopping for a car, and you look at a Honda made in Japan, or a Chevy made in Detroit (let's forget for a second that many Hondas are now made in Ohio and many Chevies are made in Mexico), you shouldn't feel too bad if the Honda wins out, because Honda isn't taking advantage of any disparity between US and Japanese conditions, like cost-of-living, worker protection laws, etc. If anything, the COL is higher in Japan than in the US. However, throw a Chinese car into the competition and now we have something unfair, since it simply isn't possible for a Japanese or American company to hire workers at the wages paid to Chinese ones.

One big thing that would help Americans compete internationally would be to fix our horribly broken and expensive health care system. The premiums we pay for insurance (and which the insurance pays to providers) are huge. Doing something to provide economical transportation options, for those who choose to adopt them instead of driving huge SUVs, would also be a big help.

Re:Great!

[Grishnakh]

On the bright side at least the offspring of the companies selling out the country will suffer the same reproductive disadvantages as everyone else, because their family assets will be worth dick .

Wrong. (probably) These assholes probably have their money invested in many offshore accounts, in other currencies than the US Dollar (which will collapse when this all happens). When the US economy goes down the toilet, they'll just pack up and move to Belize with all their Euros, Yuans, Rupees, or whatever, which they've been storing in a Swiss bank account.

News that matters?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this "news that matters"?

Re:News that matters?

[Anonymous Coward]

You print it out, you have matter. Thusly, it matters.

I bet the Blue Guys are happy about this...

[Veetox]

I wonder how much of this projected inovation is the result of a renewed effort, spurred by AMD's earlier challenges. I really hope that AMD keeps competing at the same level, otherwise, we'll see prices go right back up again, and definitely more of Intel's cheesy marketing.

Re:I bet the Blue Guys are happy about this...

[zenithcoolest]

Is it the outcome of AMD Unveiling Barcelona Quad-Core Details?

The TFA is more accurate

[Gopal.V]

TFA clearly says

"is working on new chipsets for the small form-factor notebook ...Validation work on server processors 5300 and 7100"

As much as I'd love India to lose the cheap indian labour tag and actually find its place in the R&D world - this could be summed up as premature ejaculation. Validation work (aka quality assurance) is not really what I'd consider worthy of mention, but chipsets are indeed a step forward - if indeed they are being designed here, not merely run through QA.

People here are comparitively cheap, but that does not automatically mean that "You get what you pay for", unless you do shop around for a bargain.

Re:The TFA is more accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

'Validation work on server processors 5300 and 7100 are also being undertaken at the IIDC, which is our second largest R and D facility outside the US,'

Re:The TFA is more accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does validation get a bad rap these days? With the growing size and complexity of chips, validation is a much more daunting task than ever. I work in pre-silicon verification at Intel, and in my opinion, the most senior engineers should be the ones doing the verification. Any junior engineer can pretty much take a spec written by an architect and code the RTL. Sure a junior engineer may have to rework some areas once timing analysis comes back, but in general RTL design is not that complicated of a test if the spec is well written and understood. But finding all those bugs before the first tape-out is crucial, and no one but a team of experienced engineers is going to make that happen.

Having said that, this is not the way Intel does things. Intel puts all its senior engineers on the RTL coding and design. Then all the junior engineers do the testing. Then Intel management wonders why there has to always be multiple steppings of a chip before it's fully functional. I haven't worked in a processor group at Intel, so things might be better on that side of the fence. But this has been my experience in chipset land at Intel for the last 8 years.

Re:The TFA is more accurate

[MarkKnopfler]

I would like to point out that your ideas about validation are pretty wrong. Hardware verification is not quality assurance. It is a complete and difficult part of hardware development apart from the fact that it also is a rather difficult subject in engineering. Think of traversing all simple paths in of a really really huge graph and making sure all paths work perfectly. That is just a trivial description of the problem. It also requires a deep understanding of the functionality that the RTL is out to deliver. This is not testing/validation as is thought of by us in the software world.

Re:The TFA is more accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you work in C7?

I used to work in pre-silicon verification at Intel as well. There's a good reason senior engineers aren't doing the verification: because it's boring as hell! Maybe if you doubled their pay, you'd get them to do it, but Intel isn't going to do that when they can just farm the work out to cheaper places.

Writing test plans, coming up with test vectors, endlessly debugging stuff, etc. is horribly boring work. That's why validation engineers are usually young and inexperienced: to get a foot in the door. After they've put in their time in validation, they do what I did: get the hell out and do something more interesting.

What's more, validation is thankless work, and it's not terribly interesting. Most of the time, you're just putting together cheesy tools to attempt to improve validation efficiency, and then simply running endless tests. Then you have to go through all the test results, and find out why 20% of the tests failed (it's usually not because of a bug, but because of a problem with the validation environment and software). When you finally do debug something that looks like a bug, you can only dig so deep, because then you need to contact the RTL designer who actually designed the thing, because they're the only one who knows enough to fix it. So basically, you're just someone who identifies bugs and enters them into a bug database, and spends time running around talking to people about the bugs instead of actually fixing them (lemme tell you, I didn't get into engineering so I could spend all my time talking to people; if I liked that, I would have gone into marketing).

Have you noticed yet that there's no one over 35 years old in validation? Much to my surprise, I found out only when I left validation that it isn't because engineers all leave the profession before 35. It's because they leave validation and go into other groups! No one ever bothered to tell me this before, so I had a really skewed perspective while I was in validation.

Re:The TFA is more accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to add a comment to my own post: in a nutshell, the main reason we don't have senior engineers doing validation and junior engineers doing all the design is simple: it's a lot more fun and interesting to design things yourself, than to spend your time finding problems in other people's crap.

What's more, I'm not convinced that this idea that validation engineers seem to have about their job being harder is actually true. A good design will require much less bug-fixing, and have a superior architecture, than a poor design which requires lots of bug-fixing. For that reason, it's better to have your most experienced people making the design.

If you were building a bridge, would you want your best engineers designing it, or just reviewing the work of a bunch of engineers fresh out of Civil Engineering school? I'll take the former for any bridge I have to cross over.

fer'ners

[gEvil (beta)]

Weren't the latest round of Intel chips (Conroe, Woodcrest, Merom) developed by Intel's Israel development center? So why is it news that they're having their Indian branch work on some newer things? I thought that was the entire point of creating development centers in various places around the globe...

Re:fer'ners

[oliverthered]

If that's true then I'm only going to buy AMD.

Re:fer'ners

[aadvancedGIR]

Strange, it looks like these are the places that would most likely face the risk of regional nuclear war within 20 years. Maybe Intel plan is to save on retirement packages.

Re:fer'ners

[gEvil (beta)]

Maybe they're just trying to ensure they'll have lots of melted sand to work with in the future... : p

Re:fer'ners

[pauljuno]

I was just going to mention the same thing, and in fact is this really offshoring from a U.S. perspective? Perhaps the Israeli group thought it should go to them, so in effect, were really offshoring Israeli jobs to India. Wonder if Israeli engineers are mad as heck right now.

Re:fer'ners

[DrDitto]

Yes, Core Duo is done in Israel. However its still based on the P6 design (Pentium III, Pentium-M, etc). Of course they did improve the design.

Re:fer'ners

[clickclickdrone]

Companies with their head screwed on use multiple countries for 24/7 development and/or support. US works on code, goes home, code handed over to Phillipines, they work on it, hand it on to Eastern Europe, they do their bit then it goes back to the US.

Re:fer'ners

[wild_berry]

How do you deal with the fact that AMD's main microprocessor manufacturing and design facilities are located in Dresden, Germany?

Re:fer'ners

[Eli Gottlieb]

It's news because Israel keeps a standard of living, labor prices, and labor protection laws comparable to those in Europe and the USA. India, on the other hand, will remain poor enough to buy high-quality labor for (compared to US, Europe or Israel) bargain basement prices for another 5-10 years.

Re:fer'ners

[TheRaven64]

The Pentium M is also designed in Israel. It is based on the P6 core, but has a number of significant improvements (much better branch prediction, for example).

Re:fer'ners

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Core Duo is done in Israel. However its still based on the P6 design (Pentium III, Pentium-M, etc). Of course they did improve the design.

Ahem... Pentium-M was done in Israel, too:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/pentium -m.ars

Actually, there is quite a lot of hi-tech development concentrated in Israel.

Re:fer'ners

[Marxist Hacker 42]

From my perspective- any time a company chooses to go multinational it is indeed offshoring. I'm of the old opinion that people should be patriotic instead of profit minded.

Re:fer'ners

[Anonymous Coward]

Humour, have you heard of it?

Re:fer'ners

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming you live in America (not unfair given the website), how do you fare with, you know, buying a house/groceries/cars/whatever else from a country that is still the only one that has set off a nuclear device with intent to kill and has started 2 major conflicts in the last 15 years?

Re:fer'ners

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm of the old opinion that people should be patriotic instead of profit minded.

That's nationalism, not patriotism. There's a big difference.

Re:fer'ners

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That's nationalism, not patriotism. There's a big difference.

Not much of one in this situation- I'm talking about making sacrifices so that your neighbors can be more free.

Re:fer'ners

[oliverthered]

Though I find it worrying that if it wasn't for Hitler there wouldn't have been an Israel in the first place, I don't think the Germans are currently committing war crimes on an almost daily basis.

CPU design goals

[VincenzoRomano]

It would be great if the new cheap were designed with operating systems and end users in mind.
There is a number of things that would be much better if the CPU supported some special instruction. Every OS class student has been tought this.
Unluckily, most of the new features will certainly be focused on DRM and other copyright enforcement technology!

Re:CPU design goals

[misleb]

It would be great if the new cheap were designed with operating systems and end users in mind.
There is a number of things that would be much better if the CPU supported some special instruction. Every OS class student has been tought this.

Such as? Users get the virtualization instruction and SSE3. Do you have more special instructions in mind?

-matthew

Re:CPU design goals

[VincenzoRomano]

More effective context switch?
More effective paging and virtual memory support?
Better SMP onchip support?

Re:CPU design goals

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

There is a number of things that would be much better if the CPU supported some special instruction. Every OS class student has been tought this.

I was taught that special instructions were a waste of time as 95% percent of the chips time was spent on the simplist operations such as load/store, logic and simple arithmetic. Hence the RISC chipset.

Perhaps the situation has changed now that compilers are a little more sophisticated. I say a little. SIMD is nice for intensive applications like encoders and number crunchers, but frankly, I'm willing to be that most programs that mosts users run are still mostly just loading, storing, checking and adding. Unless you can guarantee that the compilers will actually make use of the advanced functions, there's not really much point in going all out to implement them.

Re:CPU design goals

[misleb]

More effective context switch?

More effective, how? I'm hardly an expert on kernel design (although I have taken an OS design class), but what is wrong with the way context switching is done today? I wasn't under the impression that it was a problem unless you're trying to do too many switches in a short amount of time.

More effective paging and virtual memory support?

Again, what is wrong with the way it is done now?

Better SMP onchip support?

Do you mean you want the chip to guess how to prioritize and distribute theads/processes? I'm pretty sure this is best left to the OS.

-matthew

Re:CPU design goals

[Anonymous Coward]

wish-list hardware accelerated kernel algorithms would mostly be too complex to waste the resources designing; besides, the instruction sets have always provided minimal algorithmic support. it's all very basic numerical/bit-level stuff.

the more complex algorithms would just tie up those same execution units that the smaller instructions use. on top of that, even ubiquitous algorithms have subtle implementation variations and in many cases are optimized through customization.

if anything, perhaps some accelerated array/list/tree constructs and functions would be nice to find in a chipset, but you'd need it standardized across the market to be useful. at the least, a standardized, scalable template could be agreed upon and implemented in the major os's, and hardware support could simply tie in w/ drivers. which places the fault of the lack thereof upon the shoulders of linux and windows kernel api developers.

Re:CPU design goals

[Anonymous Coward]

it would be nice to see intel move to a tagged tlb, and i believe removing segmentation was a mistake.. how many apps can use more than 4GB of address space? segments would've allowed many processes to remain resident in linear address space throughout interprocess context switches, which would have major benefits to microkernel architectures and even interprocess communications of monolithic kernels.

although tagged tlbs would provide the benefit without resurrecting segments.. something would have been better than nothing. i was actually amazed that amd cut back on the memory system with the removal of segmentation. if anything they should have added new features while they had the opportunity, instead of just extending the same old crap. ah well.

