Slashdot Mirror
IBM, Other Multinationals "Detaching" From the US
theodp writes "If you're brilliant, work really hard, and earn a world-class doctorate from a US university, IBM has a job for you at one of its US research sites — as a 'complementary worker' (as this 1996 piece defined the then-emerging term). But be prepared to ship out to India or China after you've soaked up knowledge for 13 months as a 'long-term supplemental worker.' Newsweek sketches some of the bigger picture, reporting that IBM, HP, Accenture, and others are finding it profitable to detach from the United States (even patenting the process). 'IBM is one of the multinationals that propelled America to the apex of its power, and it is now emblematic of the process of creative destruction pushing America to a new, less dominant, and less comfortable position.'"
US has no monopoly on smart people. Our comparative advantage seems to be marketing and lawsuits: we know how to dupe and sue more people faster and better than other nations. This is the ugly truth that gives US a bad name overseas and why so few nations want to copy our model. Kid yourself that it's all about entrepreneurship, or face the not-pleasant-reality.
Table-ized A.I.
"The fact is that Obama is a redistributionist who claims that jobs are owed and not earned."
Do you mean that people who are wealthy have a right to keep that wealth as God intended? All wealth stems from theft either now or in earlier eras. You aren't going to win this argument on the fundamentals so drop the pretense of caring about basic rights and discuss this pragmatically.
This will continue to happen as long as the US has an unfavorable political climate to business. And no, this is not just because of Obama, he is not helping any, or even making it worse, but it has been going on because of anti-business legislature over the years. US Americans are so full of wealth envy they can't see straight.
Then you haven't met Jimmy Carter or William Howard Taft.
Taft was one bad mother... shut your mouth... who did even worse than Bush did.
Jimmy Carter created the whole Middle East hating us and the rise of Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists in Iran because of his foreign policy which lead to students in Iran taking US hostages. Because he messed up the rescue mission to get them back and had Hyper Inflation and high gas prices, and a large unemployment rate, Ronald Reagan was elected. Why do you think "The Simpsons" refer to him was "History's Worst Monster"? :)
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
The problem is government expenditure. Think about it this way. You're taxed "near" 40%. The company pays about 20% on top of that, and it's profits and sales are further taxed, bringing a total "tax load" of employing you at a little over 50%. This is disregarding this private health care and other employee demands, who will quickly bring the total over 60%. Let's say compliance with all sorts of regulations, and local laws brings this close to 70% of your salary going to the government and health care.
So, if working with guys from Bangalore, Pakistan, Manila, etc. is 50% less efficient, and they get paid a little over 15% of what you get paid, which would make your claim of "can be paid for a year on a couple months of my salary" a reality.
So let's multiply. You would be about equally expensive as those Chinese if the government did not have any expenditures. The US government is paying about 30% of it's income to the military, 30% to health care, and 30% intrest on debt. Of these 3 that make up nearly all spending of the US, the military is the cheapest expenditure. Ie. cutting ALL US military funding wouldn't fund social care for even half a year.
Of course, now let's look at how Obama's fixing this disparity. He's massively increasing debt, and massively increasing social spending. He's more than doubled BOTH of the largest US government expenditures, and we're barely 1/4th into his presidency.
This means that the tax on your paycheck will have to ... well 60% of what it pays for is going to double in cost. So that makes it 40% (the rest) + 60% * 2 = 160%. You will have to pay over 60% of your paycheck to the government AND your employer will see increased costs too. And THAT is all Obama's doing, don't be afraid to admit that.
Of course Obama's promised that he will cut taxes. Of course we know what Obama's slogan is and how it interacts with his past promises : "change" ...
So while you might be correct that Bush was no angel, you still have a job. Obama's making sure that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell you will still have a job next year, you'll have to move to Bangalore, or Manila.
Don't let democrats around you be modest. Give them all the credit, and everything else you think they deserve for destroying the livelihood of millions of Americans. Let it all out.
Or do what democrat politicians do, especially those criminals connected to Obama : cheat on taxes, unrepentantly of course.
What the heck? How is that flamebait? What mod did that? Because I can see how people might disagree with me, but I can see no way that it was actually flamebait. If you have a reason, write it, don't downmod. Mods on crack......
Qxe4
it is the cheaper everything cost in China that has turned that country into America's manufacturing center.
I guess you haven't visited Africa recently. Or Europe. Or anywhere really.
Scratch "America's" try "the world's".
Of course the end result will be the global equalization of factory running costs worldwide. Whether America has to go broke for it to admit that it's social services (>2/3rd's of budget, predicted to rise spectacularly) just aren't sustainable. And especially deficit financing of social services is unsustainable.
Of course, the "president" is doing the diametrically opposite thing. The same is going on in Europe. But once global coverage is allowed, you will find the government forcing people to work using "non-monetary means" (which mostly means eviction currently), as is happening in large parts of Europe now (Holland and France mainly, with the Nordic countries not far behind).
You know reality just isn't going to work on these totalitarians (excuse me "democrats" is the name they seem