IBM Offers to Send Laid-Off Staff to Other Countries

TheAmit writes to tell us that many recently laid off IBM employees have been offered jobs if they will only move somewhere it is cheap to employ them. IBM's new Project Match program offers some financial assistance for moving and immigration help for visas. "However, the move has not gone well with the IBM staff union. Slamming the offer, a union spokesperson said that not only were jobs being shipped overseas, but Big Blue was trying to export the people for peanuts too. He added that at a time of rising unemployment IBM should be looking to keep both the work and the workers in the United States. "

Comments

Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

on low pay and see how long that idea will last.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Toe, The]

That really is a brilliant idea. If they want to show leadership, they should do just that. See the chart at the bottom of this page. What does $5.8 million come out to in Indian wages? (Sure that. a termination package, but I think it gives a hint.)

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Austerity Empowers]

If they wanted to avoid criminal charges for treason, they should be forced to do that. Unfortunately it's not defined that way in the US, although perhaps "aid and comfort to our enemies" might entail employing them and moving our industrial base to their countries.

This country is an expensive place to live and work because, as a democratic society, we've voted ourselves a lot of cruft. Some of it is good, some of it is excess. There is a price however, and the price is wages.

Corporations want to circumvent this cruft by simply moving away from the problem (while simultaneously leeching the benefits of it, by maintaining themselves in the US). They leech on our society, using it to protect them while they grow their businesses, taking full advantage of what the country has to offer...while simultaneously selling it out. If it isn't stopped, we'll bleed dry.

Hopefully people will look at this statement from IBM and say "I don't want to live in China, there's no bill of rights, their legal system doesn't work well [for us], there is no personal freedom, and it's barely a democracy."
s/China/wherever/g

Then ask why it is that IBM, who is based in Armonk, NY, should be able to make a profit by undermining our democracy - bypassing laws our government created to benefit us, because they don't really want to pay for it.

I may agree with them that there's a lot of inefficiencies and excess in some of the things that drive our wages up. But the proper solution is to work within the system, not erode it.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Daimanta]

"I don't want to live in China, there's no bill of rights, their legal system doesn't work well [for us], there is no personal freedom, and it's barely a democracy." ... but we sure do LOVE the shit they are selling us!

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Yxven]

What do you suggest?

As a consumer, I am expected to vote with my feet.
As an employee or business owner, I am expected to make money by satisfying consumers.

These are apart of the fundamentals that make capitalism work.

Personally, I think IBM is behaving as expected. I would prefer they and every other corporation vote with their feet than hire lobbyists to "work with the system."

I realize that's bad for us Americans in the short-term, but maybe then, we'll stop "voting for cruft."

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever happened to the idea of "Voting with your feet" to show the system is broken?

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[tristanreid]

First of all, it's not treasonous to employ people from another country. That's just silly. Most of the countries in the world are not our enemies, particularly the ones where we do business. We have this thing called a trade embargo, you might have heard of it. We've been using it against Cuba for longer than I've been alive. No company that I know of has advocated that their employees move to Cuba, FYI.

Secondly, the reason this is an expensive place to live and work is not because we are a democracy, or because of cruft. It has more to do with our past success and the nature of currency. If we produce goods that everyone wants, it increases the value of our currency. This means that we can afford more goods and services from other countries. Do you only buy American? If not, your rant is completely hypocritical. If a company chooses to hire someone outside the country, they are being more efficient. The inefficiency doesn't come from something that Americans have done wrong, it comes from what we've done RIGHT. Do you suggest that in California we should refuse to hire people from Louisiana because they are (statistically) poorer, and will work for cheap? Somehow our economy has survived the porous intrastate border, how do you explain that in your view of the world?

You ask (paraphrasing) "why should [the companies] be able to make a profit"? The real question is why you think they shouldn't? Do you really believe it should be against the law to buy from someone outside of your town/city/state/country? I think that's the kind of provincialism that leads to cruft and corruption. I think your nationalistic fear and hate-mongering of other countries is just short-sighted.

We net benefit when companies run themselves as efficiently as possible. Protectionism is just a way to protect bad companies by passing on their expenses to everyone else in the country.

-t.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[mgblst]

Lets extend this brilliant and well thought out idea.

Cleaners: See how long the CEOs enjoy cleaning toilets. Result:No more cleaners.

Support: See how long the CEOs enjoy answering phones: Result: No more Support.

I am sorry, on the basis of how long a CEO would last at something, it is not a great measure of anything.

Now this is a silly idea, i mean if they were sending them somewhere nice, like Australia or the Bahamas, then I could understand. But India? Brazil? But, this is not a silly idea because of the idiotic reason you stated.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[manekineko2]

Insightful?

I'm sick and tired of all this populist bull that is everywhere these days. Populism has a point, but the variety that seems popular right now is just empty rabble rousing based not on logic but emotion. Yes, it's all the CEO's fault, those fat cats are the ones who put us in this situation.

What percent of the costs of IBM do you suppose are general labor, and what percent is upper management?

IBM is a publicly traded company. If you could gather enough people who actually put their money where their mouth is, and would either think that this savings on CEO salary would make this worth it, or are willing to forgo value in the company in order to deliberately get a less qualified executive to make a political statement, more power to you.

Alternatively, you could make your point in the marketplace by punishing companies that you disagree with. Are you personally willing to support American companies and high cost American workers by buying American whenever possible? No? Apparently most Americans don't like that idea much either.

Is it better to simply layoff the American workers and hire cheaper foreign labor? No? American companies attempting to become cost competitive with foreign companies are unpatriotic corporate fat cats!

Then is it better simply to let our corporations be out-competed by the Hyundais and Haiers of the world? In the end, the costs of most things boil down to labor. How are our businesses supposed to compete with higher costs across the board? Protectionist laws would work for a while, but in the end a country can only hide for so long from the fact that its business enterprises aren't competitive globally if the difference is too wide.

Western society has grown weak and spineless. We aren't willing to make any hard decisions anymore, because the ends never justify the means. We're not right or good, we're just nice. We can't crack an egg to make an omelet because what about the feelings of the egg shell? It's fine that a 3rd party starves now as a result, because we don't have to see them, so it doesn't make us feel bad.

Reminds me of a petulant child, who is given the choice between a cookie or candy, and refuses to make a decision and throws a tantrum because he wants both.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

>it's barely a democracy.

Ummm, it's *not* a democracy... no "barely" about it.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[postmortem]

You are absolutely right. Some of things are fault of us, citizens - for not making laws that protect a worker or citizen from corporate abuse.

An example is a company who makes record profits and lays off people, just to please analysts and maintain stock price.

In "at will" states worker have almost 0 rights. The illusion of rights comes from that workers have unique talent or skills that are not easily replaceable in a high numbers. So company "plays nice" just to keep the workers because they are irreplaceable.

This is true for every company to some degree.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Bryansix]

Your post is spot on. The solution to the perceived problem by the way is two-fold. Add checks and balances to prevent direct democracies from voting pork barrel spending upon themselves and step two is to reduce the size of government overall. Yes, investment in Infrastructure is still needed by Government and they still need to run the police and fire dept. But over that it's all "cruft" as you say and we should abolish it.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

"and it's barely a democracy."

Barely a democracy? It ISN'T a democracy. You can't vote out the party in power. That's pretty much the definition of not being a democracy.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[DigiShaman]

Actually, I thought about moving to Shanghai.

While you have zero political freedoms, you have a shitload of personal ones. For example, you can drink a beer and walk the street. Light of some fireworks 3am at night 24/7. Solicit your services or wares at any public place. Build a home without fucking deed restrictions...etc

Basically, 180 degrees ass-backward from the US.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick and tired of all this populist bull that is everywhere these days. Populism has a point, but the variety that seems popular right now is just empty rabble rousing based not on logic but emotion. Yes, it's all the CEO's fault, those fat cats are the ones who put us in this situation.

High-flying CxOs have been insisting for *years* that their insultingly high remuneration packages are justified because they are the ones responsible for success.

Well, that means they must also be responsible for the failures. They are reaping what they have sown. Given that the average person could live in luxury for the rest of their lives on the annual income of some of these people and, well, you're not going to see a whole lot of sympathy from the common man.

Fuck 'em. They were the ones running the show. How are the bad times not their fault, if the good times were supposedly their achievement ?

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. No need for regulating stock markets and ensuring good corporate governance. That would never get exploited!

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[visualight]

Your premise that companies have a choice between exporting jobs or going out of business is certainly not always true, I think it is usually not true. As such, 'protectionist' laws aren't needed to protect us from foreign importers, we just need to better motivate the right choices.

Your other premise seems to be that the only option available to the public is to vote with their stock market choices or with their consumer dollar. Also not true. The freedom from liability that comes with incorporation also comes with real and implied responsibilities. Many of the implied responsibilities have been eroded over the years, and that may be corrected by codifying them into law -an option I'm hoping gets traction.

That's the hard decision that needs to be made here. The egg that needs to be cracked here are the super rich executives reaping all the benefits of incorporation and accepting none of the liability that should come from running a business. The starving 3rd party is the middle class that these fat cats don't have to see or care about. YOU are the petulant child.

 

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations want to circumvent this cruft by simply moving away from the problem (while simultaneously leeching the benefits of it, by maintaining themselves in the US). They leech on our society, using it to protect them while they grow their businesses, taking full advantage of what the country has to offer...while simultaneously selling it out. If it isn't stopped, we'll bleed dry.

At present, there is no economic incentive for doing so. Capitalism worships gold, not gods nor governments.

"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." -- Jefferson

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff138493.html

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[lysergic.acid]

i see some of what you're saying, and i agree with you that U.S. corporations shouldn't be allowed to operate overseas to circumvent U.S. laws (like industrial regulations to protect laborers or limit pollution). i mean, murdering someone in international waters is still murder, and industrial pollution is detrimental to the global environment regardless of where you do it.

however, i think it's very small (not to mention jingoistic) to consider all foreign countries our enemies. we need to stop thinking in such myopic and provincial-minded terms. just because someone was born within a different set of borders doesn't make them your enemy. that kind of thinking simply causes more unnecessary conflict, and all because of imaginary lines that we draw on our maps.

just because you happen to be born in a developed nation doesn't mean you are entitled to better living standards than someone born in India or Ethiopia. and it's not the Indians or Ethiopians' fault that U.S. corporations outsource their labor.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone may be your friend, but you don't give him the keys to your house, access to your bank account or the rights to bed your wife.

Just as you do everyday, you take care of yourself first.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[mochan_s]

If they wanted to avoid criminal charges for treason, they should be forced to do that. Unfortunately it's not defined that way in the US, although perhaps "aid and comfort to our enemies" might entail employing them and moving our industrial base to their countries.

Great thinking. Why don't we create a blanket law when you can charge anyone, any company on vague reasons as "aiding and comforting enemies"?

This country is an expensive place to live and work because, as a democratic society, we've voted ourselves a lot of cruft. Some of it is good, some of it is excess. There is a price however, and the price is wages.

It's "democracy" now that has to do with the wage differentials. A company will hire someone if the wage they pay is less than the benefit to the company. Here it was the case since the our engineers were the best and the workers the most productive. When did that change?

Corporations want to circumvent this cruft by simply moving away from the problem (while simultaneously leeching the benefits of it, by maintaining themselves in the US). They leech on our society, using it to protect them while they grow their businesses, taking full advantage of what the country has to offer...while simultaneously selling it out. If it isn't stopped, we'll bleed dry.

Yes, vague patriotic remarks, booming us and them rhetoric and "bleed us dry", a physical pain equivalent. Don't let realism get in the way of all that.

Then ask why it is that IBM, who is based in Armonk, NY, should be able to make a profit by undermining our democracy - bypassing laws our government created to benefit us, because they don't really want to pay for it.

IBM should look to be as profitable as possible, as innovative as possible and as much a market leader as possible without breaking any laws. If the government wants to be protectionist and say no import of labor for production of IBM products, I'm sure they'll agree. It might mean that foreign companies will then be able to produce the items that IBM produces for a fraction of the price and kill IBM. (*example the auto industry and the UAW*)

See this is part of the problem with people on slashdot. We want protectionism when it comes to our jobs. We want to be paid highly and all foreign competition that would potentially lower wages should be taken off the market. But, we don't care when all the factories move overseas where we can potentially buy a dozen computer off each paycheck, or buy all sorts of "toys". We want protectionism in what we produce and free market in what we consume.

I may agree with them that there's a lot of inefficiencies and excess in some of the things that drive our wages up. But the proper solution is to work within the system, not erode it.

I say let the wages be worth it. If a third world person in a third world university with the crippling infrastructure and education system can get a good enough education to do the same work at the same quality, then it's kinda silly to ask the government to protect my job. I'd like to think that I'm worth every penny that I'm being paid.

I know people are scared and I felt scared a lot. But, I just feel we have to be worth it and IBM will have no problems hiring Americans since they're worth every penny they pay. We have first worth infrastructure - fast internet, great libraries, great pool of engineers, scientists etc and to be threatened by a foreigner who has to study in an under-funded university with inept professors and out of date hardware and knowledge is crazy.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[manekineko2]

You say there's no need for American companies to export jobs or reduce wages such that base costs are the same as with their competitors, we just need to "motivate the right choices". You seem to continue by implying that the solution is to place more restrictions upon American companies. That will resolve the problem of American labor costing more, and American products costing more such that no one wants to buy them. What exactly is your proposal?

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Larryish]

If anyone is interested, I am selling some oceanfront property in Bangladesh.

Should be perfect for all you former IBM coders looking for a high-paying $0.60 per day job doing second-tier support for AT&T.

IBM can bite my shiny metal ass.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[magarity]

I'm living in China because my spouse's company transferred us here. I applied to IBM here and they wanted to hire me and send me back to the USA at the Chinese pay level as an intracompany transfer which they use to avoid the H1-B process (although as a US citizen I didn't even need to apply for the intracompany visa). The pay was a bit under $800/mo for database technical consulting work that's in the $120+ range in the US for the consultant, nevermind what the company charges. Obviously I turned that down, but I have to wonder how many Chinese get sent to the US with this kind of pay thanks to the intracompany visa scheme. The interviewing manager said they "do it all the time".

BTW - the firecrackers 24/7 is only for 2 weeks around Chinese New Year. They go back to being illegal except for permits tomorrow at midnight. And you might build a house without restrictions but you can't own the land. The government at any time can move you out and take it back for some odd reason - and while eminent domain abuse happens in the US, at least there you get paid fire sale rates for your house before they knock it down.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

so take care of yourself first. no one is asking you to starve yourself to feed third-world populations. nor is anyone asking you to give your job to someone else.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[visualight]

I did not say or imply that any new "restriction" is a solution, nor did I say or imply that there's _no_ need for American companies to export jobs or reduce wages. Maybe you responded to the wrong post, or maybe you don't have a response for my actual post.

Motivation implies incentives not restriction or regulation.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[manekineko2]

From your post:
"Many of the implied responsibilities have been eroded over the years, and that may be corrected by codifying them into law -an option I'm hoping gets traction."

How is that not a "restriction or regulation"?

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[timrichardson]

The fact is that for 20 years the US has been bringing the smartest and brightest internationals to work in the US: other governments paid for the first 12 to 15 year of educating these people, but in a global economy, they go to where they add the most value. I bet a lot of IBM's US patents have significant contributions from foreigners who live in the US. The same economic forces that attract PhDs means lower skilled jobs get exported. We can all except that manually harvesting wheat or hand-making horse shoes are low-skilled jobs that long ago got swept aside by technology. Perhaps it's hard to accept that this process never stopped happening.

Sorry for any typos, but the typing pool that I normally use to take my dictation seems to have disappeared in the past 50 years.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[spiffmastercow]

Or better yet, tax the shit out of them

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[phallstrom]

We net benefit when companies run themselves as efficiently as possible.

Maybe. Maybe not. Henry Ford made the argument that he needed to pay his employees enough that they could afford to buy a Ford automobile. He probably would have been more efficient paying them less... right up till he went out of business because no one could afford his product. So there is a line somewhere that a company shouldn't cross if they want to stay in business long term. Although I suppose in this case once the US stops consuming because it can't afford it, those companies will just move on to India, China, etc. My personal feeling is that no one will care until suddenly the majority of US citizens can't afford their big screen TV and their "god given" right to watch it... then suddenly people will take an interest in this sort of thing. Heh.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Quinapalus]

There are quite a few states without open container laws. Ditto for fireworks.

As for building your home without deed restrictions, that will depend on the place you are living. I imagine that rural Mississippi has many less requirements than say, San Francisco.

Actually, Mississippi meets all of your requirements. No open container law, no prohibition of fireworks, and few deed restrictions. In addition, you can vote, and your property can't be taken away without compensation.

Also, in Mississippi, you can do other stuff that you cannot in China, like own an handgun. Or vote.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[plasmacutter]

Or better yet, tax the shit out of them

surprise, the reaganite scumbags have "disputed the neutrality" of this article.

Sorry schmucks, but reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

If they wanted to avoid criminal charges for treason, they should be forced to do that. Unfortunately it's not defined that way in the US, although perhaps "aid and comfort to our enemies" might entail employing them and moving our industrial base to their countries.

The problem is that they're not going to completely leave the United States. They still plan on doing business here, albeit with a foreign staff.

I've got a better idea - just revoke their incorporation in the United States, and bar them from operating here. Then stock up on tar and feathers.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Maxo-Texas]

We are in a democracy.

When one member of the society starts taking actions which 51% object too, then sooner or later, they will be stopped.

If they use their money and power to stop it from being fixed democratically, it will still be fixed- see Hobbe's Leviathan.

Extending the trend to its logical conclusion, there will be a point where you have one CEO in America, 9,999 unemployed people and either there will be a vote or the CEO will be unprotected at some point when things get ugly
and that will be it.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[JustPutt2]

I'm curious??? If CORPORATE IBM has 57,000 people working in India,,, WHO ARE CITIZENS of India,, and paying TAXES in India,,,, WHAT is IBM doing WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[JustPutt2]

I'm glad that you vetted

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[camcorder]

Not actually right. Yes you can make CEO to clean toilets and to make him/her see toughness of working conditions and try to make things better for cleaners. Same for support personal. CEOs and upper management sometimes take decisions on the table, without further thinking about consequences. That's why all Wall Street is sinking deep in shit. Decisions made 'in a smart way' causes bigger problems in mid or long haul even though they look like a good idea in short run. CEOs and upper management people are not gods, so their decisions more likely to be critisized. Thinking of volunteraly migrating someone to totally different environment and expecting to get same kind of performance is silly enough. People are not like goods imported or exported. They have families, ideas, social lifes. And it's not easy to change that day by day.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to consider globalization and its aberrations caused by the freedom to move capital from one country to another, in part to obtain advantageous wage rates. The corresponding freedom for a worker to move to another country to compete in the labor market is controlled by governments and companies to the benefit of companies. This results in H1B visa abuse and huge illegal labor forces in developed countries. There is nothing like an individual right to move anywhere in pursuit of a better job.
Obama called himself a citizen of the world when he spoke in Germany but there ain't no such thing. It's just capitalists and wage serfs.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[TheLink]

"I know people are scared and I felt scared a lot. But, I just feel we have to be worth it and IBM will have no problems hiring Americans since they're worth every penny they pay. "

But most people are just average, and trouble is the average worker's salary in USA is far more than the average worker's salary in China.

Maybe the average "american" in the USA is better than the average Chinese. But is he or she that much better that it's worth it?

What's the solution? I don't know.

Print more US dollars and use it to buy oil from Saudi Arabia, then convert that oil into real wealth rather than wasting it? Take advantage of the free ride while you can - it won't last forever.

You could say China is evil for keeping their currency low, but they are buying a lot of US debt, so they're in it almost as deep as you are. I mean what can they really do if the USA just says "We're never going to pay it back"? You think they don't suspect it? So what do they get from doing that?

Seems like the people in charge at both sides just kept/keep trying to postpone the inevitable - they hope the shit only hits the fan years later when someone else is in charge.

And you know what? I wouldn't want to be in the relevant chinese official's shoes when it happens - might get executed... In the USA seems like you still get big bonuses when you screw up, just not as big as before :).

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[worthawholebean]

Actually, what generally happens in the US with eminent domain is an independent appraiser comes and the government then pays a significant premium OVER the appraised value. For example, in Kelo v. New London, the NLDC offered all the eminent domain'd people *twice* the appraised value of their homes.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

however, i think it's very small (not to mention jingoistic) to consider all foreign countries our enemies. we need to stop thinking in such myopic and provincial-minded terms. just because someone was born within a different set of borders doesn't make them your enemy. that kind of thinking simply causes more unnecessary conflict, and all because of imaginary lines that we draw on our maps.

Jingoistic.. I like that.. in your context it's very close to being a weasel word.

For the majority of us the borders in which we reside encompass a certain level of cohesion and commonality of culture. Like it or not, a blue-blood from New England still has more in common with a Cajun redneck than (s)he does a Bangladeshi.

Secondly, enemies might be too strong of a term, but at the very least we have economic "opponents." Just wait until the resources start reaching critically low levels and we'll see the term "enemy" brought back out again. Personally, I'm just wondering what's going to happen between China and Russia since the Chinese seem to be doing an excellent job at rendering entire cities and regions virtually uninhabitable while running out of drinking water. If they're dumb enough to make a move on the Russkies in 20 years then we will witness WW3.

just because you happen to be born in a developed nation doesn't mean you are entitled to better living standards than someone born in India or Ethiopia. and it's not the Indians or Ethiopians' fault that U.S. corporations outsource their labor.

Who said we were entitled to anything? Are third-worlders entitled to foreign aid and drinking water? Of course not. In fact, nobody is entitled to anything.

Back to the point, on paper at least the government should be acting in the interests of the people that it serves, and if that includes law protecting the workforce in abysmal situations, so be it.

The days of corporations being treated as though they have rights will be coming to an end, and it will be hastened if the economic downturn persists. If they're not acting in the overall interests of a nation in which the operate, why let them operate at all?

The fact of the matter is that our version of capitalism is broken, and our economic reactor has had the control rods pulled out for too long. We and the Euros are going to head towards a capitalist-socialist hybrid form of economy. Don't think so? Just let Polish plumbers keep taking French and UK jobs. Just keep disenfranchising US and Canadian workers. As has been demonstrated at least in the US, we vote. As long as the citizenry is disenfranchised there will be a shift to the left.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent post. You are right on!

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[initialE]

Many of the personal restrictions you mentioned are actually there to protect you, you know. Keep you from being blackjacked off the street, your neighborhood from being burned to the ground, your personal self from being ripped off, falling sick from what you eat, walking into a building only to have it collapse on you...

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are a fucking moron. The very same passive shithead that George Carlin talks about in a few posts up.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[hey!]

Better yet, pay the bonuses in "toxic assets".

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

...but only if you're up-to-date on your bribes to the local part officials, and enforcement arms...

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[CAIMLAS]

First of all, it's not treasonous to employ people from another country.

Well, let's think of a corollary, shall we?

If you're in war, and you find yourself in a trench, during a cease fire, with an enemy soldier, is it treason to offer him some of your chocolate bar?

What if there are two soldiers? Still not treason?

How about supplying an entire regiment with food and supplies?

How about sharing a beer with a known Russian spy? That should be OK, right? How about information you got of a non-important nature (like a new Hardees coming in down the street)? Also OK. State or industrial secrets?

The problem is in the degree to which it is being pursued and thus happening. When a company as big and successful, run and incorporated by Americans, undermines the national interest in a major way (to the tune of a financial sum not that different from what might be taken out of the country through overt theft, espionage, or war? Corporations in the US are, under law, considered "persons". They reap many, many benefits from this. Why should they not also take the penalties for their poor behavior?

No, commerce isn't war. But the impact on a country can be much the same, when the day is done.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Grishnakh]

I've spent a lot of time visiting relatives in Mississippi, and while all this is true, it's really not a very nice place to live. The economy is crap, the weather is horrible (high heat and humidity during the summer, plus tons of mosquitoes), not really any good scenery to look at, even the wooded parts aren't very attractive because (like most of the east coast), they're not very old, having been recently (and still) logged. And the locals are a freak-show.

If you want a lot of personal freedom in the US, I recommend moving west. There's lots of wide-open places in the western states where you can do just about whatever you want, places like Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, etc. Of course, if you move near cities, things aren't as free, but then there's lots of jobs there (unlike Mississippi). There's a lot of places where you can live semi-rurally, but within driving distance of a decent-size city. Plus, the scenery out here is magnificent in most places.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[CAIMLAS]

The problem is that we've reached a point where it's not "lower skilled jobs" are getting exported. There are no more of those which can be exported - we've only got service jobs and professional positions left in this country, in any significant numbers.

It's not such a problem for the economy as a whole when production is made more efficient within a country through the elimination of jobs and advances in technology. But that's not what's happening. Production isn't being made more efficient; it's being made less expensive, and it's not being kept in the country. That is a net loss for the country in a very real way.

Next time you've got the inclination to be depressed, look in your newspaper for jobs which actually produce, or perform work which sustains a country at the fundamental level. You won't find much, if any: you'll find service jobs. While there is nothing wrong with a service job, in and of itself, working at Hardees, as a nurse in a hospital or nursing home, as a sales associate for $company, and so on and so forth do not produce anything. They're just shifting money around. That's not a healthy, stable economy; that's the bedrock of an economy. When that's all that's left, you've got a problem.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Raenex]

I'll quote the grandparent: "Do you only buy American? If not, your rant is completely hypocritical."

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[somenickname]

Actually, Mississippi meets all of your requirements. No open container law, no prohibition of fireworks, and few deed restrictions. In addition, you can vote, and your property can't be taken away without compensation.

Also, in Mississippi, you can do other stuff that you cannot in China, like own an handgun. Or vote.

You can also wear a dirty wife-beater, leave rusted cars on your front lawn and join prestigious organizations that burn crosses.

Mississippi is an all around fantastic place.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

hand-making horse shoes are low-skilled jobs that long ago got swept aside by technology.

While agree with your broader point, I'd like to point out my brother has started working is a farrier. He's been a horse-guy for 25 years at least (I'm 30, and he's at least 41)... As near as I can tell, anything involving horses and especially horse-shoes is highly skilled work.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[ScrewMaster]

on low pay and see how long that idea will last.

A boss says "Go." A leader says, "Let's go!"

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[ScrewMaster]

I'll quote the grandparent: "Do you only buy American? If not, your rant is completely hypocritical."

I do whenever it's possible, and yes, I'll likely pay more for it. But the problem is, because of what our leaders have done to our manufacturing base, "Buy American" is becoming more and more difficult to do as time goes on.

At least I have an American car, even if it was put together in Canada.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[timrichardson]

Of course they are lower skilled jobs being exported. The rising tide of productivity and economic growth means that "low-skilled job" is a moving target. It's a relative term, and it's an indication that jobs in advanced economies are getting more skilled. Moving jobs overseas costs time and money; it's not done for no reason.

Efficiency is "output/cost". If you get the same output for less money, that's more efficient. A car that goes 100 miles on one gallon is more efficient than an car that goes 50 miles on one gallon.