Re:CPU design goals

[misleb]

Didn't AMD come out with tagged TLB? I was reading some Xen docs that suggested running Xen certain AMD CPUs would improve performance because of the tagged TLB.

-matthew

No sure why this is news...

[jense]

Isn't the whole "outsourcing to India" tagline a bit tired? I would expect companies like Intel to put their R&D where it's the cheapest. After all, this can constiute up to 40% of a product's cost (and possibly more with a company like Intel that is so heavily based on new hardware technologies). If India lets them bring it down to 20 or 25%, their investors are the winners and they can continue to be competitive. One more notch in the chain of possible US job losses? Yes. A smart business move? Probably.

Re:No sure why this is news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. Let us outsource Cmdr taco to India!

Re:No sure why this is news...

[Anonymous Coward]

So cost is the only factor?

LOL... OK. Who cares about quality, it's cheap!!

Urgh

[Anonymous Coward]

That horrific smell of garlic and body odour coming from my neighbour's cubicle won't be her for once, but her computer.

Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[Travoltus]

The world benefits when America's educated, high tech workers are put out of work and other nations are enriched by their impoverishment.

We need to put even more Americans out of work for the cause of lifting other nations out of poverty.

Long Live India, and to heck with you racist nativist American protectionists out there trying to keep your jobs. You should feel good about giving up your jobs and going to work at Wal Mart. It's your duty to make sacrifices in the name of globalism!

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[Threni]

> Long Live India, and to heck with you racist nativist American protectionists out there trying to
> keep your jobs.

Surely you mean "long live capitalism - even when it acts against the people who previously benefitted from it"? Eventually wages will be the same everywhere - why shouldn't they be? Sometimes this results in wages going up, in other places they'll go down. America isn't special.

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[UbuntuDupe]

I don't understand how it's any better to routinely overpay for undervalue -- making a business decision ultimately a charity decision -- out of a misguided sense of patriotism (nationalism?).

Should businesses just throw in the towel and become charities for people who need jobs? Sounds like a great long-term plan, eh?

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[cryfreedomlove]

I hereby appoint you abolute ruler of the USA. What will you do about Intel's decision?

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[dup_account]

America isn't special.

Not entirely true. 90% of America isn't special, but the top 10% need to be supported and nurtured. Ask not what you can do for the middle class, but ask what you can do for the top 2%

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[Goody]

I'd make Intel's management move to India! Problem solved :-)

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[cryfreedomlove]

I'm an Intel manager. I refuse to move. Now what?

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[chrismcdirty]

I wouldn't mind wages being the same everywhere if the cost of living was the same everywhere.

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of "absolute ruler" do you not understand?

[/vetinari]

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hereby appoint you abolute ruler of the USA. What will you do about Intel's decision?

I don't know about Oregon and Intel, but I know that in my state we actually had dickhead politicians giving tax breaks to major companies to facilitate outsourcing. That bullshit would stop in a nanosecond. For existing tax breaks just start repealing them in proportion to the number of jobs lost from the local economy. If they close up shop in your state just bar the state from purchasing from them.

One day Pakistan and India are going to have it out, and since neither have a command and control system worth a shit somebody is going to fuckup and drop a nuke.. and then as they say, it will be "on". I will be laughing my ass off at companies who have outsourced there. So how's that chip production facility working out after that EMP blast eh? Sure, somebody is eventually going to sneak "a" nuke into the US, but when these two go off it will be more than a five kiloton love tap.

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[Anonymous Coward]

Poorly expressed but he's right. First the manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas and economic talking heads celebrated the transition to IP and service industries. "Let the third world do the hard and dirty work North Americans don't want, they'll work for us." Somehow the very large percentage of foreign students in the post-secondary student population never came into radar view. Now we see the first waves of those same students having an impact back home. Domestic industries don't give a damn, their markets and outlooks are global. Can't sell the product in a crashing North America? Ship it to the booming third world ecomonies, leave the home office in the relative safety and huge tax breaks of home.

Argue all you want about the value of the ultimate end, there's no debating the huge negative impact it will have for generations of North American workers and the monetary boon to a handful of transglobals, their owners and their pals in government. You're being screwed and amazingly cheering on those who claim to 'stand behind you'. It's a propaganda coupe of historical proportions.

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[Threni]

> I wouldn't mind wages being the same everywhere if the cost of living was the same everywhere.

That'll change too. As people can afford more, they'll be charged more. Ditto for the places where people will be less able to blow $800 on a graphics card - you'll have to make do with a slightly older card, or maybe eat a little less food or something, or buy a more efficient car, etc... I mean, I dunno - you'll cope!

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[Goody]

Pack your bags or hit the road! You did make me the absolute ruler, you know :-)

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[dpilot]

The unspoken side is that the MOST overpaid jobs are not the R&D, but the executives.

Obviously as you offshore the workers, you end up offshoring the first-line managers next. At some point, it becomes sensible to offshore some second-line managers, and so on. This continues up the chain, until those left see the logical conclusion, circle the wagons, and say, "It doesn't make financial sense to offshore any higher-level jobs." Or course they mean, "financial sense for me" to offshore higher-level jobs.

But by this time, there will be a lot of experience - some of it quite high-level, walking around the streets of India, which another post has suggested has more of a revolving door than Silicon Valley in its heyday. So how long before fully Indian semiconductor companies emerge? They won't have the Intel name, but that isn't as important outside the US and Europe, especially at a much lower price.

Once we've offshored every aspect of technical operation, what's left? Is the corner office really that valuable, especially outside the US?

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[c6gunner]

Now you know how 90% of the world feels about the bottom 2% of America.

People like you amaze me. You live in a country where even the poor can own a fridge, car, TV, etc. yet you still bitch about others being richer than you. The poorest person in your country would be considered middle-class in most of the rest of the world, yet what's important to you is that the mythical 2% "are, like, REALLY rich". I know communism is still alive....I just hate seeing it on our shores. Keep it confined to Cuba.

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[Anonymous Coward]

The poorest people in the U.S. live in the streets and have no change of clothing. They get no medical care, they steal trash from dumpsters to eat, and they most certainly don't have refrigerators. What's funny is people like you that think there is any justification for the "top 2%" to live the lives of opulent do-nothings, somehow magically justified by their meager labors. You live in a delusion of meritocracy. Oh noes, shattering your delusion is communism. Like most people from the U.S. you don't even know what communism is.

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[Anonymous Coward]

So how long before fully Indian semiconductor companies emerge?

At least 20 years (patents).

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[dpilot]

Heck, I hold semiconductor patents that are already expired. Much of the basic technology is already public domain. The bleeding edge may be neither necessary nor desirable in the third world.

Besides, I'm guessing that the real way to bootstrap an Indian semiconductor company is as a 'contract foundry' that can minimize exposure to the US company. This gives them a base of process and design tools, as well as a base volume of wafer starts. They can bootstrap their own business on the side, with careful attention to IP pitfalls. You also need to choose your markets carefully. A good start would be products useful and necessary in many parts of the world, but essentially worthless in the US. (Think rural wireless links with non-US frequencies and modulations.)

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[purpledinoz]

Have you thought of the possibility that Intel might be having a hard time finding the skilled workers they need for chip development in the US? I've interned for a tech company in Silicon Valley, and a large portion of the chip designers were immigrants. I'm sure any company would be happy to hire locallly, since they don't have to pay for all the immigration stuff.

This may be a failure of the American education system.

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[Dog-Cow]

I'm sure all the homeless people here in the US are overjoyed to know that they are richer than the middle class in the rest of the world.

Oh wait, they aren't.

How about you stop being an ass just because the Founding Fathers of the US had more forsight than to set up a dictatorship. If the rest of the world would rebel against their dictators and warlords and setup a democracy or republic instead of another dictator, they wouldn't be so god-dammed fu**ing poor.

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[BluedemonX]

You're implying we're going to pay immigration fees and relo? And relocate you?

No, you don't understand. By "move the managers" we mean we simply show up with empty cardboard boxes, give you 15 minutes to get your stuff out of there, hand you your final cheque on the way out the door and make sure we get our cellphone and company credit card back.

Notice to you: none.

And then, Rajinder will take over your job as of 9 am Bangalore time.

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[c6gunner]

1. I'm not American.
2. I was born in a less than stellar nation, so I certainly know what REAL poverty is.
3. I was also born in a communist country, so I certainly know just how despicable communism is.

You on the other hand are...what? A born-in-America college kid pissed off that his weed costs more than the money his parents give him?

Your open jealousy of those who have amassed wealth is disgusting. Your inability to understand what constitutes a meritocracy is, on the other hand, merely sad. I truly pity you.

Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire!

[c6gunner]

I was speaking averages ofcourse, although if you want to be an ass about it, even the most destitute homeless person in the US is better off than the poor in most third world nation. He can scrape together enough money for food (and most of them also get enough for alcohol), and even if he can't he can get food at a soup kitchen. He can get a roof over his head any day at a homeless shelter. He's got unlimited access to water and sanitary facilities. He can even receive medical care, since it is illegal in the US to refuse to treat someone because of an inability to pay. So, all in all, your destitute person in the US has all of his or her basic needs attended to. Now compare that to a beggar in South Africa, or a microcephalic in India.

"If the rest of the world would rebel against their dictators and warlords and setup a democracy or republic instead of another dictator, they wouldn't be so god-dammed fu**ing poor."

That's about the only accurate thing you've said. Unfortunately, it's much easier said than done.

That Intel

[creepynut]

Intel Corporation, the $39-billion largest chip maker in the world

OOooh, THAT Intel. Good think you specified!

Re:That Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

Good "think" you are a moron. Shut up.

America!

[pUr3d0xYk]

Home of the executives of companies who innovate elsewhere! Ah well. At least we were *already* known for our fat white guys.

Re:America!

[Anonymous Coward]

"At least we were *already* known for our fat white guys."

And skinny black guys.

Re:America!

[DigitalHammer]

"At least we were *already* known for our fat white guys."

And skinny black guys.

And middleweight Asian guys?

In other news...

[justinbach]

AMD this week declared that it will be building a new development centre in Pakistan. Gotta love healthy competition... ;-)

This is only going to continue...

[cnelzie]

...to happen as long as the Free Trade Agreements remain unfair to the American Citizen while providing gangbuster profits for the American and Foreign owned corporation.

    These Trade Agreements need to be looked at again and readjusted into Fair Trade Agreements. These need to be setup to provide some sort of protections for the foreign workers and demand an equal or better environmental protection system, similar to what the US has.

    Putting both of those as requirements for "Free" Trade will not only return much work to the United States, it will also make the work that will continue to be performed outside of the US safer, cleaner and better for the workers producing those goods.

    What we have now is an unsustainable system that will only result in the future failure of the US economy. Unfortunately, the only way that is going to change is if We, The People are able to replace our money worshipping leaders with a leadership that understands what "For the People, By the People" means.

Re:This is only going to continue...

[El Torico]

Wow, you really do want to go to GITMO, don't you? Proposing that "the People" reassume control of the US is a very risky position to take. Right now, most of "the People" are doing well enough to not think there is a problem.

Actually, I agree with you. What you propose (Fair Trade vs. Free Trade) is what the European Union has done. There are very specific criteria for membership; items such as worker and environmental protections are included. Here's the wikipedia entry on the criteria - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_criteria.

Unfortunately, the US has embraced the "Race to the Bottom" approach and we now can see the results. Globalization is a mixed blessing; on the one hand it does raise GDP for participating nations, but on the other hand, it can have serious repercussions. Of course, I'm expecting to be flamed and modded down now for attempting to be truly "fair and balanced".

Re:This is only going to continue...

[khallow]

OTOH, "fair" trade isn't necessarily a good idea for the people it supposedly helps. Part of the reason the developing world gets so many jobs is because the labor there is cheap. They don't have the infrastructure, they aren't particularly close to the big developed world markets, and their legal systems can be quite messed up. So they often don't have much to attract a business. IMHO, they often get work only because they can work in sweat shops and be exploited as cheap labor. Fair trade is a great deal for the developed world because it reduces competition for the expensive labor of the developed world, but I don't see it being such a good deal for the developing world.

My take is that a more effective way for the developed world in the long term is to increase the value and decrease the cost of developed world labor. The US in particular has room to grow. It can improve the effectiveness of schools, decrease the state-imposed costs of labor (eg, by eliminating non-means based Social Security, no longer requiring health insurance to cover routine medical costs, reduce the bureaucratic load from relevant government regulations) in addition to the usual means like infrastructure improvements.

Re:This is only going to continue...

[cnelzie]

Who's fault is that?

    The problem is that in the developing world there is a massive rift between those that have and those that don't have.

    This has created a system, wherein the Haves easily and consistantly take advantage of and hold down the aspirations of the Have Not. By forcing the Haves into providing more equity to the Have Nots, two things will happen. One, working conditions and compensation will increase for the works. Two, more equitable trade agreements will be formulated with those nations and the US.

    As a side benefit, the increase in pay to the Have Nots will only cause the economy of those nations to take off, much like the Economy of the US has done EACH time there was an increase in minimum wages and the market was forced to expand with new businesses and services due to regulation, it will also increase the capabilities of those nations as the Have Nots are able to begin educating their children.

    These developing nations now have an Industrial Base. Forcing them to upgrade their labor and environmental practices will only enhance the lives of everyone involved.

    I know the US isn't apt to make that happen. So, I can only hope that the EU's Fair Trade policies are able to make sigificant changes in the global market to provide the needed changes, before it is to late for the economy that I live in.

Re:This is only going to continue...

[Eli Gottlieb]

My take is that a more effective way for the developed world in the long term is to increase the value and decrease the cost of developed world labor.

For English speakers, that's pay workers less money for more work, and remove many of the protections afforded them by government.

Re:This is only going to continue...

[cptnapalm]

Of course, I'm expecting to be flamed and modded down now for attempting to be truly "fair and balanced".

Is it just me or does it seem that one way to be modded up is to claim you will be modded down? Baseless claims of future victimization are all the rage these days.

Re:This is only going to continue...

[El Torico]

Actually, I was expecting to be flamed more than modded down, but so far neither has happened (unless your post is a flame). Pointing out that both sides of an issue has merits and shortcomings is a great way of having supporters from both sides turn on you.

Re:This is only going to continue...

[u38cg]

Then why would you outsource in the first place?

The whole point of globalisation is that each country will end up doing what it is best suited to. So, China with its huge, poor population is best suited to mass manufacturing, and India with a well educated workforce in a small economy is best suited to using the brains of its people. Fair trade systems have been proposed many times before, but they are stupid and pointless, because less gets done. In the end, your American company which is forced to keep its jobs on-shore will lose out to a European or Asian company that had the chance to go where it liked. Now your American company employs no Americans *or* Indians. Whoops.

Globalisation is very hard on certain classes of people - specifically, those people whose skills or labour are commodities, or can be made into commodities. However, trying to stop it by throwing up barriers will make it worse for everyone.

Re:This is only going to continue...

[Anonymous Coward]

the EU only is 'fair and balanced' as long as the EU benefits. The EU has always favored its own businesses and made foreign companies pay more (to set up shop in the EU) or their products cost more so that the EU products are more favorable to the consumer. If the US does this to the extent that the EU doe it, the EU would be complaining the US isn't playing fair. China would bitch the US is trying to destroy it's economy.

The US is screwed. If the US implements the same tariffs on foreign goods as foreign countries put on US goods, the US is bitched at. IF the US stays on the course it is on now, the US will be the richest third (or fourth world) country very soon.

Re:This is only going to continue...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair trade may or may not be good for workers in developped countries. However it is unlikely to help workers in developped countries. There is a difference in wages which is no longer sustained by higher productivity. Probably never was only noone noticed becouse there were barriers of trade. You can be good at what you do but are you 10 times more productive than someone with the same qualifications from China or India? It's impossible to balance these differences with better infrastructure or a better legal enviroment especially when developping countries are making a concious effort to improve them.
Your only hope is that you can do something noone in India can or that your work absolutely must be done in the US.

Even transport costs don't matter. Just look at how Chinese producers destroyed European textil producers almost overnight. It wouldn't matter one way or the other if there were stricter enviromental laws. At worst it would cut into their margins. Of course you could require them to pay French minimum wages therby pricing them out of the market but then the biggest losers would be the workers in developped nations.

Re:This is only going to continue...

[philipgar]

Oh yes, I forgot that it is wrong to let a company better someone elses economy besides our own. Are we that egocentric that we think that we have the right to prevent a company from building a development center in a developing economy? Should India not be allowed to prosper and grow? Do we have the right to make sure that they don't have jobs that actually require brains. Oh right, we obviously have the monopoly on brains in this country.

It's called capitalism people. Sometimes things happen that hurt people, but in the long run it helps. India was one of those countries where the evil capitalists exploited for so many years, taking advantage of their cheap labor etc. Oh, what's that? They're no longer the poor country they once were? They're not really 3rd world any more, and their economy is rapidly expanding. Oh the horror. Capitalism has been so bad to these people.

Do we really believe that these jobs are going to take away jobs from highly qualified US applicants? I hate to break the news to you, but if you know your shit, and work hard (and not the 14+ hour days or whatever) there are plenty of jobs available in the US. Plus maybe eventually more of the tech industry jobs go overseas, is that really so horrible? It's often considered progress. While right now tech jobs are toward the top of the curve, in 10-20 years many of the jobs will become mundane. Running tests on processors is not fun.

Is it so bad that most americans now don't work long days in factories in dangerous conditions? Many people lost jobs when factories here moved overseas, or mechanized and removed the need for manual labor. Sure some hardships occurred because of it, but it's the cost of progress. The capitalist system has created enormous wealth and is continuing to do so. Just because some jobs go overseas does not mean capitalism is failing, in fact I think that shows its success.

Right now the US is experiencing extremely low unemployment, not to say it doesn't suck for those who are unemployed, but for the most part if you are highly reliable and know how to use your brain, there are countless jobs available to you. You just have to work hard and try. It may not always pay 6 figures, it may only pay 20-30k/year, but there are many places where that's more wealth than people obtain in their lifetime. Slashdotters really need to get a clue when it comes to economics.

Phil

Re:This is only going to continue...

[cnelzie]

Oh yes, I forgot that it is wrong to let a company better someone elses economy besides our own. Are we that egocentric that we think that we have the right to prevent a company from building a development center in a developing economy? Should India not be allowed to prosper and grow? Do we have the right to make sure that they don't have jobs that actually require brains. Oh right, we obviously have the monopoly on brains in this country.

    There is nothing wrong with a company wishing to build a development center in another nation. There is nothing wrong with a company building a factory in another nation. The problem arises when that American corporation is able to sidestep and ignore the legal protections for workers and the environment that are in place in the US.

    Providing basicly decent wages and worker rights, which is what we deemed the right thing to do in the US, is something that should be law in the host country by any corporation wishing to do business in the US. Now, this doesn't mean that the wages need to be equal to the wages paid in the US, nor does this mean that every available benefit in the US also be available in those nations. If we are supposed to be the Capitalist and Democracy Leader of the world, then our labor rules and laws should not only act as an example to the rest of the world, they should also be exported. If "Free" trade is wanted with the United States, the host company looking for that "Free" trade should have to step up to the plate and modernize their business practices. Otherwise, they get taxed and miss out on opportunities.

    This would be an "Economic Diplomacy" that could significantly change the world, far better than swinging around our military would.

Right now the US is experiencing extremely low unemployment, not to say it doesn't suck for those who are unemployed, but for the most part if you are highly reliable and know how to use your brain, there are countless jobs available to you. You just have to work hard and try. It may not always pay 6 figures, it may only pay 20-30k/year, but there are many places where that's more wealth than people obtain in their lifetime. Slashdotters really need to get a clue when it comes to economics.

    They changed the method of calculating unemployment, which drastically decreased the overall number of unemployed people. The number of lost jobs, since 2001, still gratly outstrips the number of jobs produced since then. If the economy is doing so swell and unemployment is so low, then how come we have the highest numbers of mortgage foreclosures that has ever been seen? Is it because the replacement jobs that have been added since the record job losses pay, on average, 10's of thousands of dollars less in overall wages? Maybe you need to spend more time checking multiple sources and actually researching what is and has happened in our economy, instead of spouting off the party line.

Re:This is only going to continue...

[khallow]

For English speakers, that's pay workers less money for more work, and remove many of the protections afforded them by government.

Well, yes. That is one of the ways to do it. I even point out some high cost, low value protections to remove, eg, go to a needs-based Social Security. Another is to improve the value of developed world labor. Instead of doing more work, do more valuable work. For example, coding instead of picking beans.

Re:This is only going to continue...

[khallow]

The problem is that in the developing world there is a massive rift between those that have and those that don't have.

My beef is that this rift isn't addressed by the "no sweat shop" movement. The developed world went through its sweat shop phase. And invaribly, the end result was a far better wages and working conditions than before the sweat shop phase. I feel that the rest of the world needs to as well. And they will achieve the same end results.

This has created a system, wherein the Haves easily and consistantly take advantage of and hold down the aspirations of the Have Not. By forcing the Haves into providing more equity to the Have Nots, two things will happen. One, working conditions and compensation will increase for the works. Two, more equitable trade agreements will be formulated with those nations and the US.

That unbalanced system was already there. The sweat shops are merely the first genuine cracks. As the value of the labor of the sweat shop workers increases, we'll see a transition to healthier work environments just like we did in the developed world. Recall that there was no external force in the developed world to spur the decline of the sweat shops, it happened naturally.

As a side benefit, the increase in pay to the Have Nots will only cause the economy of those nations to take off, much like the Economy of the US has done EACH time there was an increase in minimum wages and the market was forced to expand with new businesses and services due to regulation, it will also increase the capabilities of those nations as the Have Nots are able to begin educating their children.

I see two incorrectly drawn conclusions here. First, increasing minimum wage and regulations don't correlate with a "take off" of the US economy. For example, the destruction of midwest manufacturer in the late 70's and early 80's correlates well with the new environmental regulations issued in the 70's. I consider it a substantial contributor to the decline of US manufacturing competitivity. I doubt there's any real benefit to minimum wage increases. It just means that at the bottom of the scale some people are fired because their labor isn't worth the new minimum wage while others get a slight pay raise. Second, the developing world doesn't necessarily have the value to sustain a minimum wage.

These developing nations now have an Industrial Base. Forcing them to upgrade their labor and environmental practices will only enhance the lives of everyone involved.

I see more reason to force improving environmental practices since that has more externalities associated with it. But the developing world doesn't have a healthy economy that can sustain comfortable practices like better safety conditions or higher pay. They need to go through a painful transition.

I think a better approach is to improve the economic and political culture. In particular, I'm thinking of more democratic processes, lower corruption, improving public infrastructure, secure ownership of property, and a reliable system of banking.

The Zookeeper says:

[Savage-Rabbit]

Please don't feed the trolls.

Considering the previous failure

[ashpool7]

I suppose they have too much invested to completely write off India, even though the Whitefield disaster seems to indicate they aren't very good at doing chip design.

A problem that won't be fixed overnight...

[ErichTheRed]

One thing about the whole Indian outsourcing thing that people don't mention is that companies are increasingly going overseas not for the cheap labor, but for the talent. Remember, wage pressure in India and other outsourcing destinations is increasing, and pretty soon it won't be too much cheaper to do the work overseas.

The problem we have now is that fewer people are going into technical fields. We're a nation of CEOs, project managers, liaisons, coordinators, and other non-technical people. I've noticed a lot of people in the tech field encouraging their kids not to pursue any sort of science or engineering education. That's not a shocker. First of all, going to law school or getting an MBA guarantees you a lifetime of high income. Scientists/engineers are begging for jobs, and IT types are not finding as many entry-level positions that would get them entry into the field. Second, if you do decide to pursue something technical, the jobs are not guaranteed to be there. Why beat yourself up going for an engineering degree if someone on the other side of the world will work cheaper and do a better job than you could?

Also, the work ethic and education standard in other countries is much higher. I've worked with Indian outsourcing firms, and they make up for their lack of understanding of the problem with 14 hour work days and no complaints about how low their pay is. Compare that to workers in the US, who waste their whole day grumbling about their pay and are completely lazy.

Honestly, I don't know how to fix this. If we could somehow ensure that there would still be work available for those of us who like doing technical stuff, that would help.

Re:A problem that won't be fixed overnight...

[Anonymous Coward]

Two points:

1) Stop treating Americans like s__t! Stop calling us lazy and whiny! Just because there are some people like this doesn't mean everyone is. But the same token, all people from India aren't gods! There are plenty of people there producing plenty of crap. And don't give them al l that hard working credit. They may be around 14 hours a day, but I see plenty of web surfing and chatting going on.