Calling service jobs not real jobs is an old fallacy. Apparently people had the same reaction during the rise of manufacturing. How could manufacturing be really doing something? It just takes things from nature and rearranges them. Everyone knew that only farming and growing things was really creating value.

If someone pays money for something, then value has been created. Service jobs also include programming the iPod, making movies, designing more efficient road systems, career advice, education, medicine, childcare, babysitting, price comparison, ... to me it seems clear there is a lot of value. Mobile dog washes ... well, I'm not so sure, but it must be of value to someone.

And the final point in Economics 101: stable economies are not healthy. You need growing economies. The bedrock of growing economies is really simple. It's the allocation of scarce resources to the most effective use, and the most important scarce resource is people. That's why it's good that jobs are destroyed (in the long run): it's the only way to free people for better jobs. Meanwhile, the places where the jobs go are also getting richer, and downloading more music, watching more movies etc etc

I am not depressed. What gave you that idea? I know I'm right because the past 500 years proves me so.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[timrichardson]

Yeah, many jobs that have been replaced were highly skilled; even riding a horse is more difficult than driving a car, arguably, and who can thatch a roof to last 50 years these days? As for shoing horses, probably proportionately many more people can change a car's flat tyre than could change a horse shoe in the days of getting around on horseback. You can see the point, but calling it "low-skilled" is not correct.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Hognoxious]

The freedom from liability that comes with incorporation

I wasn't aware that corporations had freedom from liability...

also comes with real and implied responsibilities

...but I'm sure when you show me the citation, it will also include a detailed list of these real and implied responsibilites (whose existence I wasn't aware of either).

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[saintlupus]

At least I have an American car, even if it was put together in Canada.

Good choice. It's much more important that your money go to American executives than American line workers.

[/troll]

--saint

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Renegade Iconoclast]

It isn't treason to deal with China ever since Nixon decided it wasn't. He deserves no credit for this, since he would have called anyone else who tried it a Commie. He agreed to very unfavorable terms, for both parties, knowing that he was legalizing slave labor for America. He was many things, but not stupid.

Nixon committed treason, imo, in this and other ways, but I don't think you can say the head of Wal Mart is committing treason when the government sanctions the deal. We theoretically elected all of these people, and your definition of treason is the law of the land that they enacted.

We can stop buying Chinese stuff, but it will be sort of like kicking heroin. It's gone on too long to be otherwise. No one would like it, even the strongest advocates of it today.

In fact, our economy is a big bubble. China has helped build the bubble by buying treasury notes. They need to keep buying them to sustain the bubble. Popping the bubble would be a lot more painful than you might think. It's much better to devise a long term strategy to gradually deflate it.

I see no evidence of same in our governments of the past 40 years. Republicans crow fiscal responsibility, but look at how much money they spend when they have the reins. Democrats talk sound fiscals, and sort of back it up, but the government could teach Arthur Anderson a thing or two when it comes to accounting. It isn't done with economic science, but with wishful thinking.

I'm not one to usually throw around the apathetic cop-out that they're all the same, just politicians. In this case, the sides do different things with similar results. Clinton theoretically balanced the budget, for example, but that's if you believe a lot of speculative, non peer-reviewed mathematics of the sort that goes on in Washington. It is true, however, that he ran a much smaller deficit than, say, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, or Nixon.

Money is all a Ponzi scheme, the trick is to make our Ponzi scheme work the best. Cutting off China isn't the best move by a long shot. We need to turn the spigot down more gradually, or some of us will die of withdrawal.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[megaditto]

How many hours per month did they want you to work?
If 30-40 hrs/week, then the rate of $800/mo would mean below the legal minimum wage in any state here, which means you probably misunderstood something.
Or did you typo $800/week?

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[magarity]

How many hours per month did they want you to work?
If 30-40 hrs/week, then the rate of $800/mo would mean below the legal minimum wage in any state here, which means you probably misunderstood something.
Or did you typo $800/week?
 
Nope, I meant $800 per month. Look up L-1 visas - it's a known loophole that lets companies bring foreign workers for up to 5 years in the US and there is NO wage requirement. Also, there isn't a limit on how many L-1's are issued unlike H1-B's.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[ncc74656]

Sorry schmucks, but altered reality has a well-known liberal bias.

FTFY.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Lunzo]

High-flying CxOs have been insisting for *years* that their insultingly high remuneration packages are justified because they are the ones responsible for success.

Well, that means they must also be responsible for the failures... [SNIP]

Except in most cases they aren't taking responsibility for their failures. They're still getting their bonuses on top of their 7 figure salaries. At worst the execs are keeping their pay at the same absurdly high levels as it was during the good times (auto makers being a notable exception to this rule).

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also wear a dirty wife-beater

"Wear a dirty wife-beater?" WTF does that even mean? That you can skin wife-beaters and make clothes out of them? What?

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Bryansix]

There is a difference from having laws on the books making something illegal to creating the monstrous government agencies which don't even care about the public good (THE Department of Real Estate for example) and just care about securing their own jobs.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[nEoN nOoDlE]

But, I just feel we have to be worth it and IBM will have no problems hiring Americans since they're worth every penny they pay.

Why is WalMart the biggest retailer in the US? Because people don't care about good quality brands. They want cheap and they want now. Outsourcing is the WalMart mentality applied to business. They don't want top of the line engineers that are worth every penny. They want an engineer who could string together a few lines of code for a fraction of the cost because, as the American people shopping at WalMart, they'll settle for "good enough." That's great that you feel your worth every penny for the excellent skilled job you do. There are less companies, though, that are looking for a man of your talents.

Re:Let the CEO's work from India

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it OK for jobs in foreign countries to be decimated when first-world countries with "mass production" can drop costs?

UK decimated India's textile production in the 19th century with the mills in Manchester. Some "advanced" auto part manufacturers decimated my fathers business in India with their "cheaper" components.

Today India's mass production of people (call it population explosion if you wish) makes free labor available.

Get used to it; free market is a bitch!

Tutal Kaboo
Tutal.Kaboo@gmail.com

art imitating life

[gbjbaanb]

So all those laid-off engineers will get a job in sales?

Good job I don't get to place purchase orders where I work!

I can't believe

[Presto Vivace]

that this is going to go well for IBM. Management is openly admitting that their present American workforce has the skills they need; it is just a question of cheap labor. This is not the time for a company to be picking this sort of fight.

Re:I can't believe

[cfulmer]

You're right. They should just lay them off and hire new people overseas. That's a much better way to treat them.

Re:I can't believe

[Lulfas]

They are doing the same thing, in effect. They already laid them off, now they want to move them somewhere else so they can get the joys of paying them 5 dollars an hour but not have to figure out what Ishmael is saying.

Re:I can't believe

[qbzzt]

Management is openly admitting that their present American workforce has the skills they need; it is just a question of cheap labor. This is not the time for a company to be picking this sort of fight.

Should they let a real Indian company win the business on cheaper contract costs, and then lay off those people?

Nobody likes it when companies cut expenses, but everybody likes to buy stuff for cheap.

Re:I can't believe

[geekoid]

which they would if they could get equivalent work;which they can't.

Typically outsourcing works becasue you can get a many to one ration and still save money.

I executives I know that have done, or looking at doings outsourcing talk about being able to get 5 engineers for every single American engineers and save money.
Management needs to be there, and it needs to break the project done into several smaller projects to take advantage of i. Even after that it's still half the cost.

Personally, Corporations tax rate should be based on the percentage of people that work out of country.
100% of your work force in the US? then no corporate taxes. Base it upon work, not hired employees.

Re:I can't believe

[thetoadwarrior]

To be fair countries that have lower wages also have lower costs of living so it balances out. This is why Polish people can come to the UK and live and send what would be considered a decent amount of cash back home.

I would consider taking on the offer. Keeping a job with a view of coming back when the economy is better and getting to see the world isn't a bad deal.

Regarding the comment above saying this proves that Americans have the skills but IBM is just being cheap. That could be but companies do have to lay off people with valuable skills sometimes like when the economy is on life support.

Re:I can't believe

[commodore64_love]

>>>They should just lay them off and hire new people overseas. That's a much better way to treat them.

I hope that was sarcasm. Speaking for myself, I'd rather accept a job overseas than be sitting on my ass (like I'm doing now). You can always continue the U.S. job search from India, and then when you find a U.S. job (if you find a U.S. job), you quit India and come back home.

Re:I can't believe

[caethlong]

This is exactly the time to be picking this sort of fight I'm afraid =)

Re:I can't believe

[vux984]

I hope that was sarcasm. Speaking for myself, I'd rather accept a job overseas than be sitting on my ass (like I'm doing now). You can always continue the U.S. job search from India, and then when you find a U.S. job (if you find a U.S. job), you quit India and come back home.

Sure if your single and you rent and your life fits in a cardboard box, go for it, its little more than a plane ticket. Try doing it when you own a home and have a family. The financial costs alone, never mind the stress...

Last time I moved it cost over 20k. (And that's not with an expensive moving company... that's just all the hits from real estate fees, lawyers fees, inspections, etc ad nauseum.) To move with a moving company, probably would have been closer to 40k+. Do that twice in a couple years... you'd probably be further ahead not moving and spending the time unemployed.

Re:I can't believe

[MozeeToby]

What are they supposed to do? There's cheaper labor available overseas that can do the same work for less (and with a lower cost of living so the relative pay is probably much closer than most people believe). They're hemorrhaging money at the moment and moving jobs to locations with lower cost of living is a real way to save money. It sucks for those employed but that's just the facts of the situation.

Makes me glad I work for a defense contractor (can't be shipped overseas, at least not easily) in the middle of no-where (much lower cost of living than where most software development takes place). Speaking of which, why don't companies move their development to places within the US with lower cost of living? If you can save $15k per engineer simply because it costs less for housing I would think it would be worth it to large companies.

Re:I can't believe

[dangitman]

To be fair countries that have lower wages also have lower costs of living so it balances out.

No it doesn't. When you come back home, you'll be totally broke, because the money you earned overseas is almost worthless.

This is why Polish people can come to the UK and live and send what would be considered a decent amount of cash back home.

You've just described the opposite situation! Of course it makes sense for people from poorer countries to go work in wealthier countries. But that's not the situation being discussed here.

Re:I can't believe

[geekoid]

It doesn't track one for one.
These countries don't have a middle class.
To live the same lifestyle, you will need to still make more then the typical local.
Now, if tyou want to move to a 3rd world country and live like crap, then sure.

Re:I can't believe

[novakyu]

Personally, Corporations tax rate should be based on the percentage of people that work out of country.
100% of your work force in the US? then no corporate taxes. Base it upon work, not hired employees.

So, on that scale, a foreign company doing business in U.S. will pay outrageous taxes because most of their employees are in their home country, i.e. not the U.S.? Geez, that's going to bring investors who are desperately needed especially during an economic downturn.

I don't think you thought your plan through—just like most plans that involves getting the government to meddle in private businesses.

Re:I can't believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Your spllings and grammers is dog shits bad.

Re:I can't believe

[enjerth]

This is why Polish people can come to the UK and live and send what would be considered a decent amount of cash back home.

You've just described the opposite situation! Of course it makes sense for people from poorer countries to go work in wealthier countries. But that's not the situation being discussed here.

I believe the point was that after paying living expenses here they can send a modest amount of money overseas, where it's comparatively a boatload of money, to support their family.

Re:I can't believe

[Austerity Empowers]

I think it's the right line of thinking, but putting on my evil corporate leadership that I'd say: contract work. No one in my company would be located outside of the US, but some people who aren't in my company will do all the work for me.

In essence corporate taxes are being paid through employee wages and benefits. But it doesn't quite cover all the cost advantages. In one company I worked, the employer considered my liability to be roughly 2.5x my salary. This included my benefits, the building I worked in, the equipment I used, etc. All of which are cheaper elsewhere.

Re:I can't believe

[composer777]

They aren't against Union wages, they are against American wages. They can pay about 10% of what they do in a major US city if they move operations to India. It's not so much about what they are supposed to do. IBM is acting as expected, in accordance with their institutional goals of profit above all else. I think a better question is what WE'RE supposed to do, and how long we're going to put up with their behavior. The first thing we should do is demand that they give the 140 million in tax incentives back. The incentives were given to them for the explicit purpose of keeping workers in the US.

Re:I can't believe

[dhall]

> Personally, Corporations tax rate should be based on the percentage of people that work out of country. 100% of your work force in the US? then no corporate taxes. Base it upon work, not hired employees.

Strangely a simple but elegant solution that is catchy enough that even a politician might consider it. What IBM is doing is effectively negating any argument they would have in hiring ANY H1-B's. They obviously have the qualified workers, they don't don't want to pay them.

This corporate tax gimmick is pretty decent considering the US is considered to have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the "free" world. Unfortunately a law like this might be easy to circumnavigate by using shells and third party contractors.

Re:I can't believe

[AxelTorvalds]

Isn't this really about H1Bs and such?

It's a sensational headline, that's for sure, but for the vast vast majority of Americans in the work force, with families and roots in America it's not even remotely an option. If you're here in the US on an H1B then it's a different kind of issue.

Also, FWIW, if it really is labor costs alone (and it probably is,) this is about as perfect a time as there is. When you have GM going to congress begging for money while their laborers are making near $80k a year with gold plated benefits, the public is as open to it as ever.

Re:I can't believe

[thetoadwarrior]

If you have a home you rent it out and you come back and have your home and everything else. Then you only need money to live on day to day while in India and you get that from your wage so where's the problem?

No one is saying you go to India to bring money back home. The point is that, yes the wage will be lower, but you'll also pay a lot less for things. So it's not like you're losing out by doing a stint in India and in fact if you stay within the company you'll probably become more valuable by making connections in India and perhaps even picking up the local language which will mean a higher wage on the states side.

Re:I can't believe

[Fulcrum of Evil]

They can pay about 10% of what they do in a major US city if they move operations to India.

Yeah right. Find me an Indian engineer worth his keep willing to work for $10k year. You can't because they don't exist.

Re:I can't believe

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be called upon to fight for freedom right here at home.

Re:I can't believe

[Chris Burke]

So it's not like you're losing out by doing a stint in India

Yeah, unless you're one of those crazy people who wants to build up savings/retirement funds, and you want this to be a 'stint' not a permanent relocation. In which case you'll find that when you return the savings you built up is worth much less than if you had been employed here.

Lower cost of living mitigates the effect of lower wages. It does not eliminate the loss. Unless you're living check to check today, and want to continue to do so, in which case yes cost of living wherever you happen to be living at the moment is all you need consider.

Re:I can't believe

[moderatorrater]

So you move you and your family to an upper class neighborhood in India where they live almost at the same standard of living they do now. In some ways it'll be better, in some ways it'll be worse, but you'll be costing IBM half as much while earning twice as much compared to the cost of living. It's not a tempting offer for me, but at least they're getting the chance to keep their job and try living somewhere else for a while.

Re:I can't believe

[Narnie]

I heard an interesting argument the other day. The proposal was to limit the Executives' salaries to X percentage above the lowest paid employee's salary. That way, For the CEO to get a raise, the lowest paid employees get a bump in pay too. This could make better business sense, but I don't think you can actually legislate CEO salary caps. Of course, if you're touching Federal money because you business can't float on it's own accord, perhaps you should be required to look at how you operate.
I don't like the idea of Federal involvement on how businesses operate, but I have a hard time convincing myself that a Laissez-Faire environment will encourage easily outsourced jobs to remain in the States. I especially have a hard time agreeing with handing out taxpayer dollars to businesses without any assurances or oversight on how it will be spent. I feel the issues with the economy comes from the CEO and Executive level, and now the Gov is trying to legislate ethics to force businesses to behave like they should have for the past few decades.
It's too late, the retirement money is blown, the national deficit is too great to create a ponzi scheme like Social Security. Fiscal security is lost for Baby Boomer generation and now it's up to the X and the Why generations to rebuild the American economy. This comes with education, hard work, and time--not legislature and government rebate coupons.

Re:I can't believe

[Knuckles]

There's cheaper labor available overseas that can do the same work for less

Obviously it isn't if they need to first ship it there.

Re:I can't believe

[DM9290]

So, on that scale, a foreign company doing business in U.S. will pay outrageous taxes because most of their employees are in their home country, i.e. not the U.S.? Geez, that's going to bring investors who are desperately needed especially during an economic downturn.

what kind of business could this possibly be?

Re:I can't believe

[cachimaster]

To be fair countries that have lower wages also have lower costs of living so it balances out.

Bullshit. I live in Argentina, and work as a software Engineer. My salary is normal for my profession, about 1/4 of a US salary. Houses and cars are often 10% to 20% *more* expensive here than in the US. As a result, myself and most of my coworkers with 10 years of experience don't own a car or a house. I'm starving? far from it, but balances out my ass.

Re:I can't believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, but don't you see the genius of it. They lower their taxes by moving their workforce to the US. And everyone wants the US as a market.

Re:I can't believe

[mikael]

Polish people come to the UK because the UK has a higher cost of living than Poland. The Polish people earn more in the UK than they would earn in Poland, but they accept being paid less in return as it is still more than what they would earn back home. Seasonal occupation workers like crop-picking are also willing to live in subsidized accommodation at high density in order to further reduce their living costs.

Why not reduce the cost of living in the UK/USA if they want to remain competitive globally. Start by reducing property/council taxes, VAT, income tax, fuel costs and then employers wouldn't have to pay their staff so much.

Unfortunately, the costs of other items such as personal computers do not follow the cost-of-living rule. A personal computer in the USA costing $2000 will end up costing 2000 pounds in the UK, even though the exchange rates alone would convert the $2000 into 1500 pounds, or 2000 pounds into $3000.

Re:I can't believe

[thetoadwarrior]

Yeah all of India is a shit hole where people have to eat their own feces to survive. I mean look at all the dirt streets and disease! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mumbai_Downtown.jpg

Yes India does have poor areas but do you honestly think IBM operates in the backwoods areas of India? They're in the good areas, like Mumbai and if you looked at that picture you can see it's not exactly a shit hole.

The wages can't be that bad if Indians are willing to do things like English to take on support roles and thinking that programmers in India some how make minimum wage is silly. In fact some are claiming that India is losing its edge because of wage inflation due to foreign companies sending so much work over there.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Management/Is-India-Losing-Its-Wage-Edge/
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=167d1c86c1d28e7607c942fd9891938e
http://www.sharedxpertise.org/file/2070/rising-wages-likely-to-blunt-indias-bpo-edge-deloitte.html

Re:I can't believe

[thetoadwarrior]

Yet a lot of Americans do manage to work in foreign countries and come back home without living on the streets when they get back and of course all Indians coming to the US are poor.

Re:I can't believe

[Chris Burke]

Ah I see, so you're trying to argue that you aren't losing anything at all by transmuting "building a savings and retirement" into "not living on the streets". Like I just said, if all you care about is living paycheck to paycheck, then fine, this works great. Otherwise, it is costing a lot.

Oh and yes Indians who come to the U.S. can be poor when they arrive, but since by the very nature of the H1-B visa they have a job waiting for them, that's not really a problem for them.

Re:I can't believe

[thetoadwarrior]

Who said Argentina is a good way to gauge the rest of the world? I've seen quite a few Poles working near minimum wage to get a house in a few years.

That's ignoring the experience you'll gain from working in India which will make you more valuable when you come back because you'll likely be able to communicate better with any company's outsourced employees.

And I'm not suggesting this is ideal for everyone or that they should do it without researching it. That would just be stupid.

Re:I can't believe

[Xylaan]

Except that a wholesale lowering of the cost of living is generally referred to as deflation. Deflation can be a huge problem, because once deflation starts it risks setting up a deflationary spiral which will continue to weaken the economy until something finally shakes it loose.

Re:I can't believe

[mgblst]

Good point. It maybe that IBM has the choice to shut the department done, or reduce costs by off-shoring the work.

And you have a great attitude, seeing the world while working is great fun. Just not those places mentioned, India, Brazil, Etc...

Re:I can't believe

[thetoadwarrior]

You said nothing to convince me that the thousands, if not millions of Americans that already go to poorer countries to work some how have it worse when coming back home.

Not all Indians come to the US on an H1-B visa. A lot of people on the UK's rich list are foreigners and come from Asia.

While it's not perfect for everyone, anyone willing to have the vision to take advantage of the situation will come out better off in the end.

Re:I can't believe

[lgw]

Any way you limit executive "salary" is a load of crap anyhow. There are a great many ways to pay people. Executives won't take a real cut in pay, they'll just move their compensation from Bucket A to Bucket B.

And sadly, thanks to this trillion dollar porkulus package, it looks like the deficit is about to get so large that we won't be able to continue the Ponzi scheme that *is* Social Security.

Re:I can't believe

[manekineko2]

So under your plan, Haier, a China based manufacturing company, selling its consumer products in the US, would be forced to turn over 100% of its profits to the IRS? Clearly, this would have the effect of denying the US Market to foreign labor.

I could imagine some of our trade partners may not be so thrilled about this type of blatant protectionism. I'm not expert on trade treaties, but this sounds like the sort of thing that might run into problems there, too.

Hypothetical example: USA is good at producing CPUs. China is good at producing furniture. Under their old arrangement, USA would specialize in producing CPUs, and China would specialize in producing furniture, and then they would trade half of their products. In the end, each has more/cheaper CPUs and furniture, because of specialization and trade. Now USA decides, aha, let's seize all of China's profits on selling furniture. What do you suppose is the net result for all of the efficiencies previously unlocked by global trade?

Re:I can't believe

[hemp]

+100 points!

This shoots holes in any company that claims they needs to hire H1-Bs due to shortages of Engineers, Scientists, etc.

Re:I can't believe

[Chris Burke]

You said nothing to convince me that the thousands, if not millions of Americans that already go to poorer countries to work some how have it worse when coming back home.

Okay, then let me repeat it: Savings. Retirement. Please do not mentally replace these words with "Not living in a box", please?

The question is not "are they worse off when they come back, compared to when they left". That's the simple paycheck-to-paycheck mentality. The question is "are they worse off versus staying here and working" and the answer is undeniably yes.

A lot of people on the UK's rich list are foreigners and come from Asia.

If you're already rich then none of this matters. The people at IBM who may have to move to India aren't rich, and they certainly aren't going to get rich on 1/3rd the pay.

Re:I can't believe

[drsmithy]

I heard an interesting argument the other day. The proposal was to limit the Executives' salaries to X percentage above the lowest paid employee's salary. That way, For the CEO to get a raise, the lowest paid employees get a bump in pay too. This could make better business sense, but I don't think you can actually legislate CEO salary caps.

Note that this proposal does not set a cap on a CEO's salary.

Re:I can't believe

[cbiltcliffe]

Troll.

Nice.

You know it's the truth, though.

Not being racist, but communication is important to me, and if I have to struggle to understand the answer to "How much is it?" a dozen times a week, I'd go insane.

Re:I can't believe

[dpilot]

>This is not the time for a company to be picking this sort of fight.

Naah, it's exactly the right time to be picking such a fight.

When the job market is tight, pretty much any employer can lay off 10% of the workforce, and tell the rest to work harder. If you don't like it, leave.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Eventually things will break, because while you can do more with less to some extent, keep cutting and eventually things WILL break. The workers left haven't the resources to do it right, they're cutting corners, running on luck, a wing, and a prayer. Of course when it does break, blame the workers, lay them all off, reset the schedule with a new team overseas. Assuming all of your competitors are pulling similar stunts, the resulting delays won't even set you that far behind, because it's happening to everyone.

I look at corporate stupidity around here, and realize that a truly well-run company could mop the floor with them, assuming it could get well-launched. There must be some sort of systemic barriers to entry, or self-stultifying aspect to a growing company, that this hasn't already happened.

So many people rail against government stupidity. I won't argue that there isn't plenty of it to go around, I'll just argue that the government has no monopoly whatsoever on stupidity - there's plenty of it in the corporate world.

Re:I can't believe

[fluffernutter]

Uhmm.. I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but I feel that IS a much better to treat them. The message to these employees is that they are worthless unless they and their families move to the ends of the earth to make a pittance. Globally speaking, how is someone making $2000 US for a couple years ever supposed to move back to North America and have a decent retirement? They aren't just laying off these workers, they are sending them into exile. It's pretty sad. I'd invite the IBM execs to follow suit and just move the head office to China and make local wages.

Re:I can't believe

[mikael]

That is the state the UK is in just now - property prices are falling because the banks tightened up their mortgage deals, and businesses are going bankrupt because the banks won't give out business loans. Taxpayers are furious because the government gave the banks billions of pounds of bail-out money which the bankers are spending on bonuses and pensions for themselves, while 25% of their property tax goes on public-sector pensions even though essential services like refuse collection are being cut back. Not forgetting Total trying to bring over 900 foreign workers to do the job which British workers are trained to do. Something is going to have to give...

Re:I can't believe

[rite_m]

I just heard it on NPR that IBM will be paying for the move.

Re:I can't believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite a lot of the americans who go work in poorer countries do it as contractors/management for companies like nokia, ibm, etc.
  They aren't working at the wage level of the natives, and even those who do go work for local companies usually do it for a higher wage than the average for that country.
 
For example:
teaching english in bejing
  a chinese teacher makes approximately 800 dollars a month (adjusted) with a degree. A college kid with a teaching certification who speaks english natively makes around 1200, plus whatever they can get tutoring privately.

However, if the same college kid gets a job working at a meat packing plant for the same wages as the locals he loses out when he comes home.
$800 a month ($5/hr) is enough to live on in bejing, (or india) but at the end of the month after rent, food and some small entertainment, only about $100 is left for savings (and that's exaggerating slightly)

  The same person can work here for $10/hr doing the same job. Even after you factor in higher rent, utilities, and other expenses you still have several hundred dollars at the end of the month.

So while working in a poorer country can be lucrative, transfering to india to work in a call center for $5/hr is only acceptable if you are simply living hand to mouth, and not thinking about your future needs.

Re:I can't believe

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two classes of Americans that go to work abroad: those that work on expat packages and typically earn higher than they would at home during their adventure, and those who take foreigner-selective jobs like teaching ESL and feel an improvement in their lifestyle compared to living in the US with a menial job like flipping burgers or working the cash register somewhere. In both cases, they get paid more than a typical local in that foreign country because they are not competing for the same jobs. These ESL teaching jobs often trend downwards in a country as more and more backpacker tourists realize it is an option to kick around for a few years and avoid "being oppressed by the man back at home".

The question is, which category does this IBM proposal fall into? It sounds more like the latter. Or even worse: they may be competing for the jobs with locals who depress the wages beyond even the basic ESL teaching jobs.

Re:I can't believe

[Ethanol-fueled]

Heh. I feel your pain. Ever work on the floor in electronics manufacturing? The latinos' accents are bad, the Asians' accents are worse, and the Africans'(from Africa, not your typical black American) accents are like, "fuck it, I'm not even gonna try". I've developed a scale called the "Huh?" scale for measuring this. The measure is the number of times you have to ask them to repeat themselves before you finally get it.

Makes George W. Bush sound like Shakespeare in comparison!