2) India is a caste society (deny it all you want). They have millions of people willing to work for dirt. So the tech workers are basically upper upper upper middle class. The think the closest equivelant would be if we opened our border 100% to Mexico and South America. Let all the cheap labor migrate north. Just think how far our money would stretch with plenty of super cheap labor available.

Bonus Point:
Please mod up all the posts that remind us that we aren't playing on a level field. As soon as India, China, etc open up their markets to the same degree that our markets are.... Then we can have the lizzie phaire conversations.

Re:A problem that won't be fixed overnight...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, the work ethic and education standard in other countries is much higher. I've worked with Indian outsourcing firms, and they make up for their lack of understanding of the problem with 14 hour work days

They also make up for their lack of understanding of your problem when you call a customer support line outsourced to India and it takes 14 hours on the phone to get your issue solved.

Re:A problem that won't be fixed overnight...

[forgotten_my_nick]

> They also make up for their lack of understanding of your
> problem when you call a customer support line outsourced
> to India and it takes 14 hours on the phone to get your
> issue solved.

This is more a problem with the company in question rather then Indians. For example I was taught by an Indian in India (via internet) for my SCJP1.4 exam (Whizlabs). The guy knew his stuff inside and out and was an exceptional teacher. By the same regards we have Indian SW engineers working with us in India and they are again exceptional at what they do. I would put their skills far above quite a few people who work local to us yet get a fraction of what people earn here.

Then you have the flipside of the coin like Dell where I ring up with an issue with a wireless keyboard (base station) and when I explain about plugging the base station in they tell me that I shouldn't have to because its wireless. 3 people and 30 minutes later and I end up with a person telling to ring a different company for a problem that originated with Dell as a solution to a brand new machine thats not working as expected.

Dell is generally the main example of poor indian tech support. I suspect they are buying from the bottom of the barrel when it comes support home users.

Re:A problem that won't be fixed overnight...

[c6gunner]

I'm sorry, but when I call NetGear tech support, and the guy on the other side can barely speak the language, plus has no idea what a TCP/IP port number is, it doesn't really matter if he works 24 hour days, I'm still gonna be pissed. It also doesn't speak too well for the "talent" in India.

Also, working 14 hour days doesn't mean they're not lazy. It just means they work 14 hour days. You can pack a lot of goofing-off time into 14 hours.

Re:A problem that won't be fixed overnight...

[lordofthechia]

"Dell is generally the main example of poor indian tech support. I suspect they are buying from the bottom of the barrel when it comes support home users."

I would like to add that this is not limited to outsourcing to foreign agencies. I used to work in tech support for one of the major PC manufacturers (not Dell) in a call center populated with some of the brightest and most ethical individuals. We were paid well, had great benefits (3 weeks of vacation time) and loved our jobs and our customers.

We had outsourced some of our calls to an external company in the US. Most of our complaints (in fact all complaints I heard) originated due to a customer dealing with an outsourcer (told to format right away, didn't troubleshoot, mailed a part to fix the issue that didn't, etc). Keep in mind, poor troubleshooting can lead to *increased* costs as parts are replaced that were ok, customers have to call back repeatedly to get an issure resolved that should have taken one call, and generally fed up customers end up with the competition. Fast forward a few months, and all of the Company owned call centers are closed down in favor of these cheaper outsourcers (who were not trained properly *and* taking calls from several different industries).

So now a company that was best known for its quality support has some of the worst support I could ever wish on an enemy, and they didn't have to shop beyond our borders.

Btw, some will say that closing down it's call centers were necessary due to "financial hardship", keep in mind this company aired a commercial during the superbowl a month before laying us all off.

Re:A problem that won't be fixed overnight...

[cyber-vandal]

Explain to me why not wanting to work most of your waking hours makes you lazy?

Re:A problem that won't be fixed overnight...

[aalobode]

One thing about the whole Indian outsourcing thing that people don't mention is that companies are increasingly going overseas not for the cheap labor, but for the talent. Remember, wage pressure in India and other outsourcing destinations is increasing, and pretty soon it won't be too much cheaper to do the work overseas.

True. Remember also that the 386 and the Pentium (and AMD's Pentium equivalent) are attributed to the same man, and Indian named Vinod Dham. He was from a decent but not outstanding engineering school in India , followed by a decent but not spectacular grad school in the US. Putting factories in India allows Intel to get the best grads from that country (think IIT types) and returnees from the USA -- yes quite a few go back "home" -- at lower costs than here in the US. This also gets around the H1 visa bottleneck and the wails about outsourcing. Consider also that a huge percentage of Silicon Valley firms were started by Indians, and you will see that there are plenty more where they came from. All I am adding to your points is that Intel started by a Hungarian Jew has never exclusively employed "American" talent in America.

Re:A problem that won't be fixed overnight...

[aneeshm]

I agree with you on the first point - nobody should presume anything about Americans .

But India is not a caste society . Caste discrimination has been banned since Independence . We have reserved 50 % of all college seats for lower castes , too .

Re:A problem that won't be fixed overnight...

[Anonymous Coward]

>But India is not a caste society . Caste discrimination has been banned since Independence . We have reserved 50 % of all college seats for lower castes , too .

If caste discrimination was banned, why are you still recognizing castes in college enrollment?

Re:A problem that won't be fixed overnight...

[Revenge_of_Solver_Ta]

Maybe, but have actually outsourced any work over there? The results I've had have been absolutely atrocious. Work 14 hours/day is all fine and dandy but when your product is subpar (to put it as nice as I can), it doesn't really matter....

Re:A problem that won't be fixed overnight...

[blahplusplus]

"Also, the work ethic and education standard in other countries is much higher. I've worked with Indian outsourcing firms, and they make up for their lack of understanding of the problem with 14 hour work days and no complaints about how low their pay is."

You must be a manager. Do you honestly want to work 14 hours a day for most of you waking life? I don't. Any sane person who want's some kind of life outside work doesn't either.

"Compare that to workers in the US, who waste their whole day grumbling about their pay and are completely lazy."

No, workers in the US just want a higher standard of living where they work to live, not live to work. The crazy ass-tastic practices the desperate people or crazy workaholic cultures around the globe that business people love fail to see the consequences of working too much.

This pro-workaholic attitude is part and parcel of the reason of why so many peoples lives are go down the shitter in depression, suicide and worse. More homework, more time in school, more time at work, etc, etc.

Re:A problem that won't be fixed overnight...

[Vitriol Angst]

But once you move the important technical parts of your business, to say India, what is to prevent the people who know how to do your business from just moving across the street one day and creating a business to compete with you? How short-sighted is this lack of loyalty to America for a few more points of profit?

In a few years, Boeing will be competing like Ford with a Chinese airplane manufacturer that will be using all of the technology and training that Boeing taught the good people of China. The race for cheap labor will eventually backfire on the executive class -- because I'm sure that it's a lot easier to replace them "brain wise" than to replace an aeronautics engineer.

Re:A problem that won't be fixed overnight...

[Vitriol Angst]

I think the idea that "all Indian support is exceptional" is because we are used to meeting the exceptional from that country. I'm pretty sure that when you deal with the "Average Indian" -- you aren't going to be getting any better of a worker talent-wise. Work ethic is another factor -- but I suppose a lot of that culture is effected by "easy living" and a sense of "opportunity" -- so first generation immigrants in America are hard workers, while by comparison their children are closer to average. When India has a Billion people -- you have a larger pool of exceptional people to pick from, and they are relatively cheap. But as business moves to India, wages will rise and the exceptional people will be harder to find for the same money.

Of course then a business can outsource to China. But eventually, you end up with the "average" person to hire.

The average school in America is probably not doing a great job -- too many political "fixes" that don't try to find the best solution. Just look at "No Child Left Behind" forcing schools to teach to the test -- who uses "tests" when figuring out problems in a business? But even with the rapid reduction in education quality, we still have very good top schools like MIT -- as good as anywhere. The big difference is, that India and China are seeing education as a resource, and are investing in it... while in our country there is the constant pressure to chase the lowest common denominator. Culturally we have a real problem.

But then, the Heyday of America is probably come and gone -- everything changes.

Re:A problem that won't be fixed overnight...

[Vitriol Angst]

No working 14 hours a day, and liking it is called "indoctrinated."

Yeah, been there, done that. I want to "have a life." Why should someone be proud that they worked 80 hours a week to make someone else rich?

It's fine that people work hard and try to better themselves, but that shouldn't just be the goal. But business want's more labor cheaper, so they keep pushing out the message that the only value is productivity and purchasing. Occassionally, I want to see my son play soccer. Getting more "time off" makes me feel like a winner now.

Re:A problem that won't be fixed overnight...

[aalu.paneer]

That is a problem with NetGear and how they manage support! Thay have not trained their employee properly or hired people with relevant experience. What has this got to do with India and talent in India?

And when they outsource _management_ to India...

[Anonymous Coward]

...maybe people will start to take notice.

India has dozens of http://www.indianmba.com/Top_B-Schools/top_b-schoo ls.html and it seems likely that at least some of them are able to teach students how to pigeonhole things as dogs, stars, problem childs, and cash cows... or whatever it is that MBAs are taught how to do.

It also seems likely that Indian MBAs on site are at least as capable of managing colleagues as U. S. MBAs a satellite-link away.

And once management is in India, why shouldn't the CEO be there, too?

Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/stor y?oid=oid%3A81717

(Happy for India nonetheless.)

A question many Intel USA Engs will soon be asking

[Newer Guy]

Would you like cheese on your Whopper?

Seriously, at this rate, ALL the good (read: well paying) jobs will be gone from the USA.....

Don't think so? Consider this: If you lose 7.5% of these jobs a year in ten years, 75% of them are gone. Don't believe me? Ask the people who still live in Pittsburgh, Buffalo or Allentown.....they know!

Priorities

[ZombieSquirrel]

India designing hardware does not bother me. The lack of quality drivers is what I'm worried about.

India = Death of Intel

[MrJerryNormandinSir]

That's it. I'm against outsourcing. I don't like India. I believe what goes around comes around. As far as Intel goes:
I'll never buy another Intel Processor again! I encourage all of you to do the same.

Re:India = Death of Intel

[Jerry Rivers]

"I don't like India"

Oh? What don't you like about it? How many places have you been to in India? Is it the country in general you don't like or the people? Is it because of their political system or because of the size of their population? Please explain.

Re:India = Death of Intel

[Calinous]

I'm sure you haven't ever ever bought a processor made in Philippines, Costa Rica or Malaysia (built by Intel). Or maybe Dresden (built by AMD)

Re:India = Death of Intel

[geekoid]

let see.
1) still has the black death
2) incredible amount of people sleeping on the streets.
3) incredible amount of dead people on the street every morning.
4) draconian religous laws.
5)no protection for the citizens.

here the first 5 reason why I don't like india, and will never go there.

Note, this is about India, not the people from there. Most of the ones I have worked with are bright and work hard during there shift.
I also note that they have been educated in the US.

Re:India = Death of Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

Draconian religious laws???? Wudja explain please? You aren't confusing India with Saudi Arabia, Malaysia or Russia are you?

Re:India = Death of Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Underinform American,

1. India has as much political freedom we have here in the US. They had a woman prime-minister within the first 30 years. They have a Muslim President, a Sikh prime-minister and a Christian leader of the party in majority. Imagine that variety in the U.S. where religious fanatics are in many positions of power today.

2. India has some of the best schools and universities of higher education. Many of the world's top scientist, IT professionals, enterpreneurs and other professionals are Indians and educated there.

3. There is very good law and order in India. Yes, disastors like Katrina happen there too, but overall a thriving democracy takes care that people are listened to.

4. India has been a free country for only about 55 years now, and there do exist a lot of social problems causing the issues you mention. But it is making big strides in tackling the poverty. Also remember that it is a country of peace loving people, and it hasn't attacked 30 odd countries in the last 50 years like US did.

I love U.S. too, but let's be realistic before hating the others.

Re:India = Death of Intel

[pommiekiwifruit]

You haven't said why you dislike India though! All those points seem to be about the USA.

1. Bubonic plague is endemic in USA in wild animals.
2. San Francisco and other cities have heaps of panhandlers sleeping on the streets. Not like New Zealand or Ireland.
3. San Francisco and other cities (as above).
4. OK, USA is not quite so bad as some countries, but USA has only recently (2000) got rid of laws banning black and white people from marrying, or religiously inspired anti-homosexual laws. The amendment separating church and state is very much under pressure (teaching evolution, gay marriage, school prayer, "in god we trust" etc.) but it is nice that the USA pays at least lip-service to it.
5. Hah! You can be thrown into guantanemo bay with no legal representation, and that is legal now (instead of the CIA pretending they didn't do it). The new dictatorship law Bush signed lets him decide who goes there with no oversight or comeback.

So what were the criticisms against India?

Re:India = Death of Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

So you hate India because its poor, and yet you don't want them to have any jobs? Where is all this hate coming from?

Re:India = Death of Intel

[confewzd]

So where's the encouragement? You should create an ad campaign, go all the way, ignorance is not going to spread itself!

Re:India = Death of Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

The idiot's knowledge is clear from his grammar "...during there shift."

Re:A question many Intel USA Engs will soon be ask

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not worried. Intel India botched the Whitefield processor really badly. I'm surprised management is giving them a second chance this soon. I don't have high confidence that they'll get it right this time either.

Sign of weakness?

[wytcld]

Anything involving chip design depends heavily not just on your patent portfolio, but on accumulating a set of minds with deep experience. Yes, you need to keep bringing in fresh genius; but you also need to retain the old, both for its continued insights and to help cultivate the new talent. So if Intel is really shipping out any of its major chip design work (as compared to testing, where the more different angles you test from the better - and which may really be all that's involved here), that's a sign that it currently values its accumulated "live capital" - its stock of engineering geniuses - low enough that it figures it might as well start over again with virgin staff elsewhere.

Now, there can be reasons for that. The American car makers are crashing because they should have fired their engineering staffs a couple of decades ago and simply started over. But has Intel really reached a similar point?

Re:Sign of weakness?

[geekoid]

The auto industry's problem is slow recognition of schanges in trends, trying to yuse marketing to stop upcoming trends once they do recognized it, and poor entrenched managment philosophy.

Please understand math before doing it

[Anonymous Coward]

A reduction of 7.5% per year over 10 years results in 45.8% of the original value, not 25%. If you don't understand math, the rest of us are better off with you flipping burgers.

Re:A question many Intel USA Engs will soon be ask

[jejones]

Consider this: If you lose 7.5% of these jobs a year in ten years, 75% of them are gone.

Ummm...actually, you lose (1 - .925**n) * 100 percent after n years, so with n = 10, that's a hair over 54 percent.

But the ones who understand math will be OK.

[argent]

If you lose 7.5% of these jobs a year in ten years, 75% of them are gone.

I assume that the 55% of the jobs that are lost over that ten year period are the ones held by the engineers who don't understand basic math.

This is great, now the CPU prices will come down!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right? Right!?

And cue outsourcing outrage in 3...2...1...

[BeeBeard]

Is it just unrealistic to believe that the work could be performed in the United States? Or is it a moot point anyway because (as humourously pointed out in another thread) the people working on it in that case would be Indians with work visas?

$39 billion?

[SashaM]

What exactly does the submitter mean by "the $39-billion largest chip maker"? Intel's market cap is $120B.

Re:$39 billion?

[the_humeister]

The submitter is going by revenue since Intel's revenue for its past fiscal year was $38.8 billion.

Intel's chip technology is strong...

[argent]

Intel's problems are not and have never been in the implementation of processor architecture. Their problems have always been their grandiose instruction set and architectural fantasies, and the degree to which they've let their plans be guided by currently-popular acadedmic theories.

80286 segmentation was at least partly informed by the design of PL/1 and Pascal.

iApx432 was the super-CISC designed to deal with object-orientation at the hardware level.

i860 needed advanced compiler technology that was still theoretical when it came out.

IA64 has the same problem in spades... and also completely failed to learn from MIPS toying with delay slots, or else they'd never have made "bundles" explicit compiler-controlled objects. Alpha and Power barrier instructions provide the same capability without forcing the compiler to build code specific to the underlying microarchitecture.

The fact that Intel has managed to keep up and even surpass companies with far better designs is a testament to their chip designers and process technology. It's a pity they don't give people of that quality room to do their best work earlier in the design pipeline.

Re:Intel's chip technology is strong...

[Anonymous Coward]

"or else they'd never have made "bundles" explicit compiler-controlled objects. Alpha and Power barrier instructions provide the same capability without forcing the compiler to build code specific to the underlying microarchitecture."

Hahaha! Are you clueless of what? (sigh)

You obviously arent an engineer

[everphilski]

or you lost your job first because your math skills blow. Check your math.

Well, you surely aren't going to purchase AMD

[everphilski]

after all, they oursource too. What are you going to buy, Cyrix? *snicker*.

Re:Well, you surely aren't going to purchase AMD

[MrJerryNormandinSir]

For now I am running a PowerMac G5 dual core with PCI-Express slots, 4GB RAM. It runs OS/X and Linux
extremely well.

Re:Well, you surely aren't going to purchase AMD

[everphilski]

... and your precious apple was outsourced. In fact Apple has come into legal problems recently with their Foxconn iPod outsourcing operations in China.

Might wanna look for a good abacus made in the good-ol US of A.

nobody related it with OLPC?

[lgalindo]

and the negative from India to continue with the Negroponte project? (laptop.org)

That's impossible!

[Travoltus]

Upper level management and the corporate officers could NEVER be offshored.

Stop being a chicken little and put your head back in the sand!

[neo con parody off]

Re:That's impossible!

[dpilot]

Ryobi

(I actually recognized humor, but had to give a straight answer, too.)

Heh. Oh yes you do.

[Anonymous Coward]

"People here are comparitively cheap, but that does not automatically mean that "You get what you pay for", unless you do shop around for a bargain."

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I'd say that there's an extremely high probability that you've gotten what you pay for.

I'm an overpriced consultant in Silicon Valley. I've been at nearly all the big name companies, and many of the hot startups. You're probably familiar with them. Over the past 4-5 years (since the dot-com implosion), there are two key things I have noticed. First, I have never, ever see an outsourced effort work (whether it's IT, software or hardware). Second, my rates have gone up every year. Indeed, now I'm starting to decline gigs that have been outsourced, but are now coming back to the U.S. because they failed.

The closest effort that I've seen be successful was an outsourced hardware effort. But that was 3 months late, and caused no end of grief. If you know what the cash burn-rate is of a start-up, 3 months is a killer. They might have save a few bucks (say $50,000 - I'm just making that up). But they lost far more while people were waiting for them to deliver. This doesn't include the sales lost over a 3-month period of time, or the higher number lost due to not grabbing marketshare.

It's amusing that the hardware manager views it as a "success". Go figure.

So, while I'm sure there are many competitant engineers in India (as I've had the pleasure of working with some truly bright ones here in the U.S.), the old adage still holds true. Namely:

"Better, faster, cheaper - chose any two". I'd also add that most companies are lucky to even hit one of those.

Checking My Memory

[Nom du Keyboard]

Wasn't it not that long ago that Intel was ending their Indian development efforts due to poor progress and employee fraud? Now they're back again?

Whoa there!

[raddan]

I've worked with Indian outsourcing firms, and they make up for their lack of understanding of the problem with 14 hour work days and no complaints about how low their pay is. Compare that to workers in the US, who waste their whole day grumbling about their pay and are completely lazy.

Hang on there! Sure, this is why Indian labor is competitive with US labor-- but you make it sound like the US is just a bunch of lazy fatcats. I'm not an economist, but US productivity has been on the rise for a long time. This is the result of many factors, but I doubt that laziness is one of them. 14 hour workdays smacks of desperation. Neither I nor anyone I work with is lazy, but thank God I am not in their shoes!

I suspect that you are right in your first statement, though, that Intel is moving work into India because the talent is there. And if what others say is correct-- that the cost of researchers pales in comparison to the cost of the facilities-- I suspect that they're going to look for intellectual capital where they can find it. Why not India? I wouldn't be surprised if Intel had R&D facilities all over the world. Follow the talent.

outsourcing leads to business move.

[Anonymous Coward]

First only tech support is in the other country.
Then low end tech jobs are in the other country.
Then more complete development is in the other country.
Then full product development is in the other country.
If the majority of R&D moves to the other country, it becomes hard to maintain executive controll from afar long term.
Either the company or a subsiderary(sp.) of it move hq there,
Or the talent there splits to form a new company.

Similar is some ways to Europe attempting to control the americas long ago.

Yes

[Travoltus]

Because when America's high tech work force goes overseas, there won't be many people left to buy these business' products.

If businesses want to survive in America they need to give to America.

Otherwise, get out completely, and let us build companies to make products for us by us.

Re:Yes

[UbuntuDupe]

So, businesses can outcompete foreign competition by paying too much.

Why don't you make the first move? Choose the most needy company/person when making your purchasing decisions.

Hopefully...

[BigAssRat]

I hope they aren't basing these new chips on laser interconnects.

Already done, pal

[Travoltus]

Made in the USA. I choose the brand of product that's made in the US, or a Democratic, worker-friendly European country, if at all possible.

Next?

Re:Already done, pal

[UbuntuDupe]

Thanks! I'll keep my charity separate from my market purchases, but feel free to fritter away your own money as you see fit, while the rest of us point and laugh.

But hey, when the economy totally collapses because we didn't subsidize poor business models, I'll let you watch me cry.

Re:Already done, pal

[Anonymous Coward]

What you mean is that you'll pay the same amount or more for a product made for less and thus "fritter away" your money while the people making decisions at Intel continue to make all of the money--and no don't confuse it with the investors because Intel doesn't offer dividends. You're still paying for U.S. production: the production of upper management's fortunes.

But whatever, you totally nailed that macro midterm and that makes you an expert on everything.

Re:Already done, pal

[Travoltus]

You won't be pointing and laughing when your employer moves your job overseas.

And no one but you is going to be pointing and laughing at people for supporting their own country. But plenty of people are pointing and shaking their heads at you and your "profits over people" mentality. There's no future in that. There's short term gain, but no future.

Remember, you have to live in the country whose workers are impoverished. But when the impoverishment gets bad enough, of course, you'll move. That's your loyalty for you - not to your country, but to your money.

RE

[Anonymous Coward]

why don't we throw just a little bit more vague into this post.

Did anyone REALLY not see this coming?

[HiThere]

I'm not sure whether I think of this as good or bad, but corporations are spreading ALL of their pieces around the world. They don't want to be dependent on any country in particular. (It's hard to blame them for THAT attitude!) This will, inevitably, mean that their costs and benefits are also distributed. One of the benefits is jobs.

This is a clear argument that corporations should not be given legal advantages in excess of the net benefits they provide, but that was reasonably clear already. (I count corruption as a part of the net costs of having large corporations present, but I'm not sure those they pay to write the laws count things the same way.)

Re:A question many Intel USA Engs will soon be ask

[zettabyte]

Consider this: If you lose 7.5% of these jobs a year in ten years, 75% of them are gone.

Ummm...actually, you lose (1 - .925**n) * 100 percent after n years, so with n = 10, that's a hair over 54 percent.

Yes, but if you factor in our math skills, as the OP has done, I think that number does approach 75%.

UbuntuDupe is too scared to criticize

[Travoltus]

those overpaid CEOs at Intel.

But what will he say when underpaid CEOs in India take the jobs of overpaid CEOs in the US, as Intel is inevitably undercut by its competition in India (no doubt using stolen IP from Intel)?

Oh, he'll say "that can't happen"

or

"So long, America!"

Re:UbuntuDupe is too scared to criticize

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, he won't move: immigrating anywhere worth living is not easy, and he probably is just a middle class Libertarian so he can't buy his way anywhere, especially after the U.S. fiat currency is finished being devalued. He's an ideologue, and he won't care if Intel's or anyone else's management is exported abroad (not that it will be--people look after themselves) because it will be more efficient or whatever. He's under the delusion that he is competitive, and until he cannot find employment because he finally realizes that he's not that special after all, he'll sing the praises of outsourcing believing that it will reduce his prices despite all of the evidence to the contrary. He lives in an imaginary world where capitalism exists, and people don't simply do whatever benefits them the most regardless of how precisely it follows Ayn Rand's morality. He'll sit back for as long as none of this affects him personally, content that his ideology is winning. Ideologues treat real life like a game.

Re:UbuntuDupe is too scared to criticize

[Travoltus]

Ideologues treat real life like a game.

Booyah. Get your copyright attorneys ready because I'm stealing that.