Re:I can't believe

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't hire indian engineers worth their keep.
They hire the cheapest bastard they can find who is somewhat competent enough to bs his way through the production process.

As a hindi friend of mine said after dealing with an hp rep in their native tongue.
"It's not just the language barrier that makes them hard to deal with, these people are mildly retarded, and the scripts are useless."

Re:I can't believe

[ppanon]

When you have GM going to congress begging for money while their laborers are making near $80k a year with gold plated benefits

They aren't. That was bullshit from the GM execs. They lumped in the retiree benefits and included them into workers. With productivity increases and workforce reductions, that means a lot of retirees are supported by a few current workers. US auto worker compensation is roughly in line with that of Japanese auto workers. In contrast, Japanese CEO compensation is much less than US CEO compensation.

Re:I can't believe

[TechWrite]

Oh, I don't know, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, etc. Sure wish those foreigners would just get out of the US! It's not like we need their factories anyway!

Re:I can't believe

[Anonymous Coward]

According to payscale, you could get two entry level programmers for $9,630.80.

Re:I can't believe

[Fulcrum of Evil]

You can't even get decent tech support for that pay. I suspect your entry level devs might be best employed inside a locked box.

Re:I can't believe

[Anonymous Coward]

And what are you going to do when your career in India is over? Live there? Since you will have been working for Indian wages, you sure as hell won't have enough cash saved to move back to the US or have bought a house here.

You've been sucked into the lie. The miracle is while companies can rob, cheat and steal they manage to convince people like you that they've got your best interests at heart.

Re:I can't believe

[commodore64_love]

When I travel to a distant workplace, I just leave my home "as is" and go fly off to my temporary job. The move doesn't cost anything since I'm not moving anything.

Re:I can't believe

[alcmena]

I used to work for a company with an offshore team. The offshore team was located in India. They made it a point to stress that they had to be out by a certain time. Our company chartered a bus for the employees to ride on. If the employees missed the bus, they had to take a taxi. The taxis were considered not safe. They told us they were always afraid of being robbed when they were in the taxis and preferred the bus instead because it had armed guards. Can't speak to you, but I'm pretty sure most people in America don't have to deal with that situation. Granted, they were in Bangladore instead of Mumbai.

Re:I can't believe

[cbiltcliffe]

Actually, I'd much rather an African accent than Indian, for the most part.

That may be due to the fact that I have some friends from Kenya, though. Or that I usually hear Indian accents over the phone, when I'm already ticked off about something not working, and the African accents I hear are in person when I'm in a much better mood.

Re:I can't believe

[vux984]

I just heard it on NPR that IBM will be paying for the move.

That can mean anything from "IBM will pay your real estate fees, legal fees, cover the loss you took on your home, and then put you on a plane, pack all your stuff for you and have it waiting when you arrive" to "IBM will pay for your airplane tickets and the cost to have your stuff shipped to you ... on a ship."

IBM is big enough that they'll probably at least cover the actual transportation of people and stuff in style... whether they'll cover the stuff like real estate fees etc is a completely separate question... a question easily worth $20,000+...

Re:I can't believe

[Apocros]

Indeed, hyperbole isn't helpful. Scuttlebutt at my company has it that reasonably-experienced employees (say, 6-8 years) in India are getting paid about $40-50k, and those in China are getting paid around $30-40k. So that's basically around 35-50% of the salary of someone in the US with the same experience.

Re:I can't believe

[bytta]

I'm currently sitting in an office in India, where 4 guys are waiting for their interview to a 10000Rs/month programming job.
That's about $200.
A month.
For a 60hr/week job.
And they'd be happy to get it.
The salary for local government workers is about $1-9K/year, according to yesterday's local paper.
Engineers could probably expect $3-8K/year in India. And there are thousands of them just in my city.

Re:I can't believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Then, for the sake of your sanity, do NOT move to the South.

Re:I can't believe

[Tablizer]

Speaking for myself, I'd rather accept a job overseas than be sitting on my ass (like I'm doing now).

That will go over like a lead balloon if you have a family.

You can always continue the U.S. job search from India

Yeah right. And don't be late for the interviews.

Re:I can't believe

[blackest_k]

Yes working in India will mean making less than you would in the United States but there are other countries some of which would mean making more than in the United States.

Generally speaking the USA is a nation of immigrants at some point your ancestors hoped to build a better life in the USA. Perhaps it's time to think like them and consider your options both inside and outside the USA.

Take for example someone living in Louisiana who according to statistics apparently makes far less than if they lived in California. Would they be better off to relocate?

There are some pretty good places to live in the world and if you have the opportunity and desire you could be living there, and so could your kids.

I'm living in Europe and have the opportunity to move anywhere in Europe at will and do better than where I am now. My brothers moving further still he's going to Australia and will make perhaps 3x more than if he stays where he is.

I'm not saying that I think IBM is doing it's workers a favour but perhaps new horizons can open new doors. Would you rather keep on your career path and go where the work is now, or accept redundancy and perhaps being on welfare for a while? If your being laid off your taking a massive hit and you now face massive competition locally along with your former work colleagues trying to get into one of the few remaining vacancy's locally in your field, probably having to drop a few grades to get an opening.

It's not fair, It's not ideal but it's a reality, IBM is a Corporation that has no sympathy no guilt, no matter what the people working in IBM personally feel. It's up to you to do the best for you and your family no one owes you or me a living. We are lucky to have the freedom to be able to be able to make change in our lives, There are plenty stuck in lethal situations where a pay cut isn't even a factor in their lives.

Earning less in US Dollar terms only effects you if you need to convert back into US Dollar terms, you don't have to return to the USA.

Re:I can't believe

[Anonymous Coward]

>what kind of business could this possibly be?

Ericson, Nokia, Siemens, Alcatel ?

Re:I can't believe

[sanctimonius hypocrt]

Three moves equals one fire, according to Ben Franklin. Then again, people used to joke that "IBM" stood for "I've been moved," so this may not be a new thing for Big Blue. Mumbai and Minneapolis are interchangeable, if people are just production/consumption units.

Re:I can't believe

[cbiltcliffe]

Do you mean the southern US? Heck, they're easy to understand.

Re:I can't believe

[manekineko2]

I look at corporate stupidity around here, and realize that a truly well-run company could mop the floor with them, assuming it could get well-launched. There must be some sort of systemic barriers to entry, or self-stultifying aspect to a growing company, that this hasn't already happened.

Running a small company well is surprisingly difficult. Running a big company well is much, much harder than one would think, i.e. pretty much impossible. Why do you think that big company rot sets in after a while and companies gradually become less agile? It's not for lack of trying on the part of smart people.

Re:I can't believe

[TheLink]

It all depends on how much they can get in the USA vs how much IBM is offering them at the proposed place.

It really is a lot more expensive in the USA.

There can be scenarios where IBM can pay you less USD overseas but after deducting your expenses and other costs you still end up with more (even in USD terms) than you would in the USA.

Of course, lifestyle, safety[1], health care would be different.

[1] In most places you just find out what to do and not to do and where to not to go, then you'd mostly be OK. After all the locals there aren't dying in that high rates (just avoid going to warzones and so on).

Lastly, the last I heard, 1) the average American doesn't have much in terms of savings anyway, and 2) the US Gov may try to inflate it's way out of this, so go figure what will happen to your savings.

Re:I can't believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Any way you cut it, IBM, AMD, Microsoft have never went to the feds for a bailout. They've taken care of business in what's arguably a vastly more competitive industry.

Re:I can't believe

[CAIMLAS]

Do you have a family?

Look at some of the crime, poverty, and disease statistics for India (or any other country), really. You'd not be living in an insular bubble; you'd be living in a neighborhood. You'd still have to contend with those things, all while essentially abandoning everything you've grown to accept as normal: clean (shit-free) streets, good wiring, traffic lights and laws, (relatively) honest police and officials.

And your children would then grow up in a society which has none of the values you grew up with. And it goes beyond values, even: it goes towards a way of thought. That is a LOT more to abandon back in America than just 2/3rds your wage.

Realistically, if you were to make this move, you're not coming back. You'd have no means to do so.

Re:I can't believe

[CAIMLAS]

Continue the job search from India? Are you nuts?

Most companies won't even look at your resume if you're on the other side of the country and not local. Forget relocation packages; from what I've heard, even paying for half of the interview travel expenses is, today, almost unheard of.

Re:I can't believe

[Fulcrum of Evil]

So, are they directs or going through an agency? That salary doesn't track with my data at all.

Re:I can't believe

[ScrewMaster]

That is the state the UK is in just now - property prices are falling because the banks tightened up their mortgage deals, and businesses are going bankrupt because the banks won't give out business loans. Taxpayers are furious because the government gave the banks billions of pounds of bail-out money which the bankers are spending on bonuses and pensions for themselves, while 25% of their property tax goes on public-sector pensions even though essential services like refuse collection are being cut back. Not forgetting Total trying to bring over 900 foreign workers to do the job which British workers are trained to do. Something is going to have to give...

If I replace "UK" and "British" with "US" and "American" in your comment, it would apply equally well. Oh, and "dollars" instead of "pounds". Yeah, taxpayers here are pretty furious too.

Re:I can't believe

[ScrewMaster]

Personally, Corporations tax rate should be based on the percentage of people that work out of country. 100% of your work force in the US? then no corporate taxes. Base it upon work, not hired employees.

So, on that scale, a foreign company doing business in U.S. will pay outrageous taxes because most of their employees are in their home country, i.e. not the U.S.? Geez, that's going to bring investors who are desperately needed especially during an economic downturn.

I don't think you thought your plan through—just like most plans that involves getting the government to meddle in private businesses.

No he didn't but then you went to the opposite extreme. I don't see anything wrong with a corporation getting some form of incentive for not selling out its own workers. The problem is, these bastards lie for breakfast, and will likely take the incentives (tax breaks, whatever) and continue doing the same thing.

Re:I can't believe

[Krishnoid]

The proposal was to limit the Executives' salaries to X percentage above the lowest paid employee's salary.

Ben and Jerry's tried this a while back, but for some reason they eventually changed this policy.

Re:I can't believe

[Hognoxious]

In which case you'll find that when you return the savings you built up is worth much less than if you had been employed here.

How does that compare to the situation where you'd been unemployed here?

That is, if I understand correctly, closer to what's on offer. See also: choice (Hobson's).

Re:I can't believe

[dpilot]

Perhaps the companies need to resurrect an old office from medieval times - the Jester. The Jester was the only person in the kingdom (with the possible exception of the Queen, when in private) who could point out the foolishness of the King, and laugh at him.

I was once on a re-engineering team, and found an interesting reference. Some company has an explicit program for keeping them out of the pages of Dilbert. They figured that whatever would get them into Dilbert is most likely stupid, perhaps not easily seen from within, but still merits examination.

Re:I can't believe

[novakyu]

The problem is, these bastards lie for breakfast, and will likely take the incentives (tax breaks, whatever) and continue doing the same thing.

Which is all the more reason the government shouldn't meddle with corporations.

Personally, I would rather have all income tax replaced by sales tax (with different tax rates (such as none for essential goods and something approaching 30,40, or even 50% for luxuries) to ensure that those who wouldn't have paid income tax don't pay sales tax either). That way, all those lying bastards will get taxed like they should be when they buy their yachts, and there will be no loopholes (save for black market, but that's what strong free market economy and strong law enforcement is for).

But, as long as we have income tax (and payroll tax), I don't see a way for the government to meddle in the market without creating loophole that the lying bastards will always be so happy to exploit.

As for giving incentive for not outsourcing, well, the government can always choose to do its business with companies that don't outsource. After all, this is exactly how the first Bank of Unite States was killed---i.e. the treasury stopped dealing with them, even before its charter expired.

Re:I can't believe

[thetoadwarrior]

And by your logic the mere fact of moving from the US to the UK where my money was worth half it's value just when converted, I had to go 6 months without work and everything is over priced (especially) house means I shouldn't be in a position where I'm above the average wage, have a fairly decent sized house and savings.

Going from a cheap country to an expensive once isn't the end of your life. Loads of people do it.

Re:I can't believe

[megaditto]

You have to be realistic about things now. We are NEVER going to have it as good ever again. America got incredibly lucky during the 20th century; this is not likely to happen again. And no overgrown sense of entitlement will fix that. Oh, and just because you have a family and want the best for them, will not fix things by itself.

If you look at how the rest of the "civilized" world lives (France, Britain, Germany), that's what's in store for us in the future (at best). What I mean is a tiny appartment, a midget car you drive once a week, saving up for 2 years to buy a big-screen TV or a laptop. You really should buy a ticket and have a look for yourself while you still can.

Actually, I believe we will be worse off than the other first world countries because we have:
1) underdeveloped infrastructure (aging roads, shit railroads, huge travel distances, maxed out e.grid, etc.)
2) bad geopolitical location, too far from most of oil and markets
3) undereducated populace (compared to all other developed and many developing countries)
4) huge military spending we plain cannot afford.
5) huge public and external debt: 50 trillion by 2025 if we cut spending now, more if we don't.

Re:I can't believe

[ScrewMaster]

Which is all the more reason the government shouldn't meddle with corporations.

Well, that's been tried: it was called laissez-faire. It didn't work. Really, by simply regulating corporate behavior to the degree that is currently done (which happened in response to the abuses of the unregulated environment we once had) you could say the government is meddling. That's a legitimate function, though: like it or not, in this case we need the institution of government. Mainly because the private sector (and private interests) has, proven time and time again, that it cannot be trusted with the common good.

Ultimately, you need a private sector governed by sensible regulation that allows both corporations and individuals to flourish. Having reasonably ethical business leaders that are willing live under the law as written, and don't spend millions buying new Federal regulation to suit themselves helps too.

So, the real problem is not that our government shouldn't "meddle", but that that meddling has become too heavily influenced by business. In a word, corpratism, and that means that big business is doing very well at the expense of everyone and everything else. The reason that is happening is because big government has largely failed to provide proper regulation, which is a good part of what we pay it for.

Re:I can't believe

[novakyu]

Well, that's been tried: it was called laissez-faire. It didn't work.

I have yet to see a single solid fact that justifies this oft-repeated statement.

I suppose such bad things as child labor and sweatshops (using child labor) may have been a by-product of laissez-faire approach, but to fix these extremes, all we need are simple child labor laws and such that forbid exploiting those who are not free to make their own judgment, akin to laws that forbid murder, theft, and robbery, not a monstrosity of regulations.

From what I can tell (I'm afraid I'm not exactly a history buff, so a quick Google search was all I could do), we had regulations before any failure of pure capitalism.

If we stop the government from meddling in the private sector, and, yes, prohibit artificial persons such as corporations from gaining undue influence on the government, what evidence is there that things might go wrong?

Any market crashes we have had since late 19th century do not provide reliable data, unless one can somehow distinguish and isolate effects of disastrous regulations.

Re:I can't believe

[Anonymous Coward]

...Yeah, unless you're one of those crazy people who wants to build up savings/retirement funds...

Or pay off your US dollar denominated student loan?

Re:I can't believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, with AMD you might have a point. But IBM and Microsoft have both been convicted of monopoly abuse, so even if parts of the software industry have been very competitive, IBM (in the past) and Microsoft (currently) have had less competition in their core competencies that the US auto "big three". Of course, that was the case with the auto big three for decades as well, but unlike IBM, they didn't adapt with the changing times.

Re:I can't believe

[nEoN nOoDlE]

You can't come back. When you're making $800 a month, see how long it takes you to save $1000 for a plane ticket back to the US, and then $2400 for an apartment security deposit and first month's rent, and not including all the moving fees you're incurring in the process. This is why there isn't a flood of people coming from poorer countries by the millions. Because it's HARD.

Back Home

[CambodiaSam]

What if that happens to be your home?

I know IBM must employ a lot of workers on visas. Are they targeting that group?

Re:Back Home

[Anonymous Coward]

Other companies have done it in the past. Told all their visa employees that they could either stay and risk getting laid off, or go back to their home countries for a fraction of the wages.

You know, that went well with everyone but the visa employees.

Americans felt that 'go home you towelhead' feeling swell up within them and were happy, partly because they were not the ones being touched. Managers felt happy because they could lay someone off this way and show some savings they were required to.

Govt had gotten the full taxes (including social security and medicare ) out of them, so the system was happy. They were liable for lease breakage fees, so the apartment owners were happy. They had bought stuff here and spent their salary here so the shops were happy.

The visa employees did not have any rights or votes, so no one really cared about them or their plans or inconveniences. Afterall, how dare they live any more comfortably than out of a suitcase? Who told them to lease an apartment? Who told them to buy a car? a home?

all the comany is required to do is buy them a return ticket on the slaveship (or return flight).

Re:Back Home

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point... if that is the case, looks like a smart move.. go back where you came from... get a good deal... reloc and stuff...

Re:Back Home

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you hit the nail on the head there. It makes a lot of sense.

Re:Back Home

[Anonymous Coward]

They were liable for lease breakage fees, so the apartment owners were happy.

How likely are the apartment owners to be able to collect lease breakage fees from a foreign national on the way out of the country?

Re:Back Home

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they were exploited. But they knew when they took the job that they were basically scabs. If you're willing to help your employer screw over your brother worker it's just a matter of time before your employer screws you over too.

Re:Back Home

[californication]

Boo hoo. I've had the experience of moving to a new city for a new job, signing a lease, settling down, only to have the company do a layoff less than 6 months later. You stay and try to find a new job and then after a while, you go back to where you were.

Having a visa doesn't entitle you to citizenship, it doesn't even entitle you to residency, so when things go bad and you get the boot, don't cry as if you had a right to live and work in the U.S. any more than before you had your visa. Do you work, apply for your green card, keep up with your paperwork and you will eventually get your foot in the door. If the economy takes a dump and you get let go, go home and try again once the economy turns around.

Re:Back Home

[CAIMLAS]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I would assume that most visa workers are there with the preconception of it being a temporary stay - you know, because visas are temporary. The people I know who have taken the route of living overseas on visas know this, and act accordingly: they live for the moment, enjoy the culture, and sack away as much money as they can.

Anyone who is in a foreign country, buying property and possessions for personal consumption, is a fool to expect to not have to leave it all behind: your very existence in the country is determined by whether or not your employer wants you anymore.

If you move to a country to work on a visa, especially one such as the US where citizenship is trivial to acquire, and want to stay, why not become a citizen? A visa holder certainly has that out.

Re:Back Home

[Anonymous Coward]

...one such as the US where citizenship is trivial to acquire

That word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans workers would like to work in America for American wages. However, are they also willing to pay the prices of American made products?

Re:Obviously

[drsmithy]

Americans workers would like to work in America for American wages. However, are they also willing to pay the prices of American made products?

If certain employees' salaries weren't so outrageously high, would American-made products really be that much more expensive ?

Re:Obviously

[Frosty Piss]

However, are they also willing to pay the prices of American made products?

Americans have grown to feel entitled to a certain standard of living that is disproportionate event to other Western nations. This is because we've been buying on credit. What Americans need to do is live with fewer toys. And, perhaps if we pay the price for American made toys, we will appreciate them more.

Re:Obviously

[nschubach]

As recent events tend to point out... no. People want cheaper stuff and that comes from overseas.

I know it's a bit off-topic but I feel that our own government is making this worse as time goes on. The only way to reverse the loss of jobs is to start cutting government agencies and military spending while giving tax breaks to all Americans. If I wasn't getting nearly 40% of my income taken out each month, I'd gladly take a 30% pay cut which would be more like a 10% pay raise in cost of living adjustment. (my math is probably all wrong, but it's not the point of the matter.) If American companies didn't have to pay all their employees 40% more than a country with less gouging taxes in order to maintain their quality of life, more jobs would stay here because it would cost the company less.

Re:Obviously

[urbanriot]

You deserve the 5 points of insightful, you hit the nail right on the head. As a computer reseller, people don't so much care about quality or the fact that we assemble our computers here in Canada... they want whatever's cheapest and they'll morally validate their decisions however they can.

Re:Obviously

[Frosty Piss]

If certain employees' salaries weren't so outrageously high, would American-made products really be that much more expensive ?

I'm sorry, I don't see the relationship. I think you're under the mistaken impression that we still make things here in the US. Certainly we create technology, we manipulate money, we have a service industry, but make things? Very few things that come from Asia can be replaced with American products, even more expensive ones.

Re:Obviously

[the eric conspiracy]

The US has the lowest effective tax rates in the world among developed countries, mostly because of the lack of nationalized health care.

The reason wages are higher in the US vs. other countries has much more to do with worker productivity and demand for labor than anything to do with tax rates.

Re:Obviously

[dangitman]

If certain employees' salaries weren't so outrageously high, would American-made products really be that much more expensive ?

Yes, they would. And who are these "certain employees"?

Re:Obviously

[mad_clown]

Are you suggesting that CEO wages (rather than massive legacy costs associated with union agreements) are the chief driving force behind the high price of American goods?

Re:Obviously

[westlake]

If certain employees' salaries weren't so outrageously high, would American-made products really be that much more expensive ?

and how many of the Japanese cars the geek so admires were built in the low-wage states of the Mississippi Delta?

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason wages are higher in the US vs. other countries has much more to do with worker productivity and demand for labor than anything to do with tax rates.

Or a grossly overvalued currency.
Do you really think running several years a billion dollar trade deficit will work out in the end ?

Re:Obviously

[DrLang21]

If quality American made products hadn't become such a niche market that they have become difficult to find and outrageously expensive, I would be more than happy to buy them more regularly. This is why free trade is fake. Tariffs are in my opinion a necessary evil and do good things when administered with care (an unpopular position for me to take as a Libertarian). We can't possibly compete in our own back yard when the US dollar can buy a whole lot more in China than it can here.

Re:Obviously

[novakyu]

If certain employees' salaries weren't so outrageously high, would American-made products really be that much more expensive ?

Yes, they would. And who are these "certain employees"?

Unionized workers, of course. Haven't you heard about the troubles of American auto makers?

People like to fuss over high salaries of executives, but for most companies (I'm not sure if I'm willing to speak for investment bankers that decided spend much of the government bailout money on their executives), their salary is a very tiny fraction of the total gross revenue or the salaries of all those unionized workers (especially those ones who can't be fired because of the union, even though they contribute nothing to the company).

Here's a thought: we get rid of the unions (especially for white collar workers and people who work for wages substantially higher than the minimum wage), let the moochers get off of the companies, and let's see if America looks like a good place to build a productive workforce.

Re:Obviously

[the_humeister]

How did you get modded up? America is still a manufacturing powerhouse (we're #1 in the world in manufactured goods ). However, we employ less people due to automation and other efficiencies.

Re:Obviously

[esocid]

If I had to grow up playing with this stuff I'd have grown up craving anything not made in the US. GI Joes (Hasbro - made in China), Playmobile (Germany), Battle Beasts (Japan), Erector set (France) was the stuff I grew up with, with occasional wooden stuff made in the US. Hell I had a huge box full of wooden blocks used as toys. Parents aren't going to buy their kids something they won't use, simply because it was made in the USA
Cheap plastics from overseas and electronics are the toys of choice today.

$$$ Just saying how it is.

Re:Obviously

[esocid]

Can't even believe I left off Lego (Denmark). I think the point I was trying to make was why shy away from toys that promote creativity and thinking simply because they aren't made in the US?

Re:Obviously

[_Sprocket_]

If I pay the price of an American made product, will that extra expense make it back to my pocket on my paycheck? Or will it end up in the CEO's pocket?

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

1) You fail to make a case where this is a pre-requisite for good paying jobs staying in the US. I'm not saying it isn't and am willing to be proven wrong, but my gut says it isn't and I won't grant such a strange leap of causality without some sort of reasoned argument for it.

2) Of what products do you speak? Sure you can buy a few pieces of clothing made in the US. If everyone did that tomorrow less than 2% would come home with an item, there is no scale to it. Otherwise, what American items should we be buying? Other than cars (and those are only sorta made in the US) that are impractical for many people we make nothing. We provide a lot of service (Dell will put an inferior computer together for me for a large markup, but I can do so myself and get the parts I do want, the parts in either case come from somewhere else). What the heck are we supposed to start buying? People already buy mostly local food when it's available (in season in the US), but we don't do much else. We pay outrageous amounts for media and drugs, both made in the US and available for much cheaper elsewhere. What else do you want? Do you want people to only buy dollar store junk from the US instead of elsewhere, because that's about the only other things we produce?

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

I love reading economic theory on /. It's like reading religious theory on a Scientology site. None of you has a clue what you're talking about.

Re:Obviously

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Unionized workers, of course. Haven't you heard about the troubles of American auto makers?

Yeah. GM is in trouble because they're unable to make a car people want at a decent price. It's that simple - they haven't made competitive stuff for decades.

Re:Obviously

[manekineko2]

One can come up with tons of rationalizations for why it makes sense to both not buy American, and also support job protectionism.

At the end of the day, what would you guess is the percent of an average product's costs that goes to CEO and upper management pay, and what is the percent that goes to rank and file labors' pay?

Re:Obviously

[0100010001010011]

Don't forget Capsela (Japan), my parents got me a set when I was 3. They claim it's the reason I became an engineer. I still remember taking mechanical tests "if input shaft spins this way which way does the output shaft spin" and thinking back to playing with my Capsela.

But what kid wouldn't love playing with a whistle all day long?

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be high on drugs. Idiot.

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think running several years a billion dollar trade deficit will work out in the end ?
It will end in ruinous hyperinflation. Just ask Weimar Republic Germany.

Re:Obviously

[dangitman]

Unionized workers, of course. Haven't you heard about the troubles of American auto makers?

Yes, I have, and it has nothing to do with unionized workers. It has to do with mismanagement and less than compelling products.

As for your original question, the cost of American-produced goods involves many more factors than the cost of labor. So, even if you "got rid of the unions", American goods would still cost significantly more than Chinese.

Here's a thought: we get rid of the union

So, you propose to eliminate freedom of assembly?

and let's see if America looks like a good place to build a productive workforce.

It would certainly look a lot more like fascism.

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, Ok I make nothing right now. How much does that tax break put back in my pocket tomorrow?

We tried the tax breaks for the last 8 years and well here we are.
 
Moron republicans!

  I'd rather we start rebuilding our bridges and cleaning up the trash all over the place and hiring people to do it than get a tax break. Tax breaks unless you totally eliminate them will not give anything to the current economy.

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't GM pay about $1500 (or more) per employee on insurance? That's a huge overhead - and one that should be met with a nationalised health insurance scheme - and met by the worker via taxation.

Americans baulk at the thought - but America's health care system is farce. It adds huge cost to employers and employees to line the pockets of fat cat HMOs. It wouldn't be so bad if America provided a world class healthcare system, but it doesn't- far from it. A state system shouldn't be run for profit, as such it should be cheaper in the long run... and that's $1500 off the cost of your car plus the savings in your insurance premiums each month.

America really has to get its head around socialism. I don't mean USSR style communism, but realising that society is not just ME! would be a start. Helping everyone helps ME a lot more than just helping ME!

Re:Obviously

[novakyu]

Here's a thought: we get rid of the union

So, you propose to eliminate freedom of assembly?