Re:UbuntuDupe is too scared to criticize

[UbuntuDupe]

I think I have a better prediction success rate than you do. Remember these?

"If America loses textile manufacturing, we're doomed!"

"If America loses cotton growing, we're doomed!"

"If America lowers tarrifs, we're doomed!"

"If America loses car manufacturing, we're doomed!"

"If America loses microchip fabrication, we're doomed!"

and finally,

"If America loses computer R&D, we're doomed!"

This time it'll happen, right?

Re:UbuntuDupe is too scared to criticize

[Travoltus]

"If America loses computer R&D, we're doomed!"

This time it'll happen, right?

Nice talking point. When textile manufacturing and all those other industries went away, there was a new industry coming up to replace them.

Now, as computer R&D is going away, and it's taking biotech with it, what new industry is coming along?

None.

Now, let's reiterate your talking point:
Industries come and go, and new ones replace them.

And let us ask you this question that will bring your participation in this discussion to a sudden, silent, cowardly halt:
What new industry is coming to replace the high-tech and biotech industries?

Have a nice day.

Re:UbuntuDupe is too scared to criticize

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn,you measured him up but good with that one!

Re:UbuntuDupe is too scared to criticize

[Anonymous Coward]

What new industry is coming to replace the high-tech and biotech industries?

The fast-food industry? GOTCHA THERE :P

Kernel Panic

[scoobrs]

I can't wait for all the bugs... Kernel panic: Virtual memory location 0x010000000 reported "Thank you! Come again."

So that explains why

[Travoltus]

they're laying off skilled workers at the US plants, some of whom were American?

Chip designer offshoring was what started first; my first degree was going to be Computer Engineering when there was a slowdown in 1995. I switched to MIS, and so did a lot of other people, as a result of this, not as a precipitation of this.

Here's how it goes:
1) Companies lay off engineers in America and go overseas
2) Engineering students change majors and new students don't take computer engineering as a major
3) Companies hire H1B's
4) Companies whine about a lack of engineers in America
5) One or two idiots buy into it and get a computer engineering degree and find they have no work here, or are getting laid off constantly.
6) ???
7) Slashdot poster says the problem is a lack of engineers in America!

Re:So that explains why

[purpledinoz]

I was just speculating, I have no basis for my opinions. However, I do have a computer engineering degree, and my classmates and I have very little trouble finding work. I don't know what you're talking about. I also think it is a mistake to pick MIS over Computer Engineering. An engineering degree gives you much more versatility in the jobs you are able to get.

Toyota's not a monoculture

[Radical Moderate]

Some Toyota R&D happens in the good ol' USA:
http://www.toyota.com/about/operations/na-affiliat es/index.html#rd

New Intel slogan

[Potent]

New Intel ad:

Thank you for calling Eeen-tell, how may I provide you with excellent processor today?

It's simple.

[torokun]

The US is a battery. India and China are basically ground for the next 50 years or so. We need a resistor or two.

Mod Parent Up!

[Eli Gottlieb]

Would somebody mod this good man up?

If Israel was poor like India or the shekel took a huge dive versus the dollar and Euro, people would have the right to complain. Until then, Israel has its own labor problems, such as needing Palestinians to do the manual labor because many Jews are too proud.

Toyota is a monoculture

[wsxyz]

Yes indeed. Racing engines, aftermarket parts, and trim. So basically U.S. Designers got to pick the paint scheme and the design the tail fin for my Corolla. Hooray for diversity!

Free trade

[DrCode]

If there's truly free trade, the American should be able to move to India and work there for $15/hour, which probably provides a better living than $50 in, say, California.

Or, Americans should be able to bid on the project. It's possible that a $50/hour US engineer could do the work entirely on his own, while the Indian project involves hiring 3 $15/hour engineer, along with a $100/hour executive in the US to manage the project.

Intel's Market Cap is 120 Billion not 39 Billion

[orlinius]

The Market Capitalization of Intel is 120 Billion, not 39 Billion as stated by this slashdot post.

Food and raw materials

[Sun Rider]

So India sells manufactured products to the USA and the USA sells food and raw materials to India. That's basically the relationship between industrialized countries and 3rd world countries. Way to go!

Benefits

[Z34107]

Truly free trade does benefit a lot of people at the expense of a few. It's analogous to the car replacing the horse and buggy - everyone benefitted from an (ultimately) cheaper form of transportation, but all the liveries were put out of businesses.

Here, the case isn't that a technology was made obsolte, but we still have the same end-result - something that's ultimately cheaper and better for the consumer has taken root, and it's displaced some jobs. Many benefit from the cheaper good ("many" being "anyone who buys that good", which truly is "many") and these consumers grossly outnumber the former producers of said good.

And exactly what countries do you think aren't amenable to raising lare numbers of cattle?

Other than the obvious problems like lack of space (Japan), lack of suitable climate (look North), or lack of grassland (look South) or any number of suitable factors, the important thing is: why would you want to be raising large numbers of cattle? If Wisconsin can sell you a cow cheaper, and right now - is it truly worth the time and additional cost raising your own?

Again, the problem isn't that it can be done - cows/edible animals have been around long before trade barriers. The fact is that technology, cost of inputs, human capital, and other economic buzzwords that all boil down to "efficiency" make it cheaper to buy from someone else.

Not everyone in the world is the cheapest, fastest, and best-er-est at making everything. Trade works because you can trade what you country makes cheapest for what another country makes cheapest - and both save.

Wouldn't it be better just to export the cows?

Some charities do that, but the problem with this is twofold. Businesses aren't charities - they have both cow and milk and want money, and people have money and want milk. The milk sells for more than the cow, so they keep it and sell the milk. Does that really work for the starving children? No, not really - unless you consider the fact that many don't have the food to feed a cow let alone themselves, and again, Western technology can actually make exporting the end products of the cow cheaper than just giving the cow away.

Re:Benefits

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Businesses aren't charities

And this, in short, is the real problem. Capitalism doesn't give a rip about people- it cares about PROFIT.

Outsourcing kills innovation.

[MaWeiTao]

The problem isn't so much outsourcing in and of itself. It's that all expertise is being sent overseas. What is even manufactured in the United States anymore? US automakers are already trying to send what they can elsewhere, even the defense industry isn't completely American anymore. And at this point those are really the last stand for this nation.

The problem is that the US no longer has anything to call it's own. They've become completely dependent on the rest of the world for the sake of saving a few dollars. Instead of increasing the quality of their products they keep focusing on reducing costs and cutting corners.

Compare the US to Japan or Germany. Both of those nations export much of their manufacturing, however, the top tier is still kept within their respective nations. It ensures they retain skilled labor and will continue to innovate.

And back to the original question, what exactly do American companies do? They're put themselves in a compromising situation. Take Dell. What do they do other than slap a logo on a case? It's Taiwanese and a few Chinese companies doing most of the work. Sure, Intel, AMD and others are doing some of the initial design but foreign companies are poised to pull the rug out from under American companies. Just like Japanese companies came to dominate the electronics industry the Chinese will likely one day dominate the computer industry.

Here's an interesting thing... Swiffer was invented by a Japanese company. What did Procter & Gamble do? As they proudly proclaim, they "invented" the Swiffer brand. Too many American companies seem to trade in ephemeral concepts. Why waste money on innovation when someone else can do it for you? Well, one day the Japanese company will wise up and sell the products here themselves. Then companies like Procter & Gamble will be out of business, Americans will be out of work and they will blame foreign competition.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not know about the 386/Pentium thing and Vinod Dham.

Thanks

Re:A question many Intel USA Engs will soon be ask

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, that's not what he meant. You don't lose any in the first ten years. You start to lose 7.5% a year in ten years time. So in 20 years you'd have lost a bit over 54 percent. :P

Indians Lost their jobs and business

[abaweja]

What about Multinational companies, which destroyed local Indian market.
BPL, Videocon and Onida are few of large brands used to synonymous with Television and Home electronics, now hold miniscule market share. These brands still exist in market, but those small scale manufacturers who were selling at miniscule margins are dead. Skills of workers who were just good in assembling TV by hand with no knowledge of electronics beihnd it, is no longer required. Argument in favour of Sony, LG, Samsung is that they have better product offering at lower prices. Same holds true for Indian Software Engineers.
Think of a scenario when no American company is allowed to sell outside USA. How many Americans will lose their jobs? US can't have selective open market, Where it can sell its products to third world but third world nations are prohibited in selling product and services they are good in.
I don't have a research ot back it up, but in my opinion free trade benefits all. Outsourcing doesn't always transfers Job from USA to India/China but it creates more job. If I was spending $100 on something and now I can do that for $10, my profits will increase by say $200 and I can retain both $100 and $10 employee and still earn higher profits.

More Competition = Better Processors

[sanman2]

Hell, whatever happens to Intel's competitiveness, the consumer would certainly benefit from more players in the processor-making industry. It's like saying that consumers are suffering from AMD's race with Intel -- silly.

Tell that to Intel's employees

[Travoltus]

who are getting laid off in California as we speak.

Don't forget Wal Mart!

[Travoltus]

Always the low wage^H^H^H^Hprices. ALWAYS!

agressive intel

[Sharpfish]

Well, outsourced work or not... Intel is getting really agressive again with their chip development. Starting with the Core2Duo (a great product) and making moves like this means they are obviously intent on not letting AMD take their glory again any time soon.

As for the other issue of where the chips are being developed, who cares... the desktopz uzas gotta have their 8 core ;)

Supply and demand does not take need into account

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No "human relationship" is required to keep markets "fair" - prices are functions of supply and demand, which are equitable where free markets and free trade permit adequate competition.

This deserves a separate thread. I contend that supply/demand pricing fails to take into account either need (of both workers and consumers) or cost of manufacture, seeking the lowest quality for the lowest price instead. Would you serve your friend rotting meat if you had filet mingon available? Of course not. But the so called "free markets" and "free trade" will- because there's no actual human relationship, no friendship, only profit. Why should you as a manufacturer give a rip about poisoning your customers, as long as you have the marketing to replace them? That's the logic of the tobacco industry, for instance. But conversely- if you're a blacksmith in town and your customers are your friends and neighbors, you're going to do an excellent artistic job on what you sell- both for the reason that you want the social benefit of doing a job that is appriciated, and to keep your customers comming back to you. Likewise your friends and neighbors will happily pay the greater price- because they know you're using the money not for greed, but to feed, clothe, and house your family. It's a different look at economics from a more Catholic point of view- and it grants rights that every single 13th century peasant had that you don't.

Re:Supply and demand does not take need into accou

[Z34107]

Would you serve your friend rotting meat if you had filet mingon available? Of course not. But the so called "free markets" and "free trade" will- because there's no actual human relationship, no friendship, only profit

You forget - what kind of profit is to be made from rotting meat? Consumers demand the most value for the lowest price; manufacturers demand the highest price for the lowest cost. At some price in the middle of these extremes, a critical mass of people is willing to sell a product, and a critical mass is willing to buy. This compromise between the consumer's "give me everything for nothing" and the manufacturers "give me everything for nothing" results in a market price.

In this way, markets are fair to both buyers and sellers, and they are efficient.

The same thing works by the hypothetical profit-motive-only-soulless-capitalist archetype. The artistic work will sell for much more than slag. If that price difference justifies the extra effort, you will see only artistic work.

It's not just what's cheapest to make - it's what's most profitable. Look at the booming organic food industry - the higher-quality food is much more expensive to grow than traditional, mid-quality "bulk" food. But, people will pay more for the quality.

Markets don't create the cheapest, crappiest goods - they create the most profitable. Since organic food is more profitable than "regular" food, it is made despite the higher production cost and effort.

Capitalism and the Proletariat

[Z34107]

I'm fine with a lack of subsidies- I'm not fine with allowing access to foreign markets.

Why? If a person wants to sell stuff in China, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to. If a person in China wants to sell stuff here, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to. They're not doing anything wrong - they've made something, they want to sell it.

There's no moral difference, whether the "they" is a "nice" stereotype, such as the rural farmer, rustic blacksmith, or other proletarian image, or an "evil" archetype, such as a multinational corporation.

Selling "ownership" in a company is exactly the fraud I'm refering to. We are stewards and custodians of what we have, not owners.

Ridiculous. I can quite clearly say that something is "mine", and I can claim a right to it. Nothing wrong with the individual ownership of property.

Say that you spent a dollar on the most delicious nectar that is in a 24oz bottle of "Mountain Dew." Whatsay I believe that I can be a better "steward" of your Mountain Dew than you are capable of. Even if this were true, I have no right to take your Mountain Dew because, presumably, you worked for your dolalr, you spent it, and the fruits of your efforts are yours, to do with as you wish.

Just as I can't claim "stewardship" over what others have worked to create and obtain, neither can anyone else. This is the point of private property - you own the products of your labor.

If you can't pay for it, you're not a consumer by capitalist standards; you're just so much meat to be used and thrown away.

By the "capitalist" standards in my macroeconomics text, yes, aflmost everyone on the face of the earth is a consumer of public goods. This type of consumership is different than the soundbytes read by the talking heads on television.

By a purely cold and theory-driven capitalistic standpoint, a person with no money is not "worthless", because it is not personal ownership that gives a person work. The potential labor that a person is capable of producing has value. Nobody's going to tell a software engineer that he's "so much meat to be thrown away" because he missed a rent payment - the landlord's going to be pissed, but the engineer's work is worth a six-figure salary.

Even in less glamorous jobs, any individual has value insofar that they are capable of labor. The market for their particular type of labor - what people are willing to work for, and what companies are willing to pay - determines a unit of labor's value in monetary terms.

Those who are infirm and incapable of work, in a theoretical, strictly capitalistic market-driven world, are considered "worthless." That's why America, even though it is a (not truly) "capitalist" country, has social programs.

Re:Capitalism and the Proletariat

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Why? If a person wants to sell stuff in China, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to. If a person in China wants to sell stuff here, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to. They're not doing anything wrong - they've made something, they want to sell it.

Then let them sell it to their own country, and leave me the hell alone.

There's no moral difference, whether the "they" is a "nice" stereotype, such as the rural farmer, rustic blacksmith, or other proletarian image, or an "evil" archetype, such as a multinational corporation.

The moral difference is the human connection- the willingness to pay more to ensure the well being of your neighbor, because they too will pay more to ensure your well being.

Ridiculous. I can quite clearly say that something is "mine", and I can claim a right to it. Nothing wrong with the individual ownership of property.

Except the fact that it is a mythical lie- one that means nothing over centuries.

Say that you spent a dollar on the most delicious nectar that is in a 24oz bottle of "Mountain Dew." Whatsay I believe that I can be a better "steward" of your Mountain Dew than you are capable of. Even if this were true, I have no right to take your Mountain Dew because, presumably, you worked for your dolalr, you spent it, and the fruits of your efforts are yours, to do with as you wish.

Religious babble. There's no reason to say that dollar belongs to any individual other than the treasury that printed it.

Just as I can't claim "stewardship" over what others have worked to create and obtain, neither can anyone else. This is the point of private property - you own the products of your labor.

Yes, that's the point- but it's just religious claptrap that makes no sense outside of it's own mythical framework.

By the "capitalist" standards in my macroeconomics text, yes, aflmost everyone on the face of the earth is a consumer of public goods. This type of consumership is different than the soundbytes read by the talking heads on television.

And just like any good fundamentalist, you appeal to an authority that I don't neccessarily accept. Why should I believe a textbook written by the religion of capitalism over my own eyes?

By a purely cold and theory-driven capitalistic standpoint, a person with no money is not "worthless", because it is not personal ownership that gives a person work. The potential labor that a person is capable of producing has value. Nobody's going to tell a software engineer that he's "so much meat to be thrown away" because he missed a rent payment - the landlord's going to be pissed, but the engineer's work is worth a six-figure salary.

We currently have a labor surplus, especially in software engineering- and that's exactly what I was told 5 years ago. I had to carve out a new position in government- because according to private industry, I'm worthless; it's better to give a position to 5 engineers in Bangalore than allow me to be a software engineer.

Even in less glamorous jobs, any individual has value insofar that they are capable of labor. The market for their particular type of labor - what people are willing to work for, and what companies are willing to pay - determines a unit of labor's value in monetary terms.

And right now, that's about $.34/hr. There is nothing that you can't train a Chinese labor camp dissident to do better, and that's what they are paid. That's what the free market gets you.

Those who are infirm and incapable of work, in a theoretical, strictly capitalistic market-driven world, are considered "worthless." That's why America, even though it is a (not truly) "capitalist" country, has social programs.

Yep, social programs that kick you off after six months and tell you that you're not worth supporting anymore- at which point you become disabled or homeless.

Like I said- your textbook answer doesn't match the reality before my eyes.

Re:Capitalism and the Proletariat

[Z34107]

Then let them sell it to their own country, and leave me the hell alone.

Or, you could leave them the hell alone. Nobody's forcing you to buy from them.

In fact, by forcing said person to stay in his own country, you're also forcing everyone in your country who actually wants to buy from him to go elsewhere. For spite of a foreigner, you hurt all those who could benefit from trade.

The moral difference is the human connection- the willingness to pay more to ensure the well being of your neighbor, because they too will pay more to ensure your well being.

An economic system is the most terrible vehicle imaginable for peddling "human connection." No system of allocating resources can force others to care about each other; to have that "human connnection."

To pretend this is possible is "religious claptrap." Besides, I'd wager that most people would rather keep their money and ensure their own wellbeing than trust something that important to anonymous others.

Society as a whole is still made up of individuals. If the individuals are allowed to keep that which they need to care for themselves, than society as a whole will be better. In a capitalist society, you're still free to do the opposite - to pay more to someone who can also "pay more to ensure your wellbeing."

We currently have a labor surplus, especially in software engineering- and that's exactly what I was told 5 years ago. I had to carve out a new position in government- because according to private industry, I'm worthless; it's better to give a position to 5 engineers in Bangalore than allow me to be a software engineer.

In a capitalistic society, there's nothing preventing you from moving to Bangalore. Sure, you'll get paid less - but you can't expect the entire world to pay you a ridiculous salary at the expense of the Bangalorians, can you? Are you worth that much more as a human being to justify your profit at their expense?

As for your critique of "ownership", I still don't understand why you believe it's such a "bad thing." You can reject texts containing 200 years of science because it "appeals to an authority you cannot accept", so I'll appeal to one you do seem to worhship: There is no "human connection" depriving someone of the result of their toils, because it was never "theirs" to begin with.

Re:Capitalism and the Proletariat

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Or, you could leave them the hell alone. Nobody's forcing you to buy from them.

They are when they're the only manufacturers allowed in the marketplace.

In fact, by forcing said person to stay in his own country, you're also forcing everyone in your country who actually wants to buy from him to go elsewhere. For spite of a foreigner, you hurt all those who could benefit from trade.

Nobody actually benefits from trade in items that can be made onshore- they're only profiting in the short term to cause higher costs in the long term.

An economic system is the most terrible vehicle imaginable for peddling "human connection." No system of allocating resources can force others to care about each other; to have that "human connnection."

I've got a system of allocating recources that does just that- but to do it you have to keep the units small. Families, tribes, villages at the largest- with no currency across borders. Trade is allowable, but only commodity trade.

To pretend this is possible is "religious claptrap." Besides, I'd wager that most people would rather keep their money and ensure their own wellbeing than trust something that important to anonymous others.

And yet- it worked for the majority of human history, up until fascist agriculturalism began to take over about 10,000 years ago.

Society as a whole is still made up of individuals. If the individuals are allowed to keep that which they need to care for themselves, than society as a whole will be better. In a capitalist society, you're still free to do the opposite - to pay more to someone who can also "pay more to ensure your wellbeing."

Thanks to natural disaster, nobody's figgured out how to allow individuals to keep what they need to care for themselves.

In a capitalistic society, there's nothing preventing you from moving to Bangalore. Sure, you'll get paid less - but you can't expect the entire world to pay you a ridiculous salary at the expense of the Bangalorians, can you?

No, but I can expect my tribe to pay me a ridiculous salary if I pay them a ridiculous salary.

Are you worth that much more as a human being to justify your profit at their expense?

I am if you are. In other words, if a CEO is worth that much, so is a software engineer.

As for your critique of "ownership", I still don't understand why you believe it's such a "bad thing." You can reject texts containing 200 years of science because it "appeals to an authority you cannot accept", so I'll appeal to one you do seem to worhship: There is no "human connection" depriving someone of the result of their toils, because it was never "theirs" to begin with.

Rather, I see your 200 years of fake science, and counter it with 1.5 million years worth of human history.

Re:Capitalism and the Proletariat

[Z34107]

Rather, I see your 200 years of fake science, and counter it with 1.5 million years worth of human history.

I see your 1.5 million years of human history culminating in the success of capitalism. Nations with capitalistic economies have the highest standards of living across the board for both rich and poor. Not one nation has successfully completed the transitionto a communist state, and all that have tried have seen nothing but suffering.

Throughout the 1.5 million years of human evolution, there have been communal societies - but none have stayed communal for long, nor have any that did seen the prosperiety and wellbeing the poorest of their counterparts had.

Speaking empirically, capitalism has been more successful. communism has not.

You point out that "your system of allocating resources" only works when the units are small. Then go set it up right now - if you don't have to drag the rest of society with you, this should be easy. And I'm sure you'll be infinitely more prosperous cloistered in your island state than you will as an underemployed software engineer, once you've rid yourself of the oppressive shackles of markets.

No, but I can expect my tribe to pay me a ridiculous salary if I pay them a ridiculous salary.

No you can't. Salaries and money have value only in how much you can buy with them. Getting paid a billion dollars because you paid the rest of your community a billion dollars makes a nice, happy little circle - but all that matters is the productivity and efficiency of your tribe. If everybody has a billion dollars, but your farm production for the year resulted in a half acre of grain, you'll have a true understanding of where the value of money comes from.

Ridiculous salaries are not wealth; they're a measure of wealth with ever-changing dimensions. The mere transfer of goods does nothing to create wealth - the production of goods does.

I am if you are. In other words, if a CEO is worth that much, so is a software engineer.

Wrong. Human life has an intrinsic value which cannot and should never be measured through any economic means.

But your intrinsic worth as a human being has nothing to do with what is equitable. Capitalism conveniently lets a worker keep the bulk of his labor. How much he contributes to the prosperity of society determines how much he is paid. A "team member" at a fast food joint (my current employment) produces much less, measured in real dollars, to the prosperity of society than does than does the entrepreneur how created a restaurant that employs dozens and feeds thousands, who produces less than a theoretical physicist doing groundbreaking work on nanotechnology.

The fast food worker takes a 79 cent hamburger, cooks it, and sells it for a 99 cents. It is impossible for this worker to get paid any more than 20 cents a hamburger if his job is to remain past his employer's savings. The profits the owner enjoys are proportional to what he contribues - not only does he have to work hours if his business is to be successful, but he has created 20 cents of wealth per burger than did not exist before. The happy side effects of this profit are that 1) people have jobs and 2) people are fed - both useful things coming from nothing but profit motive. Meanwhile, the physicist with the nanotechnology breakthrough has revolutionized practically everything in use by society, and by virtue of his skill is paid more.

Notice how each individual keeps the bulk of his labor. Just that each person's labor is capable of creating vastly different amounts of real, tangible, non-monetary wealth - a cooked burger is intrinsically less valuable than a place of employment than a life-changing technology. Capitalism ensures that each person keeps the bulk of their labor - inequality comes from each person being capable of a different labor.

It is ridiculous to assume that a fry chef has had the same contribution to the prosperity of society as an even mildly-successful software engineer. That's why the engineer is paid more - it's his share of his own contribution, the best definition of equity.

Re:Capitalism and the Proletariat

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You point out that "your system of allocating resources" only works when the units are small. Then go set it up right now - if you don't have to drag the rest of society with you, this should be easy. And I'm sure you'll be infinitely more prosperous cloistered in your island state than you will as an underemployed software engineer, once you've rid yourself of the oppressive shackles of markets.

Hahaha- you think I'm a communist- rather than a DISTRIBUTIST. Name one island anywhere in the world that isn't owned by a totalitarian agrictulturalist culture. You can't- because as soon as such cultures find one, they assimilate it with guns and bombs.

No you can't. Salaries and money have value only in how much you can buy with them. Getting paid a billion dollars because you paid the rest of your community a billion dollars makes a nice, happy little circle - but all that matters is the productivity and efficiency of your tribe. If everybody has a billion dollars, but your farm production for the year resulted in a half acre of grain, you'll have a true understanding of where the value of money comes from.

I've lived on a farm. Money has no actual value- it's just another religious myth.