It's not about eliminating freedom of assembly. It's about eliminating forced assembly which is the union.

In many workplaces, workers do not have the choice not to join the union, and even if they don't join the union, they have no choice not to support the union. They take a few cents off the dollar every non-union member earns and call it "fair share".

Getting rid of the union isn't about banning what kind of assembly people can form (heck, I'm, for one, proud that America tolerates groups like KKK, even though these groups are despicable things). Getting rid of the union is about allowing people not to join assemblies that they don't want to.

And it shouldn't be too difficult to do this either. All we need to do is recognize that the kind of draconian contracts unions force off companies and universities and large organizations is unlawful, hence unenforceable—just about unenforceable as some indentured servitude clause on, say, a mortgage.

Re:Obviously

[DM9290]

As recent events tend to point out... no. People want cheaper stuff and that comes from overseas.

I know it's a bit off-topic but I feel that our own government is making this worse as time goes on. The only way to reverse the loss of jobs is to start cutting government agencies and military spending while giving tax breaks to all Americans. If I wasn't getting nearly 40% of my income taken out each month, I'd gladly take a 30% pay cut which would be more like a 10% pay raise in cost of living adjustment. (my math is probably all wrong, but it's not the point of the matter.) If American companies didn't have to pay all their employees 40% more than a country with less gouging taxes in order to maintain their quality of life, more jobs would stay here because it would cost the company less.

if there was no government, your take a much larger paycut. children would work instead of going to school. (it would start off simply as a way to earn some "extra cash"). since children have no dependants they would be willing and able to work for less money. this creates downwards pressure on wages. not to mention the introduction of children into the workforce would create unemployment which would put further downward pressure on wages.

of course without a government then what's to stop me from breaking the knees of your kids if you don't pay me 40% of your wages? anyone with a big stick would be your new government.

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

The automakers aren't struggling because they pay their workers too much. They're struggling because they mismanaged their companies and kept producing products that people didn't want to buy.

Now they're having trouble keeping their commitments to their employees and it's somehow the fault of the workers? Workers didn't make the decisions that led to the problems faced by the automotive industry (or the IT industry for that matter). That was management's fault.

Wages wouldn't be what they are in the west if it hadn't been for unions in the first place. You can try and say that it was all the free market and competition for skills, but denying the effects of unions is just stupid. Thanks to unions we have weekends, 8 hour work days, benefits etc. Even workers at companies without unions benefit from the employment laws unions lobby for.

That's not to say that unions are perfect. They have big problems of their own. But it's not the fault of a unionized workforce that some companies are failing. It's because of short sighted greed of executives and major investors.

Re:Obviously

[_Sprocket_]

One can spend all day coming up with guessed percentages and averages to support an argument. If you've got real numbers, produce them.

Re:Obviously

[samweber]

Yes.

First of all, IBM isn't unionized. There is a small, fledgling union, but it isn't able to do any collective bargaining. It has no say in IBM wages. So, in this case, there are NO "legacy costs" due to the union.

Secondly, for Fortune 500 companies, 10% of profits are eaten up by the wages and benefits of the top executives. So, yes, there is a significant cost that is due to paying out money to the elite executives.

Re:Obviously

[manekineko2]

Is that your rationalization on why you don't have to do your part to support your beliefs and buy American to protect American jobs and standard of living?

What percentage of an American made product's price do you suppose is going to pay the CEO's paycheck versus the salary of all of the non-upper management employees?

Re:Obviously

[Jurily]

This is because we've been buying on credit.

You still are.

Re:Obviously

[the eric conspiracy]

The US has about $100 trillion in capital, growing at a rate roughly of 3% or 3 trillion per year on average. Debt held in foreign hands as the result of 30 years of balance of trade deficits is on the order of 3 trillion.

Right now the trade deficit is running at a rate of about $400 billion/year, most of which due to oil imports which will end in the next 40 years or so.

None of these numbers indicate that foreign debt or trade deficits will lead to anything like hyperinflation in anyone's lifetime. Suggesting so is utter nonsense.

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

In many workplaces, workers do not have the choice not to join the union
This is an agreement voluntarily entered into by the company. If they didn't want to limit themselves to union workers, they shouldn't have agreed to it.

Re:Obviously

[Jurily]

worker productivity

I call bullshit. Americans are Ubermensch now? Is it your world famous intelligence? You work 16 hours a day, and take no sick leaves until they force you?

If you ask me, you're just better unionized.

Re:Obviously

[arelas]

I'm probably going to be modded down, but I have to say this. SOME of our people are VERY over compensated. The above post wasn't flamebait. It was more inconvenient truth.

Re:Obviously

[manekineko2]

By the tone of your response, I wonder if it would even make any difference at all, whatever numbers I produce. I think the answer to my question is obvious to anyone who is willing to take even a moment to consider it.

But anyway, here's numbers:
Google says IBM spent in 2007 about 20m on CEO compensation, including stock and such.
IBM's website shows 386,558 employees worldwide.
Assuming, what I think is a very conservative estimate, that IBM pays each employee, other than the CEO only 10k a year, then 386,557 (minus 1 for CEO) times 10k = 3.86b.

Looked at in another way, in 2007 IBM had 98.786b of gross revenue. Let's say we slash that fat cat CEO's salary down to 0. Power to the people! How much percent of gross revenue has been saved? .02% Huzzah! The company is saved, peace is restored to the USA, we finally put those fat cats in their place and fixed the economy.

The fact of the matter is that CEO pay, as much as it galls the populist rabble rousers, accounts for virtually nothing of a company's expenses. If the board sees someone they think could run the company even 1% better, than doubling CEO salary is worth it to get him. And that's why they do it. Until the negative PR from overpaying fat cat executives outweighs any possible benefit. In which case, America as a whole loses, because less effective managers are running our business enterprises, with no gain to anybody but wounded senses of pride and reduced feelings of envy.

Re:Obviously

[l0ungeb0y]

Lower taxes??? Really? Because here in California, I pay $1300.00 A WEEK in taxes (state and federal income + FICA + SS + Whatever else) which works out to 38% of my income, which is a higher percent than either England or Canada take for their income tax.
But, you're right... I get no nationalized health care package.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Re:Obviously

[Chris Burke]

Here's a thought: we get rid of the unions (especially for white collar workers and people who work for wages substantially higher than the minimum wage), let the moochers get off of the companies, and let's see if America looks like a good place to build a productive workforce.

You have no idea what the working environment was like here in the states before unions, do you?

Re:Obviously

[hiryuu]

Americans workers would like to work in America for American wages. However, are they also willing to pay the prices of American made products?

Some of us are, yes. I'm perfectly aware that (when it can be found) the American-made product will cost more than its Chinese-made counterpart. I recognize this as the price I pay for supporting the domestic economy. If I want my job to continue to remain viable here on US soil, I have to make sure my purchasing habits don't undermine that viability. It's just that simple.

The same kind of mindset has led me to try harder to support local and/or small businesses instead of larger (often multinational) corporations. If I keep the money here, it does more for me and my family, in terms of economic sustainability of my hometown. I'm aware that economics is not a zero-sum game, but why funnel any more money out of my locality than needed?

Want American jobs to stay here? Buy American-made. Don't like the cost differential? Buy less stuff. We really do have it good here in the US, but it won't stay that way without some active involvement on our parts.

Re:Obviously

[_Sprocket_]

Actually - my attitude was to get you moving along to your point. Baiting for imaginary numbers seems silly. Thanks for getting on track.

You're right that I took a cheap shot at CEOs. Let me rephrase. If I pay X% more to "buy American", will it really go to American paychecks or to the company's profit margin?

As an aside, the CEO compensation is still interesting. The impetus is being placed on the American consumer. Yet the CEO's salary (in our admittedly inaccurate example) is worth the salary of another 2,000 employees. How much do consumers have to pay to make up that kind of paycheck power?

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

From your numbers, you are grossing $177k/year. You are way outside the pay range for the kind of people who can be outsourced to India etc.

Also, you would find that $177k/year is taxed higher in Asia than in the US, because the progressive scales ramp up much sooner and can reach 50%. On the other hand, rampant corruption means nobody would declare that level of income, but rather would have front companies and tea-money dealings and other strange accounting tricks if they were so wealthy.

Re:Obviously

[Lost Engineer]

As long as we and our buddies control the oil, friend, I do.

Re:Obviously

[hoppo]

Actually it has EVERYTHING to do with unionized workers.

Look at GM, for example. The reason they marketed their SUVs so heavily is those are the only vehicles that can be manufactured profitably. 2/3 of GM's labor costs go to people who are no longer with the company. Unions with a LOT of leverage at the time negotiated some pretty sweet deals (at the time) which were completely unsustainable. This takes us back to why SUVs were so prevalent in GM's marketing strategy -- an SUV is nothing more than a partsman engineered piece of junk. Slap a different chassis on a truck line that has hardly changed in 20 years, and BOOM - Chevy Tahoe. The company is so upside down on labor costs, R&D must take the hit. They haven't innovated because they cannot afford it. Good economic times masked the problem, but the truth is they've been circling the drain for years.

Re:Obviously

[BarefootClown]

Here's a thought: we get rid of the union

So, you propose to eliminate freedom of assembly?

No, merely reestablish the rights of the employers. The employees are free to associate with whomever they please; in return, the employers are free to not associate with whomever they please.

Sounds fair to me.

Re:Obviously

[manekineko2]

Apologies if I came off harsh in my reply. Your response just struck me like you hadn't considered my point at all before replying.

Rephrased in terms of padding a company's profit margin, that is certainly a much more significant factor in terms of a company's revenues and expenses. Also a much harder problem to resolve, with lots of factors to consider. One is that in terms of "buy American" it would seem to make more sense to support companies with American stock ownership, rather than companies incorporated in the United States.

I think the question of how much consumers would have to pay to makeup the CEO's 2000x(avg employee salary) is besides the point. Even if improved PR with American consumers results in increased sales due to hiring a cheaper CEO, this isn't a net gain except in terms of massaged senses of pride.

Essentially, consumers have paid extra in order to feel like they got revenge on the fat cat executives. This comes at the expense of compromising the board's business judgment that another CEO that cost more could have generated additional real sales. In the end, the US would have traded additional people with a slightly improved standard of living who feel happy because they now own a new Widget X (as well as possibly additional foreign cash flowing into the country from foreign consumers), for on the other hand a temporary sense of satisfaction in the minds of consumers at getting even.

Re:Obviously

[BarefootClown]

If I pay the price of an American made product, will that extra expense make it back to my pocket on my paycheck? Or will it end up in the CEO's pocket?

The owners' pockets, actually. And, with a great many companies, you're perfectly free to become an owner, at least in part.

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you propose to eliminate freedom of assembly?

He might. I don't. I figure you're entitled to join whatever organizations you like. I don't think you're entitled to force me to join your organization just because the guys that I work with all belong to it, or force me to accept your organization as my bargaining proxy (and pay a fee for the privilege) just because my colleagues have asked you to represent them.

Throw away all the laws that privilege unions over individuals. A union should have no more and no less standing than any individuals that choose to have that union represent them. Of course, it goes without saying that if your organization negotiates a deal for its members, and I'm not a member, I shouldn't have a right to automatically get the same deal.

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and Davis-Bacon can kiss my ass, too.

Re:Obviously

[dangitman]

It's not about eliminating freedom of assembly. It's about eliminating forced assembly which is the union.

Well, that's fine. I don't agree with mandatory union membership. But that's not the same thing as "getting rid of unions," is it? people would still be free to join them. So why did you say "get rid of the unions" rather than "eliminate mandatory membership"?

Re:Obviously

[captbob2002]

Any time I am looking to buy QUALITY tools, yes. I'll *always* pay more for a quality product...when one can be found in this day and age.

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans have grown to feel entitled to a certain standard of living that is disproportionate event to other Western nations.

Speaking as a northern-European-descended American working and living in south Asia at the moment, I'd say that moving here has benefits that far outweigh any areas where my standard of living has dropped. A weekend of shopping and carousing in nigh-first-world Bangkok and completely-first-world Singapore is just $500-1000 away. My food, rent, and all other expenses are a mere fraction of what they previously were in one of the cheapest cities to live in in the midwest. Most importantly, however, I can now afford a full household staff. The benefits to my marriage of not having all the petty little bickering surrounding basic housekeeping tasks that no two married people have time to properly complete have, in and of themselves, outweighed all other areas in which my standard of living has dipped as a result of the move.

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

... perhaps if we pay the price for American made toys, we will appreciate them more.

Well said.

Re:Obviously

[CAIMLAS]

Oh, there are some things still made in the US. They're just, typically, illegal in much of the country. (In this case, I'm referring to firearms.)

No, electronics aren't made here. But there are still quite a few products made here:

1) Vehicles. This is, obviously, a very big one. But if nobody is buying our products overseas... it's hard for a single industry to sustain things on any significant scale.
2) Firearms and firearm-related products such as reloading presses. For whatever reason, the consumers of said products are traditionally pretty particular about things being US-made. (Hmm, wonder why...)
3) Machinery. We are still #1 in the world for machinery and the associated automation which goes with it. This is essential due to the large amount of land which we plant and harvest on an annual basis, our massive road structures, and our preference for big, powerful things.
4) Food. We are the largest food producer in the world, thankfully, given that it's something everyone needs. Unfortunately, food is relatively inexpensive compared to everything else out there.
5) Uh... guess we get most everything else from elsewhere.

Granted, that's not exhaustive. Though I will certainly give you the point that, in essence, we've destroyed our manufacturing in this country. Hell, we don't even have a forestry industry in the US anymore (largely brought on by eco-nuts), and import all our wood from Canada. That's sad, given how much forested land we've got and the amount of knowledge and experience which is simply lost when an industry dies.

Re:Obviously

[ScrewMaster]

You must be high on drugs. Idiot.

No he's not, you are. The difference is that Asia has taken over production of a lot of consumer goods (stuff you see at Wal-Mart) but there's a metric fuckton of things that you don't see that we still manufacture. Look at the big picture: even China hasn't yet equalled our economic output. They will in a few years, I admit, especially if Congress keep dicking around.

Re:Obviously

[ScrewMaster]

In many workplaces, workers do not have the choice not to join the union This is an agreement voluntarily entered into by the company. If they didn't want to limit themselves to union workers, they shouldn't have agreed to it.

Easy to say ... but when the union has the power to cost you millions (or put you out of business) one cannot reasonably claim that such contracts are anything but extortion. Too much power in the hands of union management is a good part of what's going wrong right now: they won't let a company change its operation or practices even when that's the best thing for both the company and the workers.

Re:Obviously

[ScrewMaster]

I love reading economic theory on /. It's like reading religious theory on a Scientology site. None of you has a clue what you're talking about.

True enough, but it does make for some good light reading. Sometimes when I go to bed I read Slashdot for a while on my laptop. Helps me get to sleep.

Re:Obviously

[novakyu]

Well, that's fine. I don't agree with mandatory union membership. But that's not the same thing as "getting rid of unions," is it? people would still be free to join them. So why did you say "get rid of the unions" rather than "eliminate mandatory membership"?

If you ever dealt with unions and you worked at a place that had union even if there was no need for it, you would know "eliminate mandatory membership" is equivalent to "getting rid of unions", at least the kind of unions that I would like to see blasted to hell.

For example, I work for the University of California, and at least for people in my job category, there is absolutely no need for unions because the University treats us extremely well, and if they didn't, we would all leave---for the private sector where we could get paid much, much more. But nonetheless, we have a union that tries to vilify the University at every undeserved chance it gets, and encourage us to not to work (i.e. teach) as best as we can.

If there were ever a fair vote to disunionize, I am fairly sure we would all disunionize at the first chance (especially given the reactions I saw at the mandatory-attendance union spiel I had to attend recently). And if there were ever a chance for any of us nonunion members not to contribute to the "fair share", the funding for the union would dry up, because there is no justifiable need for it.

And yet, being the undemocratic organization the union is (most of things that need to be voted on gets passed with something like 95%. That's the kind of "approval rating" you see for Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong Il), we never get that chance.

Re:Obviously

[the eric conspiracy]

The article you cited shows higher tax rates for Canada and the UK than the US. Did you look at the table results for say Canada, rather than just the graph which shows only income tax?

Canada has a top 29% federal income tax, plus a 24% provincial top rate, plus 5% CPP plus a 5% GST plus a rate of up to 10% VAT.

The UK has a personal tax top rate of 40% + another 24% for national insurance and a 15% VAT.

Your 38% rate at 1300/week suggests an annual income of over $175,000 USD. I think you would find that in England or Canada your effective tax rate on that level of income would be well over 50%.

Re:Obviously

[the eric conspiracy]

The US unionized? What a laugh. Obviously you have no clue about the US.

As far as intelligence, that is an innate human characteristic unlikely to vary from one nation to another despite the usual racist opinions to the contrary.

As far as productivity, the US is not the highest in the world. However the two countries that are significantly higher are very small (Luxembourg, Norway) and are much more homogeneous.

Re: Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans have grown to feel entitled to a certain standard of living that is disproportionate event to other Western nations.

Sure they have, because it's been marketed as the "American Dream". If you work hard and show the appropriate virtues (loyalty, patriotism, etc.), you will be rewarded. The most direct form of that reward is in money to fuel a specific standard of living.

Now, the conspiracy theorists might whisper that this is part of their grand plan. They get people to be docile and "follow the rules" for the opportunity to live the good life. This has the added effect that people scorn the poor as being somehow "undeserving" because they're obviously lazy and don't have the appropriate virtues. After all, anyone can go from homelessness to working at McDonalds and then work their way up to CEO, right? That's how it is in America, and that's what a lot of people have done in the past. So, no need for all those dirty "socialist" government things!

But, whatever the reason, the painful truth was that to support this we've had to do some ugly things. We've had to race to find ever cheaper wages to keep the dream growing. We've been focusing on the short term and hoping the long term just works out for the best. Most recently, we've been borrowing heavily to keep the dream alive, both at the government and with the financial industry. We've robbed Peter to pay Paul, and now Peter's a bit cranky about getting worked over. The dream is falling apart, and the interconnected world means that it's not just Americans feeling the pain.

The funny part here, of course, is how people around here rant about "necessities" vs. "luxuries" as if they're easy to separate or as if they're a universal truth across all borders. There's more to living in the modern world beyond things that simply keep me fed and warm. No matter how you look at it, a "luxury" like an internet connection makes my job possible at all. Not to say that everyone needs a 40" TV to survive, but the definition of "necessity" isn't the same as what it was 100 years ago.

first emigrant

[ters a-zA-Z0-9$_. !*]

They wont have to worry about big brother in a lot of those places+living wage=land of opportunity

Same situation

[olddotter]

I'm waiting to find out if my job will be moved to a country where the "cost of a comparable person" is 1/3 what it is in the US. Even in that situation I'm not sure how I feel about this politically and morally. How ever as the unemployment rate goes up, and more white collar high paying jobs move else where, I believe this will become a hot topic politically.

There are many ways I see this as a bad sign for the US. Innovation happens where the engineering talent is located. If the worlds best engineers are no longer heading to the US (for high paying jobs) then the US will not longer be the center of innovation it has been for the last 50 years.

Re:Same situation

[geekoid]

If that was true, why is IBM trying to get American engineers to move overseas?

Re:Same situation

[SoCalChris]

I would assume that the cost of moving an employee across the world is probably cheaper than recruiting and training a new employee who knows absolutely nothing about the work they'll be doing.

They'll get the best of both worlds. An employee who is already trained, and has an established work history, at the price of a overseas employee.

Re:Same situation

[nschubach]

Because then IBM wouldn't have to pay Uncle Sam 30-40% of your wage in taxes. They can give that to a country that doesn't wallet rape their employees.

Re:Same situation

[JesseMcDonald]

These jobs were already moving overseas. Now IBM's offering their existing employees a chance to keep their jobs, plus assistance with travel, visas, etc., provided they're willing to move with the jobs and accept local wages (along with a corresponding decrease in cost-of-living). This can only be seen as an improvement for their American engineers compared to the original plan.

Obviously IBM is also benefiting from the arrangement, since they manage to keep some of their trained employees, but they had already committed to relocating the jobs -- and hiring local engineers to fill them -- at the time the offer was made.

Re:Same situation

[Anonymous Coward]

the employee pays income tax, not the employer.

dipshit.

Re:Same situation

[DiegoBravo]

Actually most countries do take the percentages you wrote (or even more); IMHO the main difference is that none of them throws that money in "wars of terror" nor contributions for a dubious selection of big banks.

Re:Same situation

[thej1nx]

Innovation, as per perception, happens where ever the Management(owner is located) since it doesn't matters who conceived the idea, but rather who marketed it successfully. I don't see a problem with where the engineers are located, as long as American companies are still their paymasters, and thus the owner of their ideas.

And millions of people in the third world immigrate all the time to find better opportunities than available at home. Americans can either adapt and do the same, or choose to be stubborn and be a burden on your Government/country by expecting it to mollycoddle you and provide a job for you locally, despite the economic crisis.

The reason why an average American hates the idea of working elsewhere, is because the places where the jobs are, have a lower standard(and by extension, cost) of living. Which is understandable. That was why the world's best Engineers were trying to head for USA in the first place.

But let us face it, it can only be good for the rest of the world at least. America has the largest hoard of nukes in the world. It *could* have been using some of that nuclear material for generating power and selling it to the rest of the world and still have plenty left for its defense. Power is the primary requirement for industrialization and for exploiting resources. But so far, there was nothing in it for America, to actually help those countries. So far it has shared the technology and nuclear resources only with countries such as Japan, where it had military bases and thus a significant American population and an interest. The rest have been deprived based possibly on the policy that it is better to keep them poor, and thus the products sold from those countries, to be cheap. A starving man cannot bargain well. With a large number of Americans living in those countries too, this will change and it can only improve the lives of those poor millions.

Some of you might call it a pipe-dream, but I think Americans would a show more empathy to the problems of those third-world countries, if they had to actually, you know, live there. It might make the rest of the world, a bit better place to live in. Every dark cloud has a silver lining and all that.

And it would only probably improve their knowledge of geography. Please send Palin first.

Re:Same situation

[nschubach]

I don't know where you work, but I never get to touch that money. I'm sure I could file for 99 exceptions and get it all in my paycheck if I really tried, but you're missing the point. (...and frankly you are trying to argue semantics.) Companies have to pay their employees over top of what they are taxed so they can live. The company is most certainly paying someone more money when they live in a high tax region. I know when I lived in Chicago, taxes were crazy. I demanded more salary because I needed the extra money in my pocket to eat and live. I moved to Ohio and I practically got a raise for moving because I wasn't paying as much in taxes.

Re:Same situation

[s73v3r]

I guess being Less Sucky is technically an improvement, but not by much. If you are willing to move your family over to India and never look back, then its not a terrible arrangement. If, however, you want to move back to the US after a few years, then you will have effectively lost any earning power that you would have had if you stayed in the States, due to much lower wages.

Re:Same situation

[lgw]

The porkulus package currently being debated costs more than the "War on Terror" and the bank bailout combined. I understand there will always be some payback from elected representiatives to contributors, but this is insane.

Re:Same situation

[ScrewMaster]

If that was true, why is IBM trying to get American engineers to move overseas?

Because IBM's management doesn't care if the United States remains a leader of anything. All they care about is that they remain leader of something.

Long Ago

[Mastodon]

It was once well known that IBM stands for "I've Been Moved."

Employment in other countries.

[DeadDecoy]

I have a few tech friends from India and it's funny because one of them said that on a yearly salary in the US, they could retire comfortably back home. Fact is, a dollar goes really far in other countries and companies could probably provide an even better standard of living for their employees if they were located in other countries. Now, I'm not saying that this is the ideal situation. Just that the reality for some companies is that they cannot or will have trouble surviving/remaining competitive when another company, based in a cheaper location, can undercut them by a significant amount. It's not simply a matter of CEOs fattening their profit margins but that eventually, efficiency will take over. What I believe will happen, is that an economic homeostasis will occur (over several decades) whether we like it or not.

Ah, pay me no heed as I'm just ranting.

Re:Employment in other countries.

[Anonymous Coward]

did your friend also say that the yearly salary
should be a minimum of one million dollars.

with 100k you won't even get a proper house in
places where IT companies exist.

Re:Employment in other countries.

[DM9290]

companies could probably provide an even better standard of living for their employees if they were located in other countries.

you believe that IBM employees moving overseas to India will experience a net improvement in their standards of living?

Re:Employment in other countries.

[R3d M3rcury]

I think we all have heard the same stories about various other foreign countries. And, honestly, if a company would pay me my American salary and let me live in and work from, say, Vietnam, I'd do it in a heartbeat!

The problem is that's not what's being offered. They want to pay you the prevailing wage in whatever country you're moving to.

So if you were making $100,000 here in the US and you move to China, you might only be making $10,000 a year. You might be able to live just as well in China on $10,000 a year as you could in the US for $100,000 a year, so "in theory" your standard of living wouldn't be changing.

However, the problem would be that if you save your money while working over there and then return to the US, you'll find your savings is worth significantly less.

I would do something like this if I was young and single--it'd be quite the adventure! But if I was older, with a wife and kids and a house and all that? Not a chance.

Re:Employment in other countries.

[Acer500]

did your friend also say that the yearly salary
should be a minimum of one million dollars.

with 100k you won't even get a proper house in
places where IT companies exist.

You don't get out much, do you? 100k would buy you a really nice house in my country, about 500 square meters built (about 5000 square feet) with a half-acre to an acre of yard (and we're not talking about one of those plaster and cardboard things you call houses in the US)

And FYI it is quite safe to live here (Montevideo, Uruguay), much safer than the "bad" areas in urban US cities (and yes, I've been there, while I guess you haven't been here). Tech industry here: 5% of GDP was exports of software products and services.

A quick check shows that 100k would buy you a decent house in the US even: http://realestate.shop.ebay.com/

However, I am impressed at the number of rooms an average American house is supposed to have:

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/United-States-HOUSING.html

A coworker bought a house (ok, a ruin mostly) for 11k USD last week, and housing prices are expected to fall with the recent crisis. The apartment I rent costs about 20k USD (and rent is 150 USD, that includes running water but not other utilites).

Re:Employment in other countries.

[TooMuchToDo]

But are there hot chicks in Uruguay? I kid I kid =)

Re:Employment in other countries.

[DeadDecoy]

I was talking purely in terms of things. Say, a house costs 50k in one location versus 500k in another. Yes there are an emotional standards of living associated to particular locals, which is what makes it difficult for a company to try re-locating its employee base in practice. My personal hope is that this becomes a non-issue in that the cost of manufacturing goods does not change place to place. But that's merely a naive hope.

Re:Employment in other countries.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot. What sane westerner would want to live in India? I'll tell you who: NO-FUCKING-BODY! The culture is totally different, the women there are ugly like hell, India smells like shit most of the time, and the people there are loud and obnoxious -- they have this inexplicable high-hatted attitude that is totally unbearable...

Yes, I hate Indians.

Re:Employment in other countries.