Ridiculous salaries are not wealth; they're a measure of wealth with ever-changing dimensions. The mere transfer of goods does nothing to create wealth - the production of goods does.

Very good- so tell me, what goods does a CEO produce to deserve a salary 400x the rest of the citizens? What goods does a stock broker or a banker produce? None that I can see. So therefore, those people don't deserve the salaries your capitalist system gives them.

Wrong. Human life has an intrinsic value which cannot and should never be measured through any economic means.

And yet capitalism does it repeatedly.

But your intrinsic worth as a human being has nothing to do with what is equitable. Capitalism conveniently lets a worker keep the bulk of his labor.

You must still be in college- no worker actually believes that lie. And since the rest of your message fails to prove this lie and is based on it, come back when you can PROVE that the worker keeps the bulk of his labor.

Re:Supply and demand does not take need into accou

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You forget - what kind of profit is to be made from rotting meat?

Ever read Slaughterhouse 5? LOTS. That which you can't sell to the rich, you sell to the poor. By eliminating waste, you've increased efficiency. And made a profit to boot.

Consumers demand the most value for the lowest price; manufacturers demand the highest price for the lowest cost. At some price in the middle of these extremes, a critical mass of people is willing to sell a product, and a critical mass is willing to buy. This compromise between the consumer's "give me everything for nothing" and the manufacturers "give me everything for nothing" results in a market price.

And neither has anything to do with actual needs of the individuals involved.

In this way, markets are fair to both buyers and sellers, and they are efficient.

Efficient, I'll agree- fair, well, you're using that word in a way I've not been previously aware of.

The same thing works by the hypothetical profit-motive-only-soulless-capitalist archetype. The artistic work will sell for much more than slag. If that price difference justifies the extra effort, you will see only artistic work.

Except, we don't- because the artistry means *nothing* without the human connection. Thus Wal*Mart takes over retail and forces more companies to become profit-motive-only. It's a race for the bottom- destruction of the innovation motive.

It's not just what's cheapest to make - it's what's most profitable. Look at the booming organic food industry - the higher-quality food is much more expensive to grow than traditional, mid-quality "bulk" food. But, people will pay more for the quality.

Until of course Wal*Mart steps in and starts forcing efficiency into the organic food industry, by removing the human component. Look at the most lucrative portion of the organic food industry- the subscription farm. Do you really think $400/year veggies will be able to compete when Wal*Mart comes in with bulk-rate organic at half the cost, shipped thousands of miles?

Markets don't create the cheapest, crappiest goods - they create the most profitable. Since organic food is more profitable than "regular" food, it is made despite the higher production cost and effort.

And it will be destroyed when somebody comes in with a crappier, cheaper version that is marketed as the same. It's the same old story- eventually you're left with only the crappy version in the marketplace.

Re:Supply and demand does not take need into accou

[Z34107]

Ever read Slaughterhouse 5? LOTS. That which you can't sell to the rich, you sell to the poor. By eliminating waste, you've increased efficiency. And made a profit to boot.

Nope; can't say that I have. But, even though the poor getting fed horrible food is, well, horrible - at least they have food.

The magic of "profit" is that even with the most selfishly-motivated individual (the rotton meat-seller) fed the poor.

Thus Wal*Mart takes over retail and forces more companies to become profit-motive-only. It's a race for the bottom- destruction of the innovation motive.

So, the inefficient retailers suffer when WalMart shows the world how much they're overcharging. Instead of selling things for what they're worth, other retailers such as Target try to make their crap look more "valuable" by wasting money on advertising. It's cases like these where Wal-Mart is a sorely-needed breath of fresh air.

Besides, how much has Wal-Mart done to help the poor, even being motivated only by profit? Families can afford much more than their limited incomes could before because Wal-Mart has made everything more affordable for them. The poor have more, even though Wal-Mart was motivated only by profit and not by altruism.

Do you really think $400/year veggies will be able to compete when Wal*Mart comes in with bulk-rate organic at half the cost, shipped thousands of miles?

Nope - and it's not supposed to. You shouldn't have to spend $400/year to get pesticide-free vegetables. The poor won't be able to afford that.

But, if somebody makes "bulk-rate organic" at half the cost, hooray for them. They made food that was formerly affordable only for elitists available to those much poorer. Even though these "bulk-rate" people were motivated only by profit, the poor can now afford better food.

Markets don't create the cheapest, crappiest goods - they create the most profitable. Since organic food is more profitable than "regular" food, it is made despite the higher production cost and effort.

And it will be destroyed when somebody comes in with a crappier, cheaper version that is marketed as the same. It's the same old story- eventually you're left with only the crappy version in the marketplace.

Simply not true. Just because somebody comes up with a "crappy-but-cheap" version doesn't mean anybody will want to buy it.

How much it costs to make something is a very different concept from "efficiency." If a new process to ship vegetables costs a tenth of the old, but makes most of the food inedible, it's hadly a more "efficient" way to ship food.

Markets reward efficiency - how well you can deliver what consumers actually want and how much of the earth's reasources you consume in doing so (input price). If you don't produce what people actually want, there's no $profit for you, even if it is dirt cheap. Supply and demand.

Re:Supply and demand does not take need into accou

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Nope; can't say that I have. But, even though the poor getting fed horrible food is, well, horrible - at least they have food.

You need to read about what capitalism became in the 1920s. Then maybe you'll have some appreciation for government regulation.

The magic of "profit" is that even with the most selfishly-motivated individual (the rotton meat-seller) fed the poor.

Killed the poor off more like. After all, if it wasn't for capitalism, the poor would be allowed to hunt and grow food on unowned land. Look up the Kalapuya sometime- the "Wealthy People" of the Pacific Northwest, and take a look at what THEIR economic system was.

So, the inefficient retailers suffer when WalMart shows the world how much they're overcharging. Instead of selling things for what they're worth, other retailers such as Target try to make their crap look more "valuable" by wasting money on advertising. It's cases like these where Wal-Mart is a sorely-needed breath of fresh air.

And in the meantime, thanks to Wal-Mart's "efficiency", our health insurance goes up at 10% a year and wages go down 2% a year, thus destroying an unrelated system because they're not willing to pay what work is really worth.

Besides, how much has Wal-Mart done to help the poor, even being motivated only by profit?

Let's see what wal-mart has done to "help" the poor- thrown them out of work due to monopolistic practices, given them new jobs paying 1/3rd what they were paid previously, taken away their health insurance so that they have to go to the emergency room for health care, which hurts the rich as well. Yep, good citizens those waltons are- if being a bunch of traitors is good citizens.

Families can afford much more than their limited incomes could before because Wal-Mart has made everything more affordable for them. The poor have more, even though Wal-Mart was motivated only by profit and not by altruism.

They wouldn't have such limited incomes if it wasn't for Wal-Mart to begin with, sending factory jobs to China. Wal-Mart is just an arm of the Chinese government, out to destroy America.

Nope - and it's not supposed to. You shouldn't have to spend $400/year to get pesticide-free vegetables. The poor won't be able to afford that.

And the farmer can't survive on anything less- so he'll go out of business. Here's a thought- pay the poor what they're worth so that they can afford $400/year subscriptions.

But, if somebody makes "bulk-rate organic" at half the cost, hooray for them. They made food that was formerly affordable only for elitists available to those much poorer. Even though these "bulk-rate" people were motivated only by profit, the poor can now afford better food.

The problem is, the way they create the bulk rate is to pay people less- thus creating more people in poverty. The race for the bottom- a negative feedback loop.

Simply not true. Just because somebody comes up with a "crappy-but-cheap" version doesn't mean anybody will want to buy it.

In a free market, only the stupid will buy anything else- simply because if profit is king it's not short term profitable to buy the more expensive version.

How much it costs to make something is a very different concept from "efficiency." If a new process to ship vegetables costs a tenth of the old, but makes most of the food inedible, it's hadly a more "efficient" way to ship food.

As long as the customer dies somewhere else- what does it matter to the shipper?

Markets reward efficiency - how well you can deliver what consumers actually want and how much of the earth's reasources you consume in doing so (input price). If you don't produce what people actually want, there's no $profit for you, even if it is dirt cheap. Supply and demand.

Markets reward fraud, primarily- because the real story is being hidden from the customer behind a viel of anonymity.

Re:Supply and demand does not take need into accou

[Z34107]

Markets reward fraud, primarily- because the real story is being hidden from the customer behind a viel of anonymity.

Bull. There is no "real story" in a market - there's a good of a certain legally-assured quality for a known price. You decide if it's value to you is worth that price.

In a free market, only the stupid will buy anything else- simply because if profit is king it's not short term profitable to buy the more expensive version.

You can't "profit" by buying something. People buy something because, to the buyer at least, it's worth the opportunity cost.

The problem is, the way they create the bulk rate is to pay people less- thus creating more people in poverty. The race for the bottom- a negative feedback loop.

You assume that labor is the only input in food. In fact, in corporate, "bulk" farming labor is the lest expensive of inputs. "Bulk farming" works because it is more efficient for a few mechanized individuals to exploit a vast tract of land than for many to hand-work a small one.

"Efficient" is the key word here. More food is produced from fewer resources; society gets more and pays less. Very few reductions in cost come becasue a minimum wage laborer got the axe - long-term gains come from productivity increases. Technologies that make better use of land, that require fewer or no pesticides, that more effictively use soil are the source of the reduction in cost and the source of society's riches.

And the farmer can't survive on anything less- so he'll go out of business.

If no farmer can survive on anything less, than the price would never get less. There would be no farmers around to sell at that price.

If one particular farmer can't survive on anything less, he is squandering resources that could be turned into much more by someone else. This one particular farmer is damaging the environment and wasting resources unproductively because he is unable or unwilling to utilize his labor better. Society as a whole should not have to pay for one man's stubbornness, and with markets, they don't have to.

It is impossible for a small farmer to produce food profitably nowadays not because of a corporate conspiracy or anonymity-enabled indifference - it's because a small farm is one of the worst ways to produce food. Using the worst possible way in lieu of a better alternative wastes finite resources to the detriment of society.

Re:Supply and demand does not take need into accou

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Bull. There is no "real story" in a market - there's a good of a certain legally-assured quality for a known price. You decide if it's value to you is worth that price.

True free market capitalism cannot assure legally a level of quality- that is regulation and that is forbidden in the free market.

You can't "profit" by buying something. People buy something because, to the buyer at least, it's worth the opportunity cost.

If you buy something for less than it would take to make it yourself- and then resell it to somebody for equal what it would take to make it yourself- then that is profit. This is the business model of Wal*Mart, after all.

You assume that labor is the only input in food. In fact, in corporate, "bulk" farming labor is the lest expensive of inputs. "Bulk farming" works because it is more efficient for a few mechanized individuals to exploit a vast tract of land than for many to hand-work a small one.

In ORGANIC farming, true organic farming, labor is the majority of the input. I've been both a mechanized and an organic farmer, and I know the deifference.

"Efficient" is the key word here. More food is produced from fewer resources; society gets more and pays less. Very few reductions in cost come becasue a minimum wage laborer got the axe - long-term gains come from productivity increases. Technologies that make better use of land, that require fewer or no pesticides, that more effictively use soil are the source of the reduction in cost and the source of society's riches.

What do you think a "productivity increase" is if not a minimum wage laborer's job being eliminated? I see you've bought into the lies of economics.

If no farmer can survive on anything less, than the price would never get less. There would be no farmers around to sell at that price.

No, Wal-Mart just buys up the land, and instead of farmers, brings in illegal immigrants at $2/hr. Or better yet, just ships in the "organic" produce from Chile without bothering with actually certifying it organic. What kind of idiot are you anyway to not know how the world works?

If one particular farmer can't survive on anything less, he is squandering resources that could be turned into much more by someone else. This one particular farmer is damaging the environment and wasting resources unproductively because he is unable or unwilling to utilize his labor better. Society as a whole should not have to pay for one man's stubbornness, and with markets, they don't have to.

Yes, that's the entire meaning of the wrod ORGANIC. Thus the entire organic market should not exist according to your philosophy. It's better to raise produce and dairy in South America, India, Africa and China than here, because it's much more EFFICIENT to do so.

It is impossible for a small farmer to produce food profitably nowadays not because of a corporate conspiracy or anonymity-enabled indifference - it's because a small farm is one of the worst ways to produce food. Using the worst possible way in lieu of a better alternative wastes finite resources to the detriment of society.

That corporate conspiracy is called Capitalism, dear boy- don't lie and call it something else.