[plasmacutter]

I would do something like this if I was young and single--it'd be quite the adventure!

people who are young and single also have student debts.

Those dont diminish if you move overseas.

Re:Employment in other countries.

[Reservoir Penguin]

But is 100K enough to retire? Normally by "retire" we mean not having to work ever again and living the rest of your life comfortably on your savings. I'm sure you can buy a really nice house in certain parts of SA. You can do it here in Russia as well. But the PC I want still costs 3000 US dollars here and a new car 20K+ and all the other imported shit costs even more here. So I think not, unless by "retiring" you mean barely scrounging a living.

Re:Employment in other countries.

[Acer500]

But is 100K enough to retire? . So I think not, unless by "retiring" you mean barely scrounging a living.

Hmm... to give you a perspective: 100k is 8 year's worth of my salary (but I don't have to pay for healthcare and other stuff which is included in my contract, so salary vs US salary isn't exactly fair either).

Say you invested 90k of the 100k on two or three houses for rent, plus one to live in (as my grandparents did), you'd get about U$ 1000 monthly to live in, and 10k as a cushion.

With 1000 dollars monthly, you could afford to eat at decent restaurants every day, Cable TV, Internet, a cheap car (what in the US would be considered a clunker, but mechanics here are almost free compared to there, and you can get cheap spare parts). What you definitely WOULDN'T be able to afford: the latest in tech (forget about the U$ 3000 PC, a U$ 200 PC like the one I'm writing this in works very well for everything but the latest in video editing or heavy gaming or heavy programming), a new car, and travelling to the US or Europe (which most people in the US don't do anyway).

I wouldn't consider that "scrounging by" (even though I can't even afford the clunker card - I'm saving for it), I've been living like this for a long time, and it has a lot of advantages compared to life in the US (almost no commute, very nice beaches only 2 hs travel away, very cheap food including being able to buy the best meat in the world for 10 dollars a kilo)

Re:Employment in other countries.

[Acer500]

Oh yes there are, especially if you're into the Italian or Spanish style of girl - Uruguay commited genocide on the local natives so everybody is at least 90% descendant from Spanish and Italian inmigrants.

Sadly, nerds/geeks being shunned by the local hot chicks seems to be a worldwide problem :)
...although having money or being foreign probably overcomes that :)

Re:Employment in other countries.

[ScrewMaster]

Oh yes there are, especially if you're into the Italian or Spanish style of girl - Uruguay commited genocide on the local natives so everybody is at least 90% descendant from Spanish and Italian inmigrants. Sadly, nerds/geeks being shunned by the local hot chicks seems to be a worldwide problem :) ...although having money or being foreign probably overcomes that :)

I tend to agree with that. As a long-time nerd/geek myself, my fiancee is African. Hm. Hadn't thought about it that way before, but being perceived as somewhat exotic (in both directions) does wonders.

This is what happens...

[Anonymous Coward]

... when USA unionizes itself out of jobs.

Re:This is what happens...

[linzeal]

Yeah, you know all those tech worker unions.

Re:This is what happens...

[Ironica]

Unionization has been on the decline for decades. It does not explain this phenomenon.

Re:This is what happens...

[plasmacutter]

... when USA DOESNT UNIONIZE.

There, fixed that for you.

Every occupation which has a union experiences little to no off-shoring because of the reprocussions of organized labor.

Its funny how reaganites have such hatred to organized labor, but its perfectly ok for management to consolidate obscene amounts of power.

So much for "equality"

Can we start shooting them as traitors yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean really. Now they are trying to weaken our country by stealing our skilled workers.

Re:Can we start shooting them as traitors yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean really. Now they are trying to weaken our country by stealing our skilled workers.

Heh. Well, one thing for sure - if I worked at IBM, I'd be trying to hire a hit man around now. Or investing in tar and feathers.

Sign here.

[girlintraining]

Our culture has put such a premium on the price of goods, at the expense of quality, that it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone when (like all other resources), labor also finds itself subjugated to this rule. You are now on the dollar menu, Citizen. Ah, but let us rail against our evil corporate overlords instead--it's so much easier to blame anyone but ourselves for this. Labor is dead in this country. You've got "at will" employment, anti-union legislation, and did you know we are the only industrialized country on the planet without a Labor party? Our entire culture has been split up and sold off piece by piece thanks to "intellectual property". You don't own your car, your home, or anything that costs more than about $5,000 these days, stuck paying student loans for the next thirty years, with debt-collection law changes now on the books that make starting over an impossible proposition. We call ourselves a "capitalist" society where the individual has the power and the choice, but tell me dear reader, when was the last time you bought something that didn't come with a contract or a legal document stating what you could and could not do? Want to watch a movie? Read the FBI warning. Use a computer? Read the End User Licensing Agreement. Drive a car? You'll need insurance and a car loan for that. Live in a house? An apartment? Sign here please. You can't even enter a building without "giving consent to search", no cameras or recording devices please (except for us, see the black globes?). Freedom? Where, pray tell, is your freedom?

One Nation, Under Contract. Please sign on the dotted line.

Re:Sign here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful????

I drive a vehicle that I bought new with cash. I got that cash by saving money from my paycheck that I didn't send to credit card companies as interest. I got the paycheck by going to school and, with the help of my working father and myself, I did that without incurring debt. It is possible, if not that common, to live within the confines of a paycheck.

I also use a computer with an o/s that had no EULA thanks to folks like Mr. Stallman.

My freedom is under attack, however. My job is under constant threat of being unionized. My government continues to try to help everyone by taking away from me until I become one that needs help. At that point, of course, there won't be many to help me.

Re:Sign here.

[ljw1004]

We call ourselves a "capitalist" society where the individual has the power and the choice.

A "democracy" is one in which each individual has equal power and choice. Contrast to "capitalism" where each dollar has equal power.

Re:Sign here.

[soundguy]

Democracy is a governmental system. Capitalism is an economic system. They have nothing to do with each other by nature.

Re:Sign here.

[Yuuki Dasu]

Democracy is a governmental system. Capitalism is an economic system. They have nothing to do with each other by nature.

Except insofar as that they are both places from which societal power is derived. The GP's point is that cultures which focus on their democratic principles give each person equal power, while cultures which focus on their capitalistic principles give each dollar equal power - and in many cases America tends towards the latter end of the spectrum.

Re:Sign here.

[CAIMLAS]

Wrong.

Democracy and capitalism both flow from the same principles of "let people do what they want with their life, as long as they don't infringe on others". Capitalism is made possible by a sound foundation of non-infringing republican democracy*.

* What we've come to know as democracy today, isn't. I'm referring to the historic meaning of the word, not the modern "every modern country with elected representative officials" variety. A socialist state can not, by necessity of what it implies, be a democracy. This is also due to the necessary requirement of a democracy to be of the people, by the people.

Re:Sign here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you! I was having a good day.

Tragedy of the Commons

[olddotter]

If that was true, why is IBM trying to get American engineers to move overseas?

IBM is just looking to cut costs. They are not looking at what is in the best interests of the US economically or strategically (militarily speaking). Read the wikipedia entry on "Tragedy of the Commons."

Since shortly before World War II the US has in general been the destination of choice for the best minds in the world. Don't believe that? Look up the birth country and nationality of people who worked on the Manhattan Project. If that had not been the case Nazi's would have had atomic weapons first and this would be written in German.

It is definitely in the US's best interest to have high paying engineering and design jobs here. But that might not be in the best interest of IBM's profits.

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[xenocide2]

As I understand it, World War II started without the US, and many of the minds on the Manhattan Project fled to the US to specifically avoid the Nazi regime. Niels Bohr, for example, was nearly arrested and escaped to London. His underling Heisenburg, however, remained and participated in the Nazi nuclear program.

So yes, very shortly before WWII, the US was an attractive place for intellectuals, compared to Hitler.

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[Fulcrum of Evil]

And after WW2, it was an attractive place for intellectuals to come get a graduate degree and maybe stay and invent stuff. You really think that we haven't been a good place to move to for half a century?

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[xenocide2]

Oh, I just think that the catalyst was WW2, not American culture leading up to it. Certainly the Manhattan project and Einstein (who only spent winters in Calfornia until Hitler took power) built a national support for intellectuals and research groups. Much of the computer's we're typing on owe a great debt to public and private research labs of that era. But leading up to this was a period of American intellectuals leading lives as expatriates, let alone people coming stateside for the good company.

Interesting

[spectro]

If I was 20 years younger and with no debt I would jump on it.

Brazil.... hmmmmm... they work hard, but they also party hard

Re:Interesting

[cbiltcliffe]

And they have hot women in skimpy bikinis.

Although that's probably just media propaganda to encourage American workers to move there....

Who is IBM competing with?

[tthomas48]

IBM is gaming their stock price not competing. If they wanted o compete they would want a highly paid domestic workforce that would buy their customers products thus making their customers flush with cash and wanting to buy some more IBM consulting.

Has IBM announced consulting price-cuts to go along with their now lower wages? If not then they're really not competing. They're just trying to get a larger profit margin out of their current pricing scheme. We should start calling bull on this sort of thing. Let's change the headline to:

"IBM hopes to raise stock price by sending laid-off staff to other countries where the can rehire them for cheaper thus boosting their profit margins."

Re:Who is IBM competing with?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assigning global workers to projects DEFINITELY makes the rates charged to end customers go down, reducing the total cost, and has allowed IBM to win business that it otherwise would not have. Just speaking from my experience with small potatoes projects I happen to be involved with (where I cost the project 4X what people from Brazil or whatever do.)

Writ large, for the mega-million deals, I would presume it would be no different.

Re:Who is IBM competing with?

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM has several competitors, but that's really not the point. IBM CEO Sam Palmisano set forth an initiative to triple to quadruple the company earnings-per-share (EPS) in a period of 8 years, raising it from approx $3 per share to $10-$11 per share. In most industries, that's insane to try to do in such a short period of time. However, from the latest reports, they are still on target, despite economics conditions: http://www.thestreet.com/print/story/10446196.html

Let's assume 5,000 people laid off * $50,000 average per individual salary and benefits ... both conservative estimates --> $250M cost savings to start off 2009. The layoffs are one of many actions underway to keep that 2010 EPS goal. It just happens to be one of the most politically sensitive topics as well. (Note, the AC on this doesn't agree with the layoffs, but the numbers speak for themselves).

IBM has some smart financial people working for them. Try reviewing acquisitions, cash flow and other actions to boost EPS in the annual reports from 2002-2008 for more fun reading. The financial decisions they make are fairly well thought out, even if they aren't popular.

Re:Who is IBM competing with?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very good point - IBM charges customers huge $$ for services. Insane amounts of money. Ridiculous amounts of money. I haven't heard anything about IBM knocking prices down.

Re:Who is IBM competing with?

[booyabazooka]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You say there's a company that's making decisions based on how they can get more money? Shame on them.

In this enlightened age, our business leaders should be aware of social concerns, and looking out for their fellow man. The livelihoods of a lot of workers in our country depend on IBM, therefore IBM is obligated to make sacrifices for us!

Maybe we can fix this problem by imposing more taxes on those jerks. That'll encourage them to stay.

Re:Who is IBM competing with?

[tthomas48]

Oh, you're right. I suppose you're marching into your office on Monday and demanding a pay cut? I mean after all, isn't it greedy of you to expect your company to pay you as much as they do? You're just an interchangeable widget. Goodness, why are you even expecting to be paid at all? You're a greedy SOB. Why don't you think about your company for once instead of yourself?

And you know that if you got paid less you'd pay less taxes, so there's an added benefit for you right there.

It's a win/win proposition. Demand a pay cut today! Heck, screw a pay cut, demand they outsource your job and lay you off. It's for the good of the company! They're not responsible for you, you're responsible for you, dammit!

Making the best of a bad situation?

[mad_clown]

The general reaction seems to be that IBM is in the wrong here.

I think it's also possible to interpret this as a sign that IBM recognizes that the people it's laying off are both a valuable resource that it doesn't want to lose as well as a resource that it cannot afford to keep paying. The union's reaction, of course, is hardly surprising of course -- it has its own interests in mind.

Naturally, this offer isn't one that will appeal to everyone. Obviously laid-off employees with families probably aren't in a position that they can just uproot and move to another country. For others, though, I can see this being an intriguing opportunity.

I know that if I were in this position -- laid-off, facing unemployment, and offered the chance to go live overseas and stay in the company, I'd seriously consider it.

TFA calls it an "innovative" solution. That seems about right. It's not perfect and it's clearly not motivated by altruism, but it might actually work out for some people.

Re:Making the best of a bad situation?

[diamondsw]

Had they not just reported record profits they might have a leg to stand on. As is, they don't.

Re:Making the best of a bad situation?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Great.. so you move overseas. America should be the land of the rich and powerful, not the free. I agree

Mr Middle Class American, if you want to work, you must become chinese.

Translation "we love what you can do for us, we just dont want to pay you"

Well... how about this... "GO FUCK YOURSELF IBM"

Imagine a board member being given this offer "You know Jim, you make 400 million a year and well while we love what you do for this company, we would like you to live in India and we're going to pay you $300 dollars a month... sorry Jim, thats our last offer".

FUCK YOU!!!!!!

Give me a break. Grow some fucking balls and stand up against this shit railing mentality that is bleeding our country dry. WE CAN compete as a nation, and LIVE well while doing it. You know how I know? We did it for the last 50 years.

What has changed? Lets start with the idea that we dont MAKE or SELL ANYTHING anymore. It should be pretty obvious that if we dont manufacture items then we cant compete.

Oh but we manufacture items... in CHINA for fucking $.32 - $.69 cents an hour. I'm sorry.. there is no fucking political gimmick that is EVER allow us to compete with that.

And we shouldnt have to compete with $.32 an hour. You know why? Because it was OUR COMPANIES that put us into that competitive situation, with the help of our "bend over and fuck me up the ass government" being lied to about the great free market, free trade...

It has been a 1 way trade situation for 15 years now and look how fast it has put is in an economic mess.

Sorry but we let our greed get the best of us, and its time to take the power back from those who bleed us dry for their own profit at the expense of your FAMILY, your KIDS... your HOUSE... your way of life. and all you were was a middle class member wanting to work and have a family. OH HOW DARE YOU want so much in life.

Give me a fucking break.

END THIS FUCKING PUSSY SHIT AND TAKE THE POWER BACK. Stand up against this nonsense.

HOW? I have no idea. The government sold out a long time ago.. but at least grow the fucking balls to starting thinking differently.

Re:Making the best of a bad situation?

[spinkham]

The stock market is a harsh mistress, and they must exceed expectations again next quarter, and the next quarter... There's no room for charity and goodwill in a publicly traded company, which is why I avoid working for them if at all possible.

Re:Making the best of a bad situation?

[Daishiman]

Honestly, having worked several years in outsourcing at IBM, our American customers were as full of shit as we were.

American IT workers have a sense of entitlement where they believe that the quality of their work is inherently superior simply because of their origin. Truth is, there's a lot of brilliant minds in the States, but like most places it is full of mediocre people.

One of my ex-customer's IT shop was run by a bunch of 60-year-olds who didn't know how to use SSH or automate user creation on AIX machines. And this was a massive Fortune 500 corporation with operations in dozens of countries. They were quickly fired and replaced by South American kids in their mid-20s who knew UNIX from the inside out and who tripled the level of productivity while reducing head count and increasing end user customer satisfaction.

There are dozens of cases like that, but you won't hear about those simpy because they went well.

IBM's American division is absolutely, completely stuffed with deadwood and worthless project managers who couldn't distinguish a project from their ass. Believe me, most of the people they're getting rid of won't be a loss for them nor their colleagues.

Re:Making the best of a bad situation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mad Clown said: "I know that if I were in this position -- laid-off, facing unemployment, and offered the chance to go live overseas and stay in the company, I'd seriously consider it."

Mad Clown, if you consider this then you would also be considering being buried in whatever land you immigrated to. You'll never save enough earning $500/month with your MBA in China (I kid you not) to be able to retire back in your home country.
You may never see any of your friends, family, cousins.... unless they take a vacation to visit your new home country.

The only positive would be that you could tell the bank, who you still owe $100K in student loans to for that valuable MBA, to just try to collect from you in China.

These are not jobs. This is IBM's Peace Corps.
If you are young and have no ties go live in a far away land for a few years on a subsistence wage. Pick up a little local color and flavor and then come back and get a real job. This is not an option for anyone with a career.

Unless of course you near the end of your career and always dreamed of retiring in like this.
 

Re:Slashdot full of socialists and statists?

[interkin3tic]

This is the FREE MARKET doing what it does best.

And that means what? I think relatively few people value economic systems more than they value economic sucess. If strict adherence to free market is going to get us into a depression (which it won't, but bear with me) then to hell with free markets comrade. The only reason to be in favor of free markets is because you think it will make more money for everyone/you. And of course you wouldn't be such a capitalist if it was your job on the line.

Geez, that is one HELLUVA big International...

[davidsyes]

Bowel Movement, IBM....

Now, can we FINALLY get (at reduced labor costs) an Open Source version of SmartSuite? If you DO NOT agree, I will campaign the hell out of EVERY Indian i can get eartime from and show them SmartSuite and let them know a lot of IBM know-how is heading their way. Japan, YEARS ago, got to have SmartSuite as "Super Office", and they (and other countries) got to have the Lotus Approach database as a fucking stand-alone product. But, all these years, i've been grousing, crying, bellyaching, kvetching, moaning and more, hoping.

But, you know, if Indian programmers are willing to come to the US and live 5 to a room, set up a start-up for USD $11,000 a year annual income, in a 2-room apartment, and forgo bonuses, right here in the US, then surely this could be a great cultural (shocking one, albeit) to 'merkuns willing to give India whirl. Hell, it might help broaden the view of the world even MORE than ever. And, when these people return to the USA, maybe they can help moderate and bring better control to this country so that never again do we remain blind, myopic, stupid, and the world's number one target. But, for now, the current administration will have to try to resolve those problems. In the meantime, I'd love to see SmartSuite alone or with combination of OpenOffice.org gain traction in Linuxland, and see SmartSuite head (back) to the Mac platform, too. Apple, are you listening? This could be a chance opportunity here.

Re:Geez, that is one HELLUVA big International...

[metamatic]

SmartSuite will not be open-sourced because (a) IBM doesn't own all the code in it, (b) there's zero market demand for it, (c) IBM's push is towards open standards and ODF via OpenOffice and Symphony, and (d) there's no money in it.

It's dead, Jim. Switch to OpenOffice or Symphony.

[Opinions mine, not IBM's.]

I have a suggestion...

[PatSand]

Let the great minds in HR and upper management that thought of this go over there (at prevailing local wages) and take a year to set things up. No pay differential, no hazard pay, etc. and let them try to pay for their mortgage and kids education back here in the U.S.

If this is such a "great opportunity" they should lead the way by example.

For those people getting laid off, this is probably the worst insult possible: we want you but at 3rd-world wages.

I suggest those people proposing this immediately get their pay adjusted to 3rd-world wage rates here in the U.S. and see how it feels.

I guess IBM now stands for "Idiots, Bozos, and Morons"

Truly Pathetic!

in 2-3 years

[circletimessquare]

ibm will be an indian company

i have spoken to an employee of ibm, who lives and works in the hudson valley (ibm's historical stomping grounds), and he is being relocated to bangalore under this exact program. he is indian anyways, so not that huge of a deal, and he even looks forward to the massive decrease in cost of living

but he's done a lot of recent improvements on his home, like installing 45K worth of solar panels (not including the 10K new york state gives him for doing that), and now he has to sell his home in the current real estate environment. ugh. i don't think this ibm program has a home value relief program?

according to him, ibm had already planned the move in semisecrecy for years, on a 10-20 year timetable. but the worldwide economic recession has meant a rapid acceleration of the process

Re:in 2-3 years

[CannonballHead]

i have spoken to an employee of ibm, who lives and works in the hudson valley (ibm's historical stomping grounds), and he is being relocated to bangalore under this exact program.

That proves it. An employee at IBM is getting relocated to Bangalore. IBM is sending all employees oversees!

Sarcasm aside, I believe the majority of IBM's 370k+ workers are in the US still... far from being an "Indian" company.

Re:in 2-3 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarcasm aside, I believe the majority of IBM's 370k+ workers are in the US still... far from being an "Indian" company.

Um, no. US employees are about 100k, but i think that also counts all the L1 and H1Bs whose contracts were *signed* in the US. Versus about 80-90k in .in now, up from 9k in 2003.

Power of the buyer.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a buyer of goods and services you have a lot of power.

If you don't like IBM, don't do business with them. Dont cooperate with their consultant, don't advise anyone to buy their hardware, don't use IBM software.

For me, IBM is not a company I do business with. For this reason as well as others.

A U S T R A L I A !

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but with kdawson away Slashdot isn't linking everything with Australia right now which I find distressing so I thought I'd give it a shot.

How about this: "Maybe IBM can send their laid off staff to Australia. That's what the Brits did a long time ago". What? Oh...

Yes, I agree, that would make Australia look like a dumping ground for rejects, and the whole point of the work of Aussie-promoters like kdawson and Zonk is the re-branding of the object of their affections as the 'United States of Australia'.

Therefore I should say "Maybe IBM Australia can send its laid-off staff to other countries because IBM Australia staff are the cream of the crop and all other countries will be begging for Aussie IBMers to come and show them how it's really done".

Yeah, that's better.

Sigh, I so wish kdawson was here.

Mod parent up!

[TopSpin]

Where the **** are my mod points when I need them.

You want to 'protect' American jobs? Get your savior to fulfill his campaign promises to the unions and stand up to Europe, Asia and the rest and start restricting and/or banning imports. Renegotiate NAFTA.

For instance, when the euros start yelling about 'buy American' language in the Obama payoff bill you'll need to grow a pair and ignore it.

Don't bitch when the prices double or triple, and whatever you do DO NOT ask yourself if IBM is actually right and if so why.

Re:Mod parent up!

[FishWithAHammer]

Except that protectionism has never fucking worked and was one of the biggest reasons the Great Depression lasted as long as it did, but that's OK.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

The post you are replying to actually agrees with you.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Show the proof that it has never worked. There is always some protectionism. Otherwise, what is the purpose of nations and governments.

Re:Mod parent up!

[DigiShaman]

Except that protectionism has never fucking worked and was one of the biggest reasons the Great Depression lasted as long as it did, but that's OK

It *is* OK! You're totally forgetting that emotion will always triump over logical thinking in any given society. It's why Communism still rears it's ugly head around the world from time to time. Nothing will ever change that fact. Unless of course, you re-write segments of DNA code in the Human species.

Remember. It's always "OK" because we as a whole just love fucking our selves over like the sadomasochists that we are.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to be working out pretty damn well for China.

Re:Mod parent up!

[CrazyJim1]

I hear that argument all the time. Protectionism would bring industry back from overseas and would create jobs. When the cost of producing something overseas + tariffs > cost of producing something in the native land, companies will build their new plants at home.
To continue a talk about the current affairs: Keynesian economics will get you out of a recession or depression if used correctly. I strongly feel that our congressmen don't get it. They're paying private bankers taxpayer money that we don't even have. If that doesn't work, we're coming close to the point where we can't borrow more money if the US drops into a full blown depression.

Sure, using the lessons of history are good, but sometimes you can make new mistakes that are far worse than the original mistakes, especially in the hands of congress.

Re:Mod parent up!

[FishWithAHammer]

Now you're forgetting one major thing.

How do we export when everybody else starts engaging in protectionism, too?

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that every country that is now a developed country used protectionism to become developed in the first place.

Re:Mod parent up!

[xelah]

I hear that argument all the time. Protectionism would bring industry back from overseas and would create jobs.

Protectionism would also 1. provoke retaliatory restrictions on US exports and 2. mean that those outside the US have fewer dollars to spend on US products (because US dollars would less frequently be being sold on the foreign exchange markets to pay for imports). That would send US exporters abroad and destroy jobs.

When the cost of producing something overseas + tariffs > cost of producing something in the native land, companies will build their new plants at home.

Yes; so production in the US for overseas markets moves to those markets and production for the US happening overseas moves to the US. Meanwhile, there's a huge cost from loss of scale, creation and destruction of capital and a sudden imbalance between skills available (in both the US and its trading partners) and the requirements of the newly closed economy.

There are arguments for specific protectionist measures - where there are price distortions caused by big differences in environmental or safety legislation, for example - but 'protecting jobs' is a lousy one. If you want to blame it all on foreigners then I suggest you look at China's continuing exchange rate policy. The Chinese government has been selling huge amounts of its own currency and buying US government bonds, simultaneously holding down its currency, lending to the US and keeping US interest rates low. In effect, this policy (also enabled by the US government's reckless issuance of debt during the boom) has meant that US imports from China were part-paid for by loans to the US government. What US industry really needs is a lower exchange rate and for the Chinese (and others) to start spending all the dollar assets they've hoarded so that the US can starting paying back all of those loans. Unfortunately, it's a bit difficult to do that now because the US government desperately needs to borrow....but, sooner or later, it needs to happen.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that the only time the Federal government paid off the national debt was during Jackson's presidency in 1835, at which time almost all Federal income came from tariffs as the Founding Fathers had intended? Certainly they were wise enough even back then to realize that free trade of surpluses was not the same as unbalanced deficit driven trade. Today, our national debt is growing exponentially, our economy is in rapid decay, and our quality of life is diminishing. If what we are experiencing, the worse economic decline in generations, is a globalization success story how can you possibly claim that forming trade policies that benefit American citizens and not only the globalist corporations is any worse?

Re:Mod parent up!

[ScrewMaster]

Except that protectionism has never fucking worked and was one of the biggest reasons the Great Depression lasted as long as it did, but that's OK.

Wrong. People like you tend to see protectionism in black and white: either we keep them damn foreign products out, or we just open the doors wide. The reality is more complex.

The United States Federal Government was largely funded by tariffs on foreign goods. It kept the government relatively small, since it couldn't just keep voting tax increases, and was a brilliant feedback mechanism in its own right (the Founders were a pretty sharp bunch, if you'll remember.) But governments being governments, they found other ways to raise funds from the people (including the personal income tax) and no longer needed that tariff system. Had that remained in place, we wouldn't be having this discussion about cheap imports.

Regardless, any nation (such as the United States) which does not protect key industries will find itself in deep trouble sooner or later. Pretty much like we are now: the current open-door, Free Trade, "global economy" scenario was never a viable economic policy and has devolved into a massive wealth and technology transfer from the West to the East ... and that's about all it is.

Unions aren't to blame

[qbzzt]

I don't like unions, but in this they are blameless. IBM doesn't really have a union - it has a small group that wants to unionize it, and so far hasn't met with much success.

Re:Unions aren't to blame

[urbanriot]

Are you sure? From the article, "However, the move has not gone well with the IBM staff union. Slamming the offer, a union spokesperson said that not only were jobs being shipped overseas, but Big Blue was trying to export the people for peanuts too. He added that at a time of rising unemployment IBM should be looking to keep both the work and the workers in the United States."

Re:Unions aren't to blame

[qbzzt]

There's a group that wants to be the union for IBM. They have very few members, and don't do collective bargaining in any of the major offices.

Re:Unions aren't to blame

[urbanriot]

Interesting... TFA would have you believe that IBM employees are unionized, and the union is out to protect them and protesting against this move.

Re:Unions aren't to blame

[Qzukk]

The funny thing about the freedom of association is that I can get my friends together and call ourselves a union.

Our respective employers are free to ignore our demands, even if we threaten to quit.

This is a lesson that corporations should learn well, but somehow never do.

William Gibson Archologies anyone?

[lemur666]

I'm honestly surprised corporations aren't simply going into countries with cheap labor and building their own "company towns" where they can bring workers for all over the world.

Back in the day plenty of companies would just build towns out of nothing, in the middle of nowhere, and move people in to work at their factory / mine / chip fab plant.

So in this day of cheap airfare and 'free' telecommunications, why haven't we seen the same idea Globalized?

Or maybe we are...

Life without borders

[cryfreedomlove]

I don't recognize national borders. I'm trying to live my life without considering them. Perhaps this union guy from IBM should try to live his life the same way.

Re:Life without borders

[Microlith]

I don't recognize national borders. I'm trying to live my life without considering them.

I'll buy that when I can hop to any country and get a job. As it stands I have to get permission from the government of that country and -only- if a corporation is in some way sponsoring me (barring familial relations, and even those get treated like shit a lot.)

Corporations can float freely between countries, paying lipservice to treaties and laws. People are barred entry unless they carry sponsorships and permission. And I'm sure India/China/etc. will be damned before they let millions of Americans come and take jobs in their country before their citizens, even if they -are- sponsored.

Re:Life without borders

[un_om_de_cal]

I don't recognize national borders. I'm trying to live my life without considering them. Perhaps this union guy from IBM should try to live his life the same way.

You're part of a lucky few. For most people in the world it is hard even to pay a short visit to the USA, because we need a visa that isn't easy to get.

Re:Slashdot full of socialists and statists?

[dangitman]

This is the FREE MARKET doing what it does best.

Yes. Fuck people over. If this is what the free market is best at, then maybe we should rethink the idea?

It's not just India...

[CohibaVancouver]

I live in Vancouver, Canada. I used to work for a software company here that was acquired by a company headquartered in Washington, DC. In the summer of 2006, once the 'merger' was complete those of us that worked in Vancouver were given an option: Move across the continent and to a new country and join the DC head office, or be let go. The majority of us chose to stay and found ourselves unemployed.

Re:It's not just India...

[dhall]

Vancouver to DC is a little different than say Poughkeepsie, NY to Bangalore.

Re:It's not just India...

[H0p313ss]

Vancouver to DC is a little different than say Poughkeepsie, NY to Bangalore.

Not from a Canadian perspective...

Re:It's not just India...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not from most American's perspective.

Re:Goodbye union

[dangitman]

The unions that preach the BS are driving companies into the ground. It's no wonder they outsource.

The unions are driving companies into the ground? What utter nonsense. The management is responsible for a company. Unions don't run companies or have anything to do with the management of them.

Last time I checked, there are plenty of companies that are failing that are not unionized at all. Is it the union's fault that those companies are failing?

Re:Open Source just doesn't pay the bills.

[CohibaVancouver]

Hey, how long can you keep a bunch of people around to write free Linux, free Java

Do0d, where ya been? Software *wants* to be free, man.

we all want highest quality for lowest price

[circletimessquare]

why does that instinct require moral validation?

that is an instinct which has driven the entire history of human innovation and technological progress

the guy who goes "say, i could make a mechanical loom powered by a waterwheel, and sell yarn at $1/ yard rather than $10/ yard" does you a service. of course, he also puts 5 human yarnspinners out of work

but based on some sort of "moral validation" argument, we should not pursue technological progress. we shouldn't, in order to continue employing the human yarnspinners, and to continue paying $10/ yard for yarn

no, sorry, not going to happen

this "moral validation" argument is hollow, and is really just an argument for luddites, and an absurd one at that, since we are both sitting at computer keyboards, arguing over fiber optic cables: innovations that would otherwise be impossible, innovations that, ironically, some of which happened at ibm

innovation is something that flows directly from human laziness and cheapness. we want more for less. and our minds are such that we can actually dream up ways to make that happen with novel organizational structures, energy sources, and bizarre new materials

so i say, fuck "moral validation", fuck the yarnspinners, and fuck the out of work american ibmers

progress isn't all fun and games, and is often cruel. but one of those laid off ibmers will innovate the next big thing that will employ the children of those laid off ibmers, and none of them will question the principle of creative destruction, and they will look at their father's mode of employment the way we look at blacksmithing jobs and chimney sweeping

Re:we all want highest quality for lowest price

[DM9290]

they will look at their father's mode of employment the way we look at blacksmithing jobs and chimney sweeping

but will it make them happy?

Re:we all want highest quality for lowest price

[lgw]

If those out of work yarnspinners find a job payng half as much, but that number of dollars buys 10 times as much stuff because everything is now made in factories instead of being handcrafted, everyone wins. That's pretty much what happened, and a fundanmental flaw in Marx's reasoning about capitalism (he totally missed the fact that workers wages don't need to rise to improve their standard of living).

Technology trumps everything, standard-of-living wise. It's the reason that 99% of Americans have a higher standard of living than 95% of everyone who has ever lived. Now we Americans just need to stop buying toys on credit, suffer through the pain of that adjustment, and we'll be back on track.

The current pains are the result of finally having to pay for what we've been consuming. Nothing more. I went through that pain personally about 10 years ago, when I was nearly a year's pay in high-interest debt before I had my moment of clarity. My (now debt-free) standard of livig is higher now than then - just a temporary hardship, nothing fundamental.

Re:we all want highest quality for lowest price

[NeMon'ess]

That's fine and dandy for technological innovation.

What about countries with lower protections for labor, workplace safety, and the environment? Is it OK that third world countries are fucking up the environment and treating their workers like disposable cogs so they can make stuff cheaper? If the USA insisted importing countries raise their protections up to USA standards, or at least closer to them, products would cost more. Mostly they'd still be cheaper than made in the USA, but the price gap would shrink.

Re:we all want highest quality for lowest price

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we Americans just need to stop buying toys on credit

Made especially possible due to advancements in technology.

With technology comes power, and with power must come responsibility. If technology advances without the corresponding advancement of responsibility in society, disaster can/will happen.

The stock market crash of 1929 was made worse by the technologies of the time.

http://www.researchmag.com/Issues/2008/2/Pages/The-Ticker-s-Rise-and-Fall.aspx

No I'm not blaming ticker tape for the stock market crash. I'm saying that there wasn't an increase in responsibility of people to properly take advantage of the increase in technology - phone, telegraph, ticker tape. People became investors in a market with which they had no previous experience.

Now to bring this on topic... there may be a price to be paid for the lack of responsibility in managing the globalization made possible by technology.

Re:we all want highest quality for lowest price

[CAIMLAS]

CTS, the issue here isn't that weavers are being put out of business by a loom owner. The problem is that weavers are put out of work by their employer, who is shipping in product from foreign lands, performed by lesser or equal skilled weavers, at a fraction of the cost.

If there was any sort of advancement here, and not just pure unbridled greed, you'd have a point. But there's been no actual progress made. Just the devaluation of human efforts, and the people who make them.

If this were to happen 50 years ago, there'd be "employers" and CEOs hanging from trees, I have no doubt.

Re:we all want highest quality for lowest price

[CAIMLAS]

What do you mean, what we have been spending? I wasn't old enough to be spending - on credit or otherwise - during the past 30 years of excess. The people who were doing that are now sitting comfortable (or not so comfortable, if they didn't exploit others) in retirement, able to watch their fucked policies play themselves out on the lives of younger generations.

Re:we all want highest quality for lowest price

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said, circletimesqsuare. Progress isn't always smooth or painless, but its macroscopic trajectory remains constant: upwards. The economic system of which we are a part yielded the innovations of the modern world, and it will continue to improve our lives in the long run.

Re:we all want highest quality for lowest price

[Anonymous Coward]

so i say, fuck "moral validation", fuck the yarnspinners, and fuck the out of work american ibmers

And fuck the shift key?

Re:we all want highest quality for lowest price

[lgw]

Well, you make a good point, though a large part of the borrowed excesshas been rationalized as "making our children's lives better" - by buying them stuff, stuff that they'll have to pay for with 20 years interest. It's quite sad, really.

The only thing that will ever change this behavior is a fundamental attitude shift in the voting public. If we each personally reject living on credit as a scam, we'll probably fix our government as well. Instead it seems we're collectively fixated on propping up our inidividual unsupportable excesses with collective unsupportable excesses!

IBM "Union"

[CannonballHead]

For those that don't know, there isn't one. I believe what the summary is referring to (and possibly the article itself, which of course I didn't read) is Alliance@IBM, a ... well, rumor site that gets a lot of disgruntled workers on it.

IBM has a ton of international employees but I believe the largest percentage of employees is in the US. It'd be interesting to compare, say, HP, IBM, Intel, etc., with percentages of employees and where they work, etc.

I guess, in order to make people REALLY happy, they should have just laid off workers and said goodbye for good, huh? Offering to re-locate and stay employed, pfffft, how stupid. Right.

Re:IBM "Union"

[bm_luethke]

The problem isn't so much what is being done, it is how it is being done.

Say, for instance, I am president of a local archery club. We have trouble getting enough workers for some events (all volunteer workers). Many have wanted to have a two tier membership plan - normal dues are 100 dollars a year and non-working dues are and extra 50. If you want to see anger, propose that.

Yet, one can turn around and say that normal membership is 150 dollars and if you work you get a 50 dollar discount and people are happy (unless you start off with the above, then everyone sees you as a hack trying to force what you wanted in the first place). Same thing but instead of getting punished you are getting a deal.

In this case the "Move to India or loose your job" is pretty much the first case - VERY poorly worded. If it had been offered differently I'm sure many more would have taken it - for many that sure beats unemployment.

Then there is also that many people nowadays have unrealistic expectations. There is always thought that they idea that they want is possible - after all look at all the other "impossible" stuff we do today. Sometimes, however, there are no good choices. We will learn that one day - we will do so either early enough that we can recover or it will take basic death.

I know of a number of people in the mid 00's at the worst of the dot com bust that learned it the *really* hard way. But alas, not enough have learned it for the community as a whole. I imagine there are getting ready to be some IBM (or rather ex-IBM employees) getting ready for a really bitter lesson. Hopefully they will all find jobs elsewhere, but at least for the next little bit I wouldn't hold my breath - I would highly imagine in about 6 or so months that India job will look *mighty* tempting to many of them but will be too late.

OTOH I wouldn't of taken it either, but then I generally feel it's a nice move from IBM instead of doing the normal "lay off and hire over there" thing. There was no requirement to even offer it and it is one of the VERY few times I've heard of anyplace doing that.

Re:IBM "Union"

[Anonymous Coward]

So you didn't read the article, clearly didn't read much of the alliance site, and have no idea on IBM's employment numbers, since you're totally wrong on your guess.

But, hey, clearly that lack of facts doesn't seem to impede you from distributing your poorly-informed opinions.

Loser.

Re:IBM "Union"

[CAIMLAS]

You have a point that it's better than most would've offered, but at the same time, IBM isn't doing it out of benevolence. They're doing it for the bottom dollar. It's like a second slap in the face: we don't think you're valuable enough to keep employed, but we'll hire you overseas for a fraction of what you're making, because it's cheaper for us to not have to train a foreigner to do your job.

Re:IBM "Union"

[Anonymous Coward]

Last numbers I saw were these:

Total IBM workforce worldwide: 400,000

Total IBM workforce in US*: 110,000

Percent in U.S.: 27.5%

* This is prior to the latest layoff of over 4000 U.S. employees

Also interesting are these numbers:

2000: 170,000 US Employees,
2008: 110,000 US Employees, 70,000 in India

Re:IBM "Union"

[Anonymous Coward]

If we have no problems telling disgruntled workers 'tough stuff' then why, if IBM is posting record profits, can't we tell the stockholders 'tough stuff' instead? I'm amazed at the number of corporate apologists on this site.

Re:IBM "Union"

[Anonymous Coward]

What folks keep missing is the fact that you must be fluent in the language of the country you would move to.

Why don't they just import cheap labour?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of exporting work, they should import cheap labor. In the light of recent history, holding (light brown) people indefinitely against their will is perfectly legal in US. That means Companies would only have to offer free relocation to a cheap housing on company campus (where they already have full access control and security force).

And may I remind you, this sort of arrangement has been used in US before, and India is known to have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Consolation, of sorts

[nurb432]

At least they seem to be trying.

EDS was like this too, in the good old days. They always had a job for you if your current customer went away, but you may have to move a LONG way away.

Just one question from me

[certain death]

Why should I, as an American Citizen, have to move to a foreign country just to keep the same job I had here and get paid less for doing it and have to work more hours?!? I don't see how this is ok, nor do I plan on being converted to seeing it as ok.

Re:Just one question from me

[sigmabody]

Nobody is forcing you, the self-importance filled "American Citizen", to move abroad, work abroad, or take any job less than what You the Great want to make. IBM is moving the position overseas; you have the option to follow it, not the requirement. It's hard to fault IBM; the cost of employing people in the US is egregiously high compared to other countries, and the international business laws offer no strong disincentive for doing so. Regardless, though, nobody will be forcing You to take a job paying less than you want; there may just not be many jobs up to Your standards soon, though.

Re:Just one question from me

[ErikZ]

I didn't have the option to follow it.

Re:Just one question from me

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

The simple answer is.. IBM is scum.

IBM is just offering this in hopes that someone will take it, but their real motive is to simply higher foreigners. That is exactly what IBM should do. Let them hire all foreigners. Hell. IBM should move EVERYTHING to India and China. FIRE their ENTIRE staff in America. That is after all, what IBM really wants to do isnt it? They want skilled labor at cheap costs.

Well let them have it. LET ALL of these companies have it. It makes perfect sense. Especially to all of those "trickle down" guys... because the less you "trickle".. to more PROFIT you have!

Oh but one thing... those of us in America must agree to enforce strick laws that prevent the Board Members and stock owners from living in America. They cant have our land and our wealth if they cant employ us.

Now all we need to do is get the UK, Fance, Germany, Spain, Finland, and a few others to agree in making sure these board members and stock owners are not welcome there either.

If the workers of IBM cant live in in America, than neither should the board members or stock owners. Why should they benefit while our labor does not?

Re:Just one question from me

[certain death]

I said nothing about wanting some exorbitant salary, nor did I say I was All Important because I am an American. What I said was that they are forcing my hand and if I want to keep a job that I have invested 20 plus years in, then I have to move oversees. Oh, and there was one other thing...Blow me!

Re:Just one question from me

[voxner]

This offer may sound attractive to those who love to travel or just experience the "other" world. Such a shift could also entail moving a notch up in skills or management ladder which they can later market in the United States.

It could end up being a strategic choice.

Re:Just one question from me

[TooMuchToDo]

I guess we'll just have to change the laws in the US. That is one of the benefits of living here compared to other countries.

Re:Just one question from me

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm... maybe you should look at your skill set and your decisions.

I've never had a problem getting well paid jobs here in the US - and I'm a developer. Yes, I work hard and am fairly smart - but no smarter than many.

Of course, I never was so stupid as to work at one place for over twenty years and let my experience (technical as well as social and business) stagnate. I know a lot of people who are in the same situation as I am. In fact, I don't know of anyone among my peers that hasn't maintained more or less continuous employment for the past 25 years except for those that choose not to (taking time off to travel, retire, change fields - always to a lower paying job they find more socially fulfilling).

Stop whining and get off your butt -- if you're not too moldy to do so.

Re:Just one question from me

[maxume]

Apparently, the answer is that [GIANT CORPORATION] believes that they can get services equivalent to what you are providing, for less money. They are wondering why they should pay you more. Oh, and they don't really care if you like it or think it is ok.

If this bothers you, minimize your dealings with corporations that act as such and lobby your government representatives for change (for all the good it will do, [GIANT CORPORATION] has better lobbyists than you).

I guess the upshot is that the average standard of living in the other country is likely to go up more than the American standard of living goes down (which, while rather abstract, is a good thing...).

Re:Just one question from me

[ScrewMaster]

Nobody is forcing you, the self-importance filled "American Citizen", to move abroad, work abroad, or take any job less than what You the Great want to make. IBM is moving the position overseas; you have the option to follow it, not the requirement. It's hard to fault IBM; the cost of employing people in the US is egregiously high compared to other countries, and the international business laws offer no strong disincentive for doing so. Regardless, though, nobody will be forcing You to take a job paying less than you want; there may just not be many jobs up to Your standards soon, though.

Huh? If IBM wants to avail itself of cheap Indian labor, or pay its American workers Indian rates, then it should uproot itself and move to India. Otherwise, it should stop using the reliable electric power, roads, railway system, communications system, and other useful infrastructure paid for by the American taxpayer. The picture is not so simple as you make it out: IBM (like many large corporations) wants to have its cake and eat it too. They're being disingenuous at best and I call bullshit on this.

Re:Goodbye union

[Anonymous Coward]

Odd logic you seem to use, isn't it.

That almost all the outsourced labor is non-union labor would not imply to me that the cause was unionization. Could you explain that to me?

Virtually all the textile work was non-union before it went to India and Bangladesh. Literally all the programming jobs that were outsourced over the last 15 years have been non-union (the very few union programmers had healthy jobs until Boeing started having trouble). And tech support, let me think, I don't know of any company that had unionized tech support, and that's one area that seems 100% outsourced these days.

Of course, fast food is an area that's non-union and not outsourced. And it's no wonder - how can you do that long distance?

[Posted anonymously, since I'm an "at will" employee and not interested in a career change.]

Don't think so

[Presto Vivace]

I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, but coming at this time, this is the sort of decision that can ignite an explosive backlash. Part of the art of public relations is understanding when the rules are changing.

Re:Slashdot full of socialists and statists?

[novakyu]

If strict adherence to free market is going to get us into a depression (which it won't, but bear with me) then to hell with free markets comrade.

To me, free market is more about fundamental individual rights than any perception of prosperity. Yes, free market tends to be the most efficient economic system, but that's a by-product, not the final goal (for me).

The culture and governmental system in which a free market can survive and thrive as it ought to is the same culture and governmental system that respects the most fundamental of individual rights: self-ownership, as in no one may force you to do anything you don't want to do, except in the case what you want to do interferes with this fundamental right of others.

A lot of statists are claiming that this recession is the proof that free market doesn't work, but, if they bothered being honest with themselves, well, they would have seen that we didn't have an actual free market in the first place—around 2000s. U.S. passed that stage around 50 years ago, when the government started meddling in everything with its regulations and "equal opportunity" bills. Yes, I see the intentions behind some of these bills were good, but you know what the road to hell is paved with.

If I could have all the riches of the world but could not do what I actually want to do (without infringing the rights of others), well, I would rather work as a poor graduate student doing what I want to do and believing what I want to believe—as I, in fact, do.

Re:Goodbye union

[Anonymous Coward]

Unions are driving *many* companies into the ground. Unions play a huge role in how companies are run. They decide a set pay rate and benefits package of each class of employee for instance (which removes incentive to work hard and make more than your peers) and they also place artificial limits on productivity in manufacturing environments by setting maximum quotas. In many states employees are forced to join unions and can't be fired based on their union status. Unions aren't necessarily bad, it's forced union shops that take management decisions out of the hands of the owners and management that really drive a company into the ground.

what a joke

[NynexNinja]

Offer the laid off staff a lower paying job in a third world country? The next thing they'll be doing is telling the US workers to train their third world replacements. Wait... they already did that!

IBM Union Strike!

[erroneus]

This is just about the only power a union actually has and this is what they should consider. All of this job exportation doesn't just cause financial harm to the nation by exporting dollars that will not return, but it discourages students from majoring in technology which decreases our skilled and intelligent labor force in the future and even in the present. The H1-B program abuse doesn't help much either. But if the union that exists were to shut IBM down at this sensitive and crucial period, it might go a long way to remind these big abusive companies of what is important.

Further, it would certainly help if the nation begins to protest the export of our jobs overseas.

Re:IBM Union Strike!

[uncqual]

After all, that worked well for the UAW.

Re:Goodbye union

[CannonballHead]

Unions don't run companies or have anything to do with the management of them.

You should check out some union labor laws that currently exist in the US and check out some proposed ones, then. Unions can force companies to do a lot. Try the auto worker's unions for starters, since that industry is in trouble. Or the teacher's union.

traitorous IBM management deserves ROMAN JUSTICE

[noshellswill]

ROMAN JUSTICE: 0) strip them bare of all property 1) flog them 'round the streets 3) decimate those surviving 3) sell wives and daughters to Saudi whorehouses

Nothing new, seen this back in 1996

[Anonymous Coward]

This type of offer happened to me back in '96 co-incidental with nafta. I worked in WA but my job was moved to Canada (for cost-cutting reasons). At the time the $1Cdn = $0.75US. The company had such a deal, they would take my $50K US and pay me $50K Cdn if I moved. It was more expensive to live at that time in BC than WA, such a deal. None of us offered the deal took it. Hmmm, wonder why. The odd thing was at the same time, people in the BC branch moving to WA had their salaries go from $50K CDN to $50K US - now that was a sweet deal.

Re:Goodbye union

[dangitman]

If your company is so weak that it can be "driven into the ground" by a union, then you have much bigger problems than the union. And, by the way, the teacher's union and autoworker's unions are red herrings. Neither is responsible for the the failure of the car industry or education. The problems those industries are facing are a result of the failure of administration and management.

Will they issue more H1Bs?

[DaKrzyGuy]

The other question is how many of the people IBM is going to relocate to BRIC countries will be backfilled by people from those countries coming here on H1B visas?

Overpaid perhaps?

[tiger32kw]

Did anyone else think that maybe instead of everyone else in the world being underpaid... perhaps we are overpaid? If we don't adjust to this, either through new skills/technologies or lowering wages, expect to see more jobs going out of this country. Resources are scarce...

Re:Overpaid perhaps?

[cheesybagel]

Perhaps. But it also means there will be less people with money to buy their products. In the mid-term everyone loses.

Re:Overpaid perhaps?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Yes we've all thought of this. Its either we let this all balance out until the point that the average US salary is .69 cents an hour on par with China, or we demand that other countries and our own US citizens pay OUR prices for products.

Since we dont manufacture anything anymore in America, obviously what we're seeing is a balancing out happening. We have to fall really fucking hard to get to .69 cents an hour.

And the side effect is everyones going to raise prices to try and compensate for their own falling profit margins... which will hurt us even more because rather than accepting the "leveling out"... we're going to fight it to maintain as we go broke.

The right move was to NEVER agree to NAFTA... and i hope one day we will throw it out the window and force all of these companies to either build here in the US, employ in the US, manufacture in the US... or MOVE OUT of our country, and put embargos on their goods.

We should not allow everything to be made outside of the US. Its not in our interest... clearly. Our well being was never a factor in NAFTA. It was all about profit at the expense of life.

And if you say other wise, then why do they employ slave labor? or labor at slave wages?

Re:Overpaid perhaps?

[tiger32kw]

True that

Re:Open Source just doesn't pay the bills.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, because Microsoft isn't laying off any employees at all either!

In all honesty

[Cyrus20]

the cost of employment is only high in some areas of the USA if you would move your base of operations to parts of the country that don't have as high a cost of living then your cost of business will go down.

Re:In all honesty

[fluffernutter]

I completely agree with this.. I don't see why companies headquarter in major centers. A company like IBM could build a campus in the middle of nowhere.. Houses around it would be dirt cheap so you could make a compromise with your employees and pay them some less but not like moving to a third world country. Maybe at one time it was important to have that big office in New York but not anymore, with today's technology.. Especially not a 'technology company'.

Re:In all honesty

[jrhawk42]

A few tech companies tried this back about 8 years ago, and it didn't work. The problem with moving out to "the middle of nowhere" is you can't offer potential employees anything besides a job. Smart employees know that if they move to the middle of nowhere their options become limited when it comes to things outside of work, like raising a family, and spending a night on the town. "middle of nowhere" corporations have a very difficult time wooing good employees, and usually have to stick with those who are desperate and dumb.

Re:In all honesty

[uncqual]

Unfortunately, going to work for such a company in the middle of nowhere has at least two problems. First, it's really TWO relocations you're signing up for (the first there, the second out of there to the next job). Second, if your spouse works, what will they do (esp. if they work in a field that IBM isn't involved in)?
The main reason the Silicon Valley is so popular is easy job mobility to a large variety of jobs - even without spouse changing their job (or kids being dislocated).

der takin oar jorbs

[TimothyDavis]

It is called competition, and there are multiple things to consider here. If the jobs are moved overseas, then we are raising the world economy and have leverage on other regions. This is one of the reasons that Microsoft has created so many job openings in China - Microsoft can now negotiate with the Chinese government regarding software license enforcement. IBM is in competition with other software and hardware vendors. They need to compete on price as well as product features. Competition generally means that they need to be concerned with what their expenses are. In terms of intellectual companies, most of the operating expense is attributed to employee wages (they don't have raw material concerns). So let's summarize: By moving jobs elsewhere, they are: +Increasing the living conditions of the region where the jobs are moved ++This in turn increases the likelihood that said regions will buy a product instead of pirating +Increasing the influence on foreign governments - which is an issue when it comes to copyright enforcement +Decreasing the "US centric" software design. By living international, more exposure is introduced to product teams regarding what other regions of the world need +Staying competitive. The cool thing about the United States is that you are free to go start your own company, and run it with higher ideals. The downside is that you cannot simply demand that a company create jobs or bow to your demands that they pay for your society.

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[visualight]

Your position lacks historical perspective, and, is avoiding the fact that in many of these situations the jobs don't have to be exported for the company to remain profitable. The owners simply aren't satisfied with the hundreds of millions per year they're already making.

The downside is that you cannot simply demand that a company create jobs or bow to your demands that they pay for your society.

Yes we can. The privilege of a corporate charter, and all the benefits that come from that are granted by the people of the United States. It is NOT a RIGHT. The trend over the past hundred years has been for corporations to take more and more while giving less. The expectation that a corporation will exist to serve the public good is all but gone now and pretty much anyone with the requisite fees can become incorporated.

Maybe allowing that to happen was a mistake, but, the ultimate authority in this country, the People, have been misinformed, lied to, and manipulated by the same people who own and run these corporations. It is not impossible in these 'connected' times that enough people will become fed up and start revoking charters.

The wage earners of this country are the engine that drives everything in our present economy, not the stock market, not the capitalists. A strong and healthy middle class is needed to support YOUR standard of living. Take care of it or you too will suffer.

Regarding your insult to the poor and uneducated in this country (der takin oar jorbs): Your place in society is not at all secure, and if you continue to speak and behave as if it is, you will be the one responsible for your children or grandchildren becoming one of the same people you ridicule. The number of upper middle class 'slots' is becoming fewer and fewer every year and there might not be a chair for you the next time the music stops. The way things are going, it could even happen in your lifetime -people don't always get what they deserve, but you just might.

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[Lost Engineer]

Sure you can drive a corporation out of business but there's no way you can make them create jobs. If we just sit here in a little bubble, we will only get poorer and poorer while the rest of the world grows.

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[Anonymous Coward]

"The wage earners of this country are the engine that drives everything in our present economy, not the stock market, not the capitalists." Comrade, let me pay you a one-way ticket to North Korea, where you can work your ass off for the good of the "people". Companies exist for one purpose: to generate profits for their owners. Who the fuck are you to decide how much they should make? The company is their _propriety_ and they can do whatever they want with it. Moderators, if nazi "fans" are banned to speak in public, why no so also the freaking "communists", which killes hundred times more innocent people in the name of the worker and the peasant?

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[TooMuchToDo]

If a business goes elsewhere, the vacuum will be filled by someone else.

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[Anonymous Coward]

" The number of upper middle class 'slots' is becoming fewer and fewer every year and there might not be a chair for you the next time the music stops. The way things are going, it could even happen in your lifetime -people don't always get what they deserve, but you just might."

That reminds me of the musical chair game they taught us in grade school. Do you think they where trying to inform us of something?

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[manekineko2]

The owners simply aren't satisfied with the hundreds of millions per year they're already making.

Of course, the owners are people like you and me (and yes, the CEO and other assorted "fat cats"). IBM is a public corporation. The funny thing about this is, people are all for corporations doing things that make no sense economically like hiring Americans at 100x the wage of someone else who is willing to do the job for cheaper. However, somehow whenever most people get a stake, no matter how small, even just one share, if you ask them if they want THEIR corporation to forgo making money for them, they would respond HELL no. It's easy to succumb to the desire to vote to take away someone else's money.

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot, regurgitating words you don't understand.

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[timrichardson]

They are not "taking jobs"; this is a process of reassigning people to jobs where they are worth the salary they want. It's harsh, but the fact is that if someone in Eastern Europe can do the job for $2000 a month, that is what the job is worth. If you force those jobs to stay in the US at $5000 a month, who pays for this? Either the USD get devalued, or through the force of law you rob the customers of IBM of $3000 a month. Get a grip. Don't you see where this would end? What's so special about IBM workers? Why not block every lost job, and ban every foreign import? Why should T-shirts cost $5 and shoes $70? That's way too cheap, damn foreign labor. Make them in the US, ban the imports and pay $25 for a T-shirt and $200 for shoes. That will fix everything. Of course that's too bad for poor families, but let's fix that with price controls. Or subsidises. Gosh, why didn't anyone think of this before? Anyway, where is Eastern Europe?

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[timrichardson]

I suppose some people want their pensions to be worth something.

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[hairyfeet]

Actually I think a LOT of it can be traced to "owners like you and me" BS. Why? Because we USED to have a nation with investors. Now, we have day traders. And there is a BIG fucking difference. An investor is in it for the long haul. He knows that you have to spend money to make money, that you have to build your business clientele and infrastructure, basically they are looking at the long term picture and investing accordingly.

Compare that to the short termer or even worse, the day trader. They are strictly looking for that short term profit baby. They don't care if you burn the fucking company to the ground as long as the insurance you gets pays them a good dividend. They do NOT want you to fix anything, or spend the money needed for you business(and this country) to grow. Because that affects the short term profits and that is all they care about. If they don't see the numbers in the quarterly reports that they are looking for they'll dump your stock like it was made of toxic waste and you can watch you company become nearly worthless if they get in a panic.

But the simple fact is we NEED investors, not short termers. We NEED the heads of companies to be looking at the long term. We NEED them to invest in the business, the infrastructure, all the things that will help them to grow(and hire more of us to work as they do). But instead a company has to run overseas, they have to let the buildings rot around them. Why? Because if they don't hit those quarterly earning reports the stock market can rip them apart. Because nobody is looking at long term. That is why we have such volatility in the market, and why if Steve Jobs coughs the stock tanks at Apple. Because the stock market has become a giant casino instead of what it originally was, which was companies trading their stock to investors to grow their business and paying them dividends in return for their investment.

Personally, and I know folks REALLY don't want to hear this, but I believe that all this passing the buck and profits above investment will cause this economic crisis to be much worse than they are predicting. I believe that the governments are going to keep pumping money to their friends and flooding the market with cash trying to keep the party rolling and it won't end until we have gone through "Great Depression Part II". Maybe then we will look to straitening out this mess, and we'll reward investment in this country instead of punishing it with tanked stock prices. We'll just have to wait and see.

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, I see you are the proud owner of a Wal-Mart franchise! Welcome to slashdot.

I'd recommend taking a Basic Economics course, and not one of the ones you took for your MBA, because they deliberately skip certain topics. Specifically, pay careful attention to the lectures on "inferior goods."

I'll be glad to work for 80% less money... when my cost of living is 80% less. I know, as a society, we'd probably have to forgo things like cutting-edge medicine, government programs that attempt to reduce some of the unfairness in daily life, police forces that cut down on mob and gang rule, scholarships for higher education for the middle and lower classes, courtrooms that strive to uphold the Constitution and fight corruption, the ability to launch and maintain communications satellites, the R&D budgets that have given us the technologies we use to post on this very forum, retirement plans, proper nutrition and adequate food supply, and all those other pesky features of a first-world country.

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[JustPutt2]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Absolutely the most succinct and crisp, that I have seen in a while!!!! Clap, Clap, Clapp

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[Anonymous Coward]

It is called corporate socialist mercantilism. Notice that the spell checker now wants to outlaw words to describe what is happening to our nation as a vicious testament to the pervasion of the monopolists to even this corner of the net. Let's relegate the word 'mercantilism' to 'oldspeak' and only allow the 'newspeak' of the 'brave new world of 1984 from Aldous Huxley. Mercantilism if the exploitation of colonies for the good of the mother country. In the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth it was used to force colonial populations like the American Colonies to produce raw materials for home factories in England to fashion into finished goods for export. Here it is used to convert former producer nations that have relatively well off populations into colonies exporting raw materials from their nation's birthright for foreign corporate monopolies to produce into finished goods at high prices in order to vacuum the wealth that remains from the target populations until the laws of diminishing returns and depletion of natural resources and political instability (revolution a la Somalia and failed state and ruin) ends the game. Then the international criminal gangsters, the corporate socialists (classic Fascists in the true Italian of the 1930's syndicatalism mold [see 'syndicatalism' as 'mis-spelled'? reading yet another necessary word of 'oldspeak' out of the language]) will simply move on to another target. Nothing is really stable. Indian wages are increasing by increasing percentages year after year. Indians are not stupid, or lazy, and eventually wages will equalize to the point that the total envelope cost of production there will relegate continued profiteering there 'less attractive'. Lower cost nations have benefits. In Muslim nations one can forcibly convert new imported 'hires'(slaves) to Islam. In many 'low cost nations', corporal punishment can legally or at least locally 'tolerably' (with a nice bribe) be used by employers to force production speedups. Of course if the beaten workforce were former US citizens then the authorities of that low cost nation would certainly look the other way. It was not their sons being killed, daughters being sold as whores to executives from still other nations and of other 'colors', etc. Corporate socialism is when a small group of corporations own all the property in an economic sector...really a de facto monopoly. When the monopolists tire of India there is always Burma. You really CAN murder and beat and enslave and.... .....there. And those folks cannot speak English so cannot tell the world their problems even if some do escape the national police, the drug gangs, the Thai triad societies, etc. Trouble is, what happens when the victim populations are so poor that they can no longer afford the opiate of the people...religion and television?,, and they wake up. When Benito Mussolini was an idealistic socialist before he sold out, he published a newspaper called 'Avanti', which means 'Awake' in Italian. Vladimir Ulyanov was an aspiring Orthodox Priest student when he saw that the antidote for rampant monopoly and political disenfranchisement in old Russia came by way of Karl Marx. There is always somebody that is not a complete apathetic moron in even the most oppressed societies. And just like in Chile with its years of Pinochet's 'desaparacidos' a new regime here will maybe yet seek out the criminals of the Bush and 'free traders' years with all the zeal of an Elie Wiesel seeking nutzies no matter how geriatric the traitors become and no matter how far into the future. Maybe even using the sipp and haft system of going after the sons of the free traitors.

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[visualight]

I'm with you on that, I was thinking the same thing a few years ago. I wanted to come up with a way to retool the way the market works to strongly discourage not only day trading, but also maneuvers on the part of corporate leaders that result in a short term bump in stock price at the long term detriment of the company. Reward long term planning and stability. But I couldn't think of any ideas worth repeating.

Do you have any?

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[gregbot9000]

Your position lacks historical perspective. Badly.

The privilege of a corporate charter, and all the benefits that come from that are granted by the people of the United States. It is NOT a RIGHT.

No, those rights are guaranteed in the constitution and law, written and set in stone with very restrictive requirements to change. They are a right.

The people have very little to do with it. This was done by the founding fathers for a very specific reason: they saw what happens when you give individuals the ability to revoke rights at random. They knew what happens when you have people going around saying things like "the right to property is not a right" if "the crown" or "the people" or "the supreme soviet" says it isn't.

What you have just advocated, and I'm sure you don't even realize it, is patently false Statism. "The people" do not rule this country, the law rules it, and the law guarantees rights.

The downside is that you cannot simply demand that a company create jobs or bow to your demands that they pay for your society.

Yes we can.

No you can not, by law or by practice. It doesn't work, like water up a hill. No state in the history of the world has ever been able to put demands on one section of society to finance the expected living standards of another and had any measurer of success for very long. This is why America revolted against the crown, The USSR is a memory, Rome collapsed and the feudal system never got above subsistence agriculture, serfdom and the wanton violation of individuals rights, doesn't work.

The wage earners of this country are the engine that drives everything in our present economy, not the stock market, not the capitalists. A strong and healthy middle class is needed to support YOUR standard of living. Take care of it or you too will suffer.

Nope that is wrong, hate to say it, but the wage earners do not run any country, never have and never will. If they did they wouldn't be wage earners any more. You have had countries in the past where only the worker existed and things didn't work out to well. Wealth is created, it isn't taken, unless the government does it. people mostly get rich by doing something better, the basics and benefits of a market economy are so simple that it's hard to understand how you can make a statement like that.

The middle class doesn't exist statistically, it is a rhetorical device. The people who fall into the middle quantiles of income get their income mostly through utility added to their labour, through mechanization, education, ect. To use the government power to benefit this group because it is "the back bone of America" is just more pork and vote buying. A strong and healthy middle class has absolutely no relation to ones standard of living, in a market economy individuals human capital and the value of labour does. The problems of today, such as the housing bubble, are mostly caused by the government trying to distort the market for privet gain.

You are obviously a middle-class person. I am sorry, but it is not the governments job to benefit you at the cost of everyone else. The laws are written so that you can not bend the legislature towards your privet profit. I know that the gop has been doing this, but two wrongs don't make a right, we must end corruption and federal power, not bend it towards our benefit.

Our legislature is bought and sold. Many of the problems we have today are caused, as I'm sure you are aware, by the corruption of our government. Corporate welfare, selling of public goods for private profit. The solution to this isn't to turn that corruption toward the group you belong to, it is to eliminate it. Otherwise you will only increase the violence of the swings in Washington, with the dems giving bigger and bigger chunks to their supporters and the gop doing the same, until the country is ripped apart.

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[hairyfeet]

The only one that I was able to come up with was this: Have a regulation that if you buy over x amount of stock(and I would need a serious stock analyst to tell me what the best number would be to balance the needs VS punishment) that barring certain conditions(say the stock loses over 45% of its value in x number of days) then you agree to keep it 2 years. And give a tax break to those that agree to keep their stocks for 5 years, with a serious penalty if they break the agreement.

I believe this would help to get the market off the quarterly earnings fixation it has now. It would help to bring stability, get rid of the day traders by forcing them to think long term (or stick to the penny stocks where they can't do as much damage) and most importantly allow the heads of companies to be rewarded for thinking long term growth. After all, if you are buying stocks looking at 2-5 years of ownership you are going to avoid the companies that "pump and dump" their stocks and are instead going to look for the companies that have clear plans of what they want to accomplish in the next 2-5 years and beyond.

But whether we enact something like I suggested or some other plan, IMHO we MUST do something. The market as it is now is simply irretrievably broken. As it is now any company that tries to plan for the long term is going to be hammered and have their stock tank simply because they dared to reinvest profits into the long term growth makers, such as improved infrastructure, better automation, better engineers, more competent help desk employees to ensure customer satisfaction, etc. Any company that invests in these things now would frankly have to be nuts and possibly suicidal. Because the day traders and short termers which have flooded the market over the past 20 years or so, but have really gotten thick in the last decade, will positively crucify you for daring to spend money instead of cutting everything (including ultimately the companies throat) to maximize profit over all. This is why the cable and telecos haven't upgraded shit in years, why companies will stick with piss poor foreign labor like help desks even as their customers leave in droves, and why we see so many companies today doing moves that even a high schooler would tell you is bad for the business. Because as long as the short termers and day traders wield so much power over the markets there is only ONE choice. Profit over all, even if it destroys the company in the end. And it simply has to change.

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[ScrewMaster]

"Who the fuck are you to decide how much they should make? The company is their _propriety_ and they can do whatever they want with it.

Actually, from an historical perspective you're dead wrong. Corporations were suffered to exist because certain things need to be done for the public good. Period. End of statement. Some of our Founders remained unconvinced that even that much was a good idea. As usual, it turned out that they were right.

Corporations have acquired (though dubious means, I might add) way too much legal power in this country, and that needs to be taken away from them. Otherwise, they'll continue to destroy the very country that made what they are, in their endless quest to "globalize" and seek the highest profit margin. Some consider that "only what a good corporation should do", but they are wrong.

When a legal construct (which is, when all is said and done, all that defines a corporation) no longer serves the public trust, it is time to either modify that construct, or replace it. The point of allowing corporations in the first place was not to encourage the accumulation of wealth and power into the hands of a very few (although those such as Thomas Jefferson feared that very outcome), but to allow individuals to organize and efficiently provide for the common good. That ideal has been thoroughly corrupted here in the United States (and was from the founding of the original Hudson Bay Company.)

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[ScrewMaster]

Do you have any?

Well, yes, but none involve leaving any day traders alive when its all over.

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[Hognoxious]

*privet* gain.

Is that what hedge funds do?

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree with you on the destructiveness of day trading.

I think the government needs to step in here (as referee) and change the rules. Introduce a hefty penalty for flipping stock. Something to encourage long term holding - and drive out the cannibalistic day traders

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[visualight]

I don't know if you're a troll, but I'm going to take a chance that you're merely ignorant.

1)The right to incorporate does not exist in the constitution.
2)The people of the United States are, and always have been, the ultimate authority in this country. They write the laws.
3)The middle class is the group of people who buy goods and services. They drive demand. Demographically they are the largest group (of course). When these wage earners are hurting, they buy less. When they have fair wages and job security they buy more. Think 'demand side' vs 'supply side'. Supply side economics (voodoo economics) is dead and buried.
4)Read a book.
5)The housing bubble is the result of greedy people writing loans THEY KNEW were likely to fail, but didn't care because the also knew they'd bundle and sell them off before they fail. The idea that government meddling caused this is patently false.
6)If you see "Communism" in every argument that doesn't support your world view, you're an idiot. Nowhere in my OP did I advocate such an extreme view.
7)The enabling laws of passed 100 to 120 years ago are the corruption here. Before that, corporate charters were granted only when there was a stated purposed _that served the public good_. Those corporations were limited in what they could do, where they could do it. Many of them were in fact _owned by the state_.
8)Read a book.

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[gregbot9000]

Hehe, read a book, I did, it was the text for Econ 101, which is obviously more than you have read. Or would you rather I read Michael Moore and "nickeled and dimed."

2)The people of the United States are, and always have been, the ultimate authority in this country. They write the laws.

That right their shows you aren't even worth arguing with, your understanding of how the world works is so simplistic that nothing but well meaning harm can ever come from you.Your "idea" of how things work has killed well over 120 million people in the last century alone. You live in a fantasy world, I suppose Fanny and Freddy weren't government meddling by buying up all those bad bundles, and the fact that the SEC and every other agency conveniently looked away during the boom wasn't meddling? No, it was greedy people, who need to be rectified by the new, gooooood, government.

The people do not run this country, The Law runs it. The laws guarantee liberty and private property as a right. I am usually the first to argue against the interpretations of the 14th that give limited liability and corporate personhood, but the right to form a business through contract and be free of coercion by the state(without due process) is as clear as crystal. If you don't like it get an amendment passed. Of course that won't ever happen because most people see your ideology for what it is, failed statism, hell even Obama has sharply left the far left.

No one ever said anything about "communism", maybe you have a persecution complex? I said statist, and I meant it, because that is what you are. Someone who believes a tyranny of the majority(middle-class in your case) should have the ability to use federal power to abridge the liberties of a minority group. Spin it how you want, but That Is What You Said, and in that sense you are no different than George Bush and the Neo-Con scum.

Re:der takin oar jorbs

[visualight]

I suppose Fanny and Freddy weren't government meddling by buying up all those bad bundles, and the fact that the SEC and every other agency conveniently looked away during the boom wasn't meddling?

I don't when or why F/F bought those bundles; isn't the SEC looking the other way the opposite of meddling? In any case the people who created those bundles are the source of the problem, not the government.

The people do not run this country, The Law runs it. The laws guarantee liberty and private property as a right. I am usually the first to argue against the interpretations of the 14th that give limited liability and corporate personhood, but the right to form a business through contract and be free of coercion by the state(without due process) is as clear as crystal.

The people write the Law(s).
I never said anything about taking a way the right to contract, anywhere ever. I am ONLY talking about benefits that come from getting a corporate charter from the state (i.e. limited liability, corporate personhood). Getting such a charter is a privilege, not a right. The right to contract is a right that I have strong opinions on, and I would never, have never argued that it should be abridged.

Someone who believes a tyranny of the majority(middle-class in your case) should have the ability to use federal power to abridge the liberties of a minority group. Spin it how you want, but That Is What You Said, and in that sense you are no different than George Bush and the Neo-Con scum.

I NEVER NEVER NEVER said that. STOP rebutting arguments I have not made. You keep implying I've made arguments I didn't or that I said something I didn't and then arguing against those points. I asserted that the middle class is the driver of the economy (demand side) and that the capitalist (supply side) is NOT the driver of the economy. I did not say or imply anywhere ever in my entire life on this forum or anywhere else that any group should use federal power to abridged the liberties of anyone. I DO assert that the market and our laws should encourage decent wages and job security for the average wage earner (the middle class), because they drive the economy with their purchases.

Short sighted rules

[fox171171]

Eventually nobody will have a job in North America.

Re:Short sighted rules

[mikael]

Except the executives and a small service industry dedicated to serve them.

unions vs. executives

[reiisi]

I think the problem with paying the guys at the top millions is that it makes the guys at the bottom feel, you know, not worth that much.

So the union guys, since they need to justify the cost of union dues, point to the high wages at the top and tell the guys at the bottom they should be getting a part of that.

Bad math all around.

The real problem is the attitude of top vs. bottom. If the executives were willing to live like real people, the employees would (mostly) not be demanding to be treated like royalty, too.

(Lot's of problems here, but let's look at one thing at a time.)

Re:unions vs. executives

[ppanon]

Agreed. Generally, a well run company that pays its employees a reasonable wage and provides commensurate executive compensation and profits will not find itself having to deal with unions. Unions tend to get installed in environments where management is badly exploiting labour (usually treating them as unskilled, disposable, and interchangeable cogs for which cost must be minimized by any way possible). A company getting unionized indicates a toxic relationship between management and labour. Once that happens, there has already been a huge loss of trust between the two opposing sides that can never be fully regained. But the problems existed before the forming of the union, not as a result of it. The union is just the symptom of the workers organizing to restore the real balance of power that management isn't willing to recognize.

In a certain sense, if people in that industry are unskilled/disposable/interchangeable, then management is correct to treat them that way. If Walmart can shut a store or fire everyone and hire all new personnel in response to a unionization attempt then they should. And the public should take into account that corporate attitude about the value of their human employees when they make decisions about where they want to go shopping. That's because that management behaviour also implicitly says things about how the customers are viewed as consumers and of the level of service that customers and suppliers can expect from that corporation. If people shop at Walmart and similar firms, then they should shut the hell up about the decaying of civil society because they are supporting a major contributor.

That said, I also don't have much sympathy for grade 10 dropouts with minimal or no skills, and no interest in upgrading their skills or education, who think they deserve the same salary and standard of living as the guy who actually graduated from HS, let alone spent an additional 4 years learning in university.

Re:Slashdot full of socialists and statists?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Wrong dip shit. The article is PROOF that the free market doesnt work because these workers HAVE skills that IBM wants. The proof is in that IBM is overing to move them to cheaper places to work for less. THAT is called getting fucked over.

Sorry. You're unregulated free market bullshit doesn't work, and it never will as long as people are treated like slaves.

Re:Slashdot full of socialists and statists?

[lgw]

Acutally, is very clear what the free market does best. Nothing can beat the free market at setting a price where supply meets demand. The demand for skilled IT workers worldwide is rising, but the supply is rising even faster. The result on wages is unavoidable.

The best hope for American IT wages is the success of companies based in India! If local demand for skilled IT workers in India becomes significant, wages here, there, and everywhere will rise once more.

Japanese wages?

[reiisi]

erm, I don't think anyone would save money moving workers to Japan (unless there were other factors with significantly more weight than wages). Look up what is happening to Toyota and Panasonic, for starters.

Or look up "average japanese wages" and check the conversion rates and work at the admin costs and moving costs.

Japan is not where they want to move people for wage savings.

toys for children or toys for adults?

[reiisi]

Or are you just arguing the metaphor in metaphor?

What really needs to happen is

[WindBourne]

When IBM comes looking for gov. contracts tell them that since they have moved all jobs to India and China, then we expect the price to be reduced the same. So, they will need to bid the job at 1/50th (or lower based on hardware/software mix) of what an American would do so, otherwise, they do not get the work.

Re:What really needs to happen is

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Exactly.. HARDBALL.

"well Mr IBM, we've reviewed your business offer, and we see that you make everything in China and India, so we will only pay Chinese and Indian prices for your services"

HAHAHAHA

[linhares]

I wish some /.ers would just quit whining.

He added that at a time of rising unemployment IBM should be looking to keep both the work and the workers in the United States.

This is the most basic law of capitalism. America is about creative destruction at its best. For all this daydreaming, if a job can be done elsewhere for a lower cost, it will in the long run. By IBM or someone else like with weird "Tata" names.

IBM must assure its survival; not keep inefficient jobs. If Lehman can die, so can IBM.

The USA has the best universities and the best talent in the globe--that's where IBM (and all others must concentrate, the hardest, most value-added tasks). The rest goes away, baby, like it or not, to some far away land where people talk weird and spend all day building iPods.

Let me tell you something: I'm from Brazil, a PIECE OF SHITE country (despite the awesomeness of the girls), and you know why it's a fuckup? Because our politicians and economists have always tried to protect this banana republic from Schumpeter and David Ricardo. If America goes that route, well, let me just tell you: it backfires.

There are so many tech-areas expanding and so many opportunities in the US that one wonders why the fuck so many whining protectionists don't start working on android, iphone, adobe air, palm's pre system, and other ??? profit! opportunities up for grabs.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[plasmacutter]

Someone failed multi-round game theory.

Structural unemployment ceases to be productive when sectors get shipped overseas faster than people can recover their training costs. If politicians dont put a stop to offshoring, the US will turn into an impoverished, third world backwater.

The USA has the best universities and the best talent in the globe--that's where IBM (and all others must concentrate, the hardest, most value-added tasks).

Sorry, but only above average people can accomplish the "hardest, most value-added tasks", and the kicker is no company wants to TRAIN them. Today's grads are learning it the hard way:

"Im interested in an entry level position"
"do you have 2 years experience?"
"no, but it's labeled 'entry level'"
"You need 2 years experience."
"And where do I get that"
"I dont know" (real answer "nowhere, now enjoy the rest of your life flipping burgers while the student loan company garnishes your wages")

Either way, you have to have average jobs or there will be no middle class to buy your stuff.

This is the underlying problem in the financial crisis right now.
Companies offshored and put pressure on wages, freezing them for upwards of a decade while inflation continued at 3% and energy costs skyrocketed.

People assumed debt to keep afloat, but eventually their capacity for debt gave out and they ended up defaulting. Now we're facing the spectre of deflation, which is bad for both joe sixpack and business.

The lesson:
You can't lower the real cost of goods over the long term, the best you can do is short term, and the short term is over.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[linhares]

How are they going to do that? Protecting the US market to IBM? That will only make IBM charge more and become less competitive, tanking the US.

Lehman is dead. All employees have been fucked in the behind. If IBM dies, all employees are out of work, not only a handful. That's the thing about protectionism. In the long run, you become a closed, fucked-up economy.

Oh well, fuck it. It's your country anyway. Why should I give a crap?

Re:HAHAHAHA

[plasmacutter]

How are they going to do that? Protecting the US market to IBM? That will only make IBM charge more and become less competitive, tanking the US.

Lehman is dead. All employees have been fucked in the behind. If IBM dies, all employees are out of work, not only a handful. That's the thing about protectionism. In the long run, you become a closed, fucked-up economy.

Oh well, fuck it. It's your country anyway. Why should I give a crap?

That's only with extreme protectionism.

Our economy grew exceedingly well with mild protectionism which prevented the kind of labor exploitation happening now.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Hognoxious]

Mild protectionsism is like being slightly pregnant.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[megaditto]

It wasn't the protectionism, it was Mr. Hitler and Mr. Free Market that made us more prosperous. Our economy grew exceedingly well after the rest of the World was destroyed in the Second World War. Why? Because at the end of the war we were the only country with a functioning economy, meaning our efficiency at producing anything was way above all the other countries.

This in turn had generated a lot of demand for our goods, and a lot of profit which trickled down to all Americans. Later on, the Chinese become more efficient, and NOT by protectionism, but by forcing their subjects to work at slave wages, with no healthcare or retirement benefits, which now generates a lot of demand for their goods.

Protectionism is almost never the answer. It almost killed us in the 1930s, if not for the 2nd WW.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[plasmacutter]

Just keep drinking the koolaid and reading your republican revisionist history.

I mean, i'm only degreed in economics, after all.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[megaditto]

Is there something factually or logically wrong with my argument (apart from the flavor)?

Re:HAHAHAHA

[plasmacutter]

Is there something factually or logically wrong with my argument (apart from the flavor)?

Yes, because the rest of the world was rebuilt and humming along by 1960, and we kept growing into the 70's before "free trade" started gutting our local industry.

shipping off workers

[brianc]

IBM has always stood for "I've Been Moved". This is just a creative (but crappy) implementation...

Toys? What toys?

[reiisi]

I think part of the problem is that so many of our toys, we have quit calling them toys and started calling them necessities.

slashdot is my playground, but the internet connection itself?

It's definitely on the list of things I may have to look at cutting, to cut costs, but if I do that, I'll have to go install a certain webapp on the computer of a friend who currently uses the webapp on my personal site regularly in her business.

Not to mention do all my job searches from my cell phone.

And I call the cell phone a toy, and it's more expensive (especially pro-rated per person using it) than the land line, but the company I work for calls it a necessity.

We really need to re-examine all sorts of things. I think our greed has extended too far into our desire to do more "work" in less "time".

Re:Toys? What toys?

[Frosty Piss]

I agree with everything you've said, though my cell phone is about the same as my land line was (which I got rid of).

Toys? Like electricity, clean water, and FDA...

[RexDevious]

Please look into what it's like to be a top programmer in India. There's a reason they can get by on 1/3 of the salary they'd need in the US - and it' ain't because they buy less "toys" there. It's because everything is cheaper. Housing is cheaper because property taxes are cheaper. And the taxes are cheaper because the government doesn't provide those "luxery" services like free police and fire departments for all, free education for all, free emergency health care for all, free food inspection, blah blah blah. Oh, they have some of those things, but they're barely funded compared to what "spoiled" Americans get. Like electricity that's only on part of the day.

The only thing US citizens waste money on is health care insurance. Other countries industrialized nations provide health care too; they just don't splurge on making health insurance companies rich in the process. Take that out of the equation, and it's no cheaper to live in the US than anywhere else. In the US, you just get stuff that 3rd world nations don't take for granted.

Re:Toys? Like electricity, clean water, and FDA...

[jotaeleemeese]

No, like SUVs, game consoles, and too much food that makes you fat.

Many people have been against consumerism at a "gut feeling" level. Now we know why: such levels of consumerism are completely unsustainable.

Re:Toys? Like electricity, clean water, and FDA...

[RexDevious]

Oh, there's no doubt that a significant portion of this country does waste money on things we don't need. But that gap between industrialized country's salaries and third world salaries cannot begin to be erased by eliminating this.

I actually *did* look into telecommuting for an Indian firm after the dot com bubble burst. Not only would I have had to give up non-essentials (coffee, beer), but I would have to give up living indoors because the going salary alone wouldn't have let me qualify for *any* apartment in New York City. Yes, including Harlem and the Bronx.

It would be a very good idea for us to give up on useless junk (ie anything you can find on the Home Shopping Network, Sky Mall Catalog, or with the word "luxery" in the model name); but it's a very bad idea to give up on things which help keep you alive. Workers in these "cheap" countries have already done it en masse, and now no amount of success there can buy them back.

I'd mod you up

[reiisi]

But I've already posted here.

Standard of living is probably the core issue, or the greed for it.

Well, that, and the number of people whose sense of security is all tangled up in how much "work" they can claim to have "accomplished". That could be considered another part of "standard of living", too.

Re:Open Source just doesn't pay the bills.

[tjstork]

Do0d, where ya been? Software *wants* to be free, man.

The irony, of course, is that Vista is way cooler than Ubuntu when you got a good buzz on.

Who would be most happy with IBM calling it quits?

[reiisi]

intel?

Microsoft?

buying American..

[spiffmastercow]

Yet another instance of the prisoner's dilemma.. We're each better off individually to buy the cheapest thing possible regardless of where it comes from, but as a society we'd be better off to support only businesses that contribute back to our economy (i.e. American businesses).

Protectionism, in the forms of high taxes and tariffs, has given many European countries a very comfortable lifestyle. Why not the same for us?

Re:buying American..

[timmarhy]

which ones would they be? they are certainly happy to trade on most things.

Re:buying American..

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's start with a google search.

Re:buying American..

[warsql]

as a society we'd be better off to support only businesses that contribute back to our economy (i.e. American businesses).

Not true of the exporters and the manufacturers of exported goods. They gain by the prosperity of other nations.

Re:buying American..

[spiffmastercow]

again, individual vs. society. the exporters and importers do not outweigh the rest of society

What else is new?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." --Thomas Jefferson

Buying Power is a BIG benefit

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I love to travel, and I love how cheap things are in foreign countries. Even if your salary is reduced, I think it is safe to say that your buying power will actually increase.

In many countries you can live like a king even though you make less than you would in the US.

Naturally of course, people never think about the positives and instead jump directly to the conclusion of 'Big Business is shipping jobs overseas again and is hurting America'.

Do everyone a favor, think about the global macroeconomic benefits for America by offshoring and outsourcing and stop propagating this idea that overseas jobs are bad.

Re:Life with borders

[reiisi]

Yeah.

Even the US treats family relationships like dirt reasons to let people move.

If I wanted to move my family to the US right now and do it by the rules, I'd have had to save my entire last three years' wages to use as a guarantee for my wife's visa. Fortunately, my kids have dual citizenship for now and wouldn't need a visa.

Well, okay, a couple or five years ago, they started this alternative waiting-for-a-visa visa.

Clearly, they don't want people to follow the rules.

The market is always free.

[reiisi]

If you want the black market to be the largest piece of the market, you regulate the official market to death.

Which is part of the reason this hurts so much now. We should not have been so anxious to protect our market (all the while pretending it was free). We've been busy using a few abuses that needed temporary fixes become the excuses for excessive regulation (in the blind illusion that "we" and "our friends" would get a side-benefit, usually). What has collapsed was not a free market any more, in any sense.

We should have been taking the work, if not the jobs, overseas a long time ago. Basic sharing is also legal and workable in a truly free market. When the market was still free, we could have done so. We didn't.

We're paying the price now.

Nice work if you can get it

[CustomDesigned]

The take home salary is *not* the significant cost of hiring an American worker. You have FICA, Medicare, Unemployment insurance, Workers comp, plus lots more nickle and dime costs. Let me illustrate the end result with an example from a country even worse (in this respect - of course it is a nice place in other ways): Brazil.

Brazil got a socialist government that tried to end worker exploitation by decreeing a litany of benefits for all workers. Mandatory unemployment insurance, health care, maximum weekly hours, minimum wage, you name it. If you land a legal job in Brazil, you are really well taken care of - and you even get some spending money. The problem? Very few companies can afford to hire workers following all the rules. So instead, they offer jobs "under the table". You work for us, while officially unemployed, and we'll slip you money under the table. No benefits. No guarantees. This is what most workers in Brazil end up with. The end result is the opposite of the good intentions.

A friend was a lawyer in Brazil working for a non-profit that sued companies that failed to follow all the employment rules. The catch? His law firm hired *their* workers "under the table" with no benefits - they could not afford official workers as a non-profit.

Re:Nice work if you can get it

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Right because Brazil is the land of "GOOD behavior"

Come on. They didn't hand money under the table to benefit people, they did it to avoid their responsibilities.

The game is the same everywhere. Businesses dont exist to employ people, they exist to profit. All of these businesses could careless if you die of cancer while drinking dirty water, homeless on the streets.

Re:'Engineers'.

[htnmmo]

Haha, you got modded troll and overrated.

I guess the people with mod points today aren't real engineers.

Project Match ... Nigeria here I come

[Anonymous Coward]

I work at IBM Research Triangle Park and it's a great plan if you have no friends, family, and don't plan on making any money.

With "Project Match", you basically resign from IBM USA and join the corresponding country. Countries include Nigeria, South Africa and the BRIC to name a few. IBM will pay some for a one way ticket. The real kicker is that you will make the wages in the country that you are located. Which is great if you plan to immigrate to say Nigeria, but forget about saving enough to come back.

Good deal for the right person

[gujo-odori]

That's a great deal for the right person, but I can see how most laid-off employees wouldn't go for it.

I lived abroad for many years, and married while doing so. If my employer wanted to send me to my wife's native country, or some of the countries we lived in during that phase of my career, while paying me the same salary I make here in the Silicon Valley area, I'd jump at the chance (or in the case of Japan, they'd have to pay me way more).

If we could take my salary and go live in my wife's country, between that and the money of her semi-wealthy family, we'd live like royalty. But I can see how that wouldn't work for everyone.

Re:Good deal for the right person

[Anonymous Coward]

... while paying me the same salary I make here in the Silicon Valley area ...

Yeah right. You won't find such a deal unless you are some lead architect of an important project. Even then if it can be done remotely, no reason for company to burn money on this. And salary should be commensurate with the cost of living. Nevertheless you are a typical example of American consumerist who probably never be grateful for what you have and have a sense of gratitude.

Palmisano: "Let them eat curry"

[Anonymous Coward]

220 years after the start of the French Revolution, Marie Antoinette has gotten a successor!

Re:Palmisano: "Let them eat curry"

[Anonymous Coward]

220 years after the start of the French Revolution, Marie Antoinette has gotten a successor!

Maybe Palmisano and company need the same treatment she got.

This is what needs to be done. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. government needs to stop them before they run off with everything. We should pull a Stalin and grab the company and toss out the upper management, maybe even shoot them and leave their bodies in a ditch. I know this doesn't sound capitalist/democratic. However, this company is acting pretty communist/totalitarian (badly) as it is anyways, most likely because a majority of the company was bought by China. If we don't stop them now, they're going to exist entirely outside the United States with only a token presence here.

They've basically just stated now, quite bluntly, that they're going to completely leave the U.S. and fuck us over, take all the money out of the country, and leave us high and dry. *WE* made this company successful and rich, and now it is going to help ruin our economy by running off when we need it most.

I also have a running theory right now that the CEO is racist and unhappy that Obama is president so he is going to bail on America. Notice how suddenly many companies are mass exporting their business to second world white nations like Ireland/Poland? They've been doing it for years, but suddenly they're running not walking toward the exit. It is treason, hang them all I say.

Re:This is what needs to be done. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, hear.
Blood in the streets, heads in baskets.

The problem is organizing arrests or executions of the thieves and traitors without exposing the action group to the quisling cops. The degree of media brainwashing of most of the posters on this thread shows the difficulty of maintaining operational security. We can't go after them piecemeal.

The reaction of the powers has already been planned - they are counting on riots like the "IMF riots" in so many other looted countries. Camps have been prepared, emergency powers, decrees, contingency plans drawn up.

At least a thousand key business and political leadership targets must be taken out within two days, with no warning, to have a chance of success.

Media outlets must be secured, political apparatus must be taken in a way that prevents reprisals.

A tall order, when one can't know who is trustworthy.

The key people are, in rough order:
the top 10 media owners, wealthiest 50 (by controlled assets), Fed Chair, NY Fed president, top 50 CEOs, top 100 political contributors, the Supreme Court, US-Israeli/AIPAC leaders, state governors, the President, the Vice-president, secDef, secState, the House leadership, the Senate leadership, remaining cabinet, top Capitol Hill aides.

(all purely hypothetical, of course. I do not advocate breaking any laws.)

Economic paradox

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does the money come from if their employee/customers don't have jobs to purchase their products or the products of big business that will eventually need to buy from IBM?!? Is this the chicken and the EGG paradox? If every big business outsource and lay off who are they selling to laid off low pay people?

FALSE

[WindBourne]

Most of the world does not have socialized health care. Socalist countries do as does most of the west. The real problem for us is that the vast majority of our jobs have gone to 2 countries; China and India. WHy? Because both have their money FIXED against the dollar. China uses a "basket", but the chinese gov controls the rate. More importantly, it goes up when Euro and yen go up against the dollar. When they go down, so does it. But the RATIO against the euro, yen, and dollar remained for the most part fixed, and it is designed to bleed all the western nations. India has fixed their money against the dollar. PERIOD. they tried to raise it from 50 rupee to 1 dollar to 40 rupees to a dollar and the gov was warn by a number of companies that if it remains or goes higher, they would pull out. So, the gov went back. India does drain the software engineer with this, but all in all, our 2 way trade is only slight off balanced. China is a whole other issue. They hold more than 2 TRILLION dollars. There is no doubt that if they freed up the exchange, that it would change from the current 6-7 yuen / dollar to 2-3 yuan / dollar, maybe lower. IOW, the price of good from there would be at least double, if not 3x what they are today. In addition, if CHina was required to clean up their emissions, the price of goods would double. And you think that health care does this???

Re:FALSE

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the world does not have socialized health care.

Pretty much all developed countries has... except the US of course.

Start your own company, do not buy or use IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Start your own company and only deal with other small companies. This way you can undercut IBM and be employed

Very Soon it won't be India....

[Anonymous Coward]

Indian Employees are getting very arrogant, everybody wants to be a F*king Manager in 5 years. Talking about their skills - empty personlaities, somehow managed to pull the chords... and are overconfident of running a show for a MNC Software Products company.

Indian Engineers are demanding unreasonable pay packages[ no more cheap labor] and IMHO, this is the beginning of the end for India.

George Carlin - The Real Owners (that's not you)

[Savantissimo]

The Real Owners George Carlin:

There's a reason education sucks, and it's the same reason it'll never ever be fixed - it's never going to get any better, don't look for it, be happy with what you got, because the owners of this country don't want that. I'm talking about the real owners now. The wealthy big business interests that control things, and makes all the important decisions.

The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners.

They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear.

They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying - lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.

But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

You know what they want? Obedient workers - people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it.

And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it.

They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club.

By the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think, and what to buy.

The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged, and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good honest hard working people: white collar, blue collar it doesn't matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard working people continue (these are people of modest being) - continue to elect these rich douchebags who
don't give a fuck about you. They don't give a fuck about you - they don't give a fuck about you.

They don't care about you at all - at all - at all,
and nobody seems to notice.
Nobody seems to care.

That's what the owners counted on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white, and blue dick that's being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth.

It's called the American Dream cause you have to be asleep to believe it.

-George Carlin

(Listen to him - the power of the words heard is so greater than read, it's the difference between seeing a punch and taking one.

SEC must regulate market capitalization

[mahadiga]

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -- Reagon
I suggest SEC to regulate market capitalization of all NASDAQ listed to no more than twice the company quarterly revenue.
This will

1. Prevent Ponzi type of scams in management and stock markets
2. Will create more opportunities for start-ups resulting in millions of jobs creation in America.

IBM sells globally - expect them to staff globally

[uncqual]

It seems that 41% of IBM's revenue (2007) comes from the "Americas" (which, presumably, includes Canada, Mexico, and South America). About 31% of their employees (2007) are in the US.

Although I don't see a breakdown of revenue in the Americas by country, I would expect that the "non-US" portion is significant. Hence, it looks like IBM employees about the same percentage of people in the US as the percentage of revenue received from the US. Since the average pay in the US is probably higher than the average pay elsewhere in the world, they probably pay a larger percent of total wages to US workers than the percentage of revenue received from US sources.

Seems pretty hard to complain about this in a global economy.

The problem with this..

[plasmacutter]

What I believe will happen, is that an economic homeostasis will occur (over several decades) whether we like it or not.

The problem with this is without government bailouts the US economy will slip into third world status.

This homeostasis will involve deflation. This means everyone who invested in an education, home, or any major durable good will be completely and totally screwed without government intervention.

Additionally, if not handled properly (i doubt it CAN be handled properly) we will end up rolling back 100 years of progress and main street will be tar-paper shacks while wall-street will have mansions the size of herst castle.

It's already happening, in case you didn't notice. I remember not so long ago when a VP made about 600k a year. Now its in the millions while they cut jobs and export them overseas.

Either people will unionize, or the nation will be pushed into ruin.

Re:Goodbye union

[captbob2002]

...Unions aren't necessarily bad, it's forced union shops that take management decisions out of the hands of the owners and management that really drive a company into the ground.

Ever read a union contract? I've helped negotiate three of them where I work. There are entire sections on "Management Rights" which covers area of actually managing the outfit. If a company gives away its ability to manage operation to the union, they have bigger problems than their union and they are already doing a fine job of running the company into the ground all on their own.

I never wanted to be in a union, but as stated above, when management continued to treat the workforce like crap the workforce unionized in order to fight back.

Relocation support?

[AliasMarlowe]

I've moved on request by my employer, and in changing jobs. Each time, I asked if there was relocation support, as this can be expensive. Always, the answer was yes, including temporary housing, packing/shipping/unpacking furniture, special handling for family pets, etc.
Our family pet is a horse - a frisky 600kg Irish Hunter. There were dropped jaws at certain costs resulting from this (specialized truck, temporary stables, etc.), but they paid up.

Want to go abroad? Work for an NGO rather than IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone is tempted by such an offer: moving to a third world country to use their skills, working for an NGO is the right thing to do:

- you are warmly welcomed by everybody, the humane experience is unvaluable.
- you are sure to do useful work (unlike working on dead-before-launch offshored projects). pay and accomodations are usually higher than local wages for equivalent work (when they exist).
- Good NGOs usually make provisions and pension plans for their long term expatriates, including psychological help when returning home (more fit than what the US military does). Plus, as non-for-profit organizations helping other countries, they don't take solidarity as a vain word.

Many places in Africa are looking for qualified CS teachers and engineers. GIve it a thought!

Re:IBM sells globally - expect them to staff globa

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod up parent.

Mod Parent Troll...

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that that post got by the moderators.

Elbonia awaits!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's plenty of elbow room in Elbonia

The US taxes you whether you work here or not

[Anonymous Coward]

So you get the added benefit of double taxes in addition to a huge pay cut and elimination of benefits AND you get to live in a country you're not a citizen of. Lets review some of their choices:

Slovenia - Ok that might work, it's still Europe
Romania - highest rate of AIDS in Europe
Brazil - It's legal to kill your wife if she cheats on you
Nigeria - Come for the poverty, stay for the civil war, kidnapping and AIDS
Czech Republic - Like Slovenia but it sounds cool South Africa - according the US state department THE most dangerous place not actually at war. SA has a higher murder rate than Iraq
United Arab Emirates - no Jews no women, thanks

Re: IF you can make it back home that is...

[Douglas Goodall]

The idea of working outside the US for a while until you can come back home leads me to the conclusion that somehow you are still a US citizen, but you are wishing you could have a job in the US and wish you could move there. How is that different than being a foreigner and wishing you could get a US job, and wishing you could move here. Gee, what happened to Fred? Oh, he had to work offshore last year, and couldn't come back. Now he is stuck in India. Suddenly being unemployed in the US with the possibility of being employed soon sounds better than trying to make a life in a foreign country and dream of coming home somehow. That sounds like some kind of nightmare.

Re:George Carlin - The Real Owners (that's not you

[PingPongBoy]

But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking

Somehow, that doesn't ring true, as Poirot would quickly argue. Businesspeople want to avoid critical thinking though because at the point of criticality there is a lot of risk. The more assembly-line a job is, the more predictable the cash flow.

The trouble is that computers are doing more and more conversion of raw resources (like electricity from the outlet, as well as raw data) into decision-aiding information while concurrently the Internet spews out wisdom, trends, or predictions that masses of people try to take advantage of. After all, we have a huge number of educated that know there will be no one to pity them if they can't get on a blessed path to easy fortune. This path doesn't have a particularly well-predicted end but going hard and fast is good enough for lemmings so it's good enough for people.

The people are the owners, and if the people falter, even the rich are burnt.

But people will have to do more critical thinking anyways because computers are taking over the dumbass jobs. The first decade of the 21st century has gone by, and the economy has shown a tremendous inertia in this decade. Such inertia should not be repeated in future periods or else computers will run the show in 10 or 20 years, and then there will be a select few who will own everything, and they will be gladly given the controls since they know how to keep everything going.

21st century soft slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the beginning of one of the most significant social trend in this century: soft slavery. After moving raw materials, capital, know-how, etc. corporations start shipping population around the globe. Most individual countries will loose control over their immigration policies (in return of investment), some regions will be designated for the working poor, while others for the ruling class. We will see sharp geographical segregation after the middle-class buffer evaporates. Shipping out "undesired" population from one country to an other will prevent political changes by popular votes. "Slave countries" will be run under dictatorial political regimes - like China, which will take care of curbing protests. Freedom, equal rights for all human beings will be labelled as outdated ideology, which can no longer be maintained under the never before seen global crisis. Later even demanding these liberties will be outlawed. Citizenship for certain countries will be determined not by birth, immigration, but by the level of wealth. If you can not maintain a certain level of income, you will have to move to other countries, designated for people with similar income - unless you provide personal services for the richest, in that case you will be exempt, for the duration of the service. Good morning, America, good morning World.

Re:21st century soft slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to troll, but isn't the bleeding of tech jobs also the foot in the door for future terrorists looking to hurt the US infrastructure? How many thousands of customer networks is this going to open up to offshore resources to potentially infiltrate and damage?

Wow... IBM can give foreign job permits?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, let's assume you are an American citizen, working for IBM.
The company offers you to keep your job if you move to India, Brazil, whatever to make your labour cheaper for them.
Which involves minimum a work permit, etc. in India, Brazil, etc. - an immigration function of the Indian, Brazilian, etc. government. What IBM is actually saying is that they can dictate, or minimum influence the immigration and labour policies of the sovereign country of India, Brazil, etc.?
Wow... Can someone point me please to any source which shows that the Indian, Brazilian, etc. voters transfered these rights to IBM?

Re: IF you can make it back home that is...

[CAIMLAS]

Exactly!

Also, consider that you'd still have to pay taxes while overseas to America on your income. That's a bucket of fun.

Re: IF you can make it back home that is...

[Douglas Goodall]

Oh boy, I forgot about the taxes. Depending on the country and the circumstances, you might have to pay taxes in both countries. To avoid the taxes, you would have to revoke your citizenship, and that puts you even further away from coming home.

I have worked abroad as a salaried employee of a US company, and it was very lonely and I suffered from homesickness each time after about three months away. My employer disliked having to send me home every three months for a week . Even at that, while home I knew the clock was ticking and I would be leaving soon.

Each time after returning home, I was reminded what I liked about home. I am not saying that America is better than everywhere. I am saying that having been born here, I feel a very strong attachment and a feeling of being ungrounded would result from extended periods away.

Re:George Carlin - The Real Owners (that's not you

[Hognoxious]

Businesspeople want to avoid critical thinking though because at the point of criticality there is a lot of risk.

Am I the only one asking what the hell this is supposed to mean?

what else is new?

[nickmalthus]

"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." --Thomas Jefferson

how much do they offer in india ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am curious to know ...
say for eg if you are making 100k in usa
how much they are offering in India ??

Re:how much do they offer in india ?

[Anonymous Coward]

also in india they expect u to work 12 hours
all mnc's in india have pathetic work culture...
forget the money / cost of living etc etc/
tropical climate / population...

Management?

[gabrieltss]

How come they ALWAYS layoff/outsource the WORKERS and not the do nothing, worthless ASS management!? IF you laid off at least half the middle and upper management you would save a TON of money an probably have more worker productivity. Management and executives make far more than the workers and their benefits cost much more too. Having been in management and quiting it to go back to working in the trenches (because I prefer not to sit on my ass all day pushing paper and coming up with stupid processes just to justifymy job), I know this to be true. How many of people here could safetly say their manager or executives could do YOUR job if you said "Take this job and shove it!" en mass?

Start with your waist, cars and nintendos instead.

[jotaeleemeese]

This idiotic idea that democracy, rule of law and workers protection is expensive has to be put to die.

You want to know why a US worker is more expensive?

Start with your calories. I am not joking. US men take 2618 calories/day, Indians for example consume 2156/day.

As for China I can't find precise numbers, but they almost eat no sugar and eat half as much meat and far less processed foods (this is changing, but the differences are still abysmal).

Carry on with your car. Most people in poorer countries use public transport, bicycles, scooters or small cars to travel short distances, in the US everybody wants to live in the suburbs (or suburbs of the suburbs) driving cars that in other countries would be best described as tanks.
How much do you spend in your car? I, in London, a very expensive place mind you, don;t have a car, and for that fact I don't need $10000/year or thereabouts needed for all the car expenses.

People in India, China and other places will need even less to account for transport (season tickets in London public transport still cost $1500/year, a fortune for other people's standards).

Housing: modest flats in completely sanitised areas in India are a fraction of the cost of a comparable flat in a rich country, not because a conspiracy theory, but because there is not enough demand for them, thus prices come down.

And so on and so forth.

We in the West are expensive because our lifestyles are more expensive, people in other countries face the same perils but for historical and political situations are better place now to get hobs that were the exclusive preserve of people in rich countries.

As an unemployed person in the UK I am very happy for this development, it will force people in the West to be more realistic about how they go about their lives stopping the levels of exuberant consumerism.

Protectionism in Europe?

[jotaeleemeese]

Are you talking about the group of countries that created the European Economic Area where there are no barriers to goods, capital and workers?

That is a funny definition of protectionism ....

Re:Protectionism in Europe?

[spiffmastercow]

no barriers to each other. huge barriers to everyone else

What do you mean "I don't know"?

[jotaeleemeese]

The USA should be doing free trade agreements with everybody and his dog. This should include the free relocation of people between countries.

That way young people in the US could look for entry level positions where they are: outside the US.

But since you can't get over your protectionist nonsense, entry level positions will go to people in India, China or Mexico(ahem) who once they have experience under their belt, will go to rich countries and eat your lunch because they have got the battle wounds that who they know their shit.

Blame your government, politicians and your parochial mentality for the failure of the global market to work to the benefit of the skilled but novice US worker.

Re:What do you mean "I don't know"?

[plasmacutter]

The USA should be doing free trade agreements with everybody and his dog. This should include the free relocation of people between countries.

That way young people in the US could look for entry level positions where they are: outside the US.

Yes, working for absolutely nothing in hellish conditions with no labor standards or even food and water safety regulations is the right thing to do.

Or we could impose trade sanctions on nations which dont implement the labor standards we have here.

We could also encourage unionization, because unionized industries here are experiencing a LOT less offshoring.

Oh yes, it is.

[jotaeleemeese]

If you have no job you may be officially poor.

So it would make great sense to just get a job (which actually would pay you a decent wage in other country).

Then stay at home.

[jotaeleemeese]

For some of us the world is our oyster and can deal with such situations.

What you need to move: a suitcase.

[jotaeleemeese]

Sell or put in storage all of your stuff.

Then buy whatever you need (second hand is best) in your new home.

$40000 in a move? Gosh, I spent £2000 moving from Malaysia to the UK, and I moved all my furniture mind you...

Which is not exactly peanuts..

[jotaeleemeese]

ANd is a little fortune in those countries.

What is your point?

[jotaeleemeese]

The UK has mandatory unemployment insurance, health care, maximum weekly hours and minimum wage, and although there are examples of companies paying less than they should, this practice is not widespread.

The key is the legal systems that mostly works, thus companies know they could be sued, but also British to their credit shun corruption in general (in Latin America people that are not corrupt are considered by some stupid).

Re:George Carlin - The Real Owners (that's not you

[nEoN nOoDlE]

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by WMG.

How very appropriate.

New flash about corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, IBM's a business. They absolutely WILL not, in fact MUST not, according to their shareholders, do anything that is "good" or "moral" UNLESS it happens by pure coincidence to align with the most profit. So don't act fucking surprised that IBM is adding insult to the entire nation (by moving jobs overseas) on top of the injury to their former wage-slaves (hey, mindless drone, move to Singapore or you're FIRED!). It's everyday business. Don't you just love corporations? Do you still think pure capitalism doesn't result in worldwide misery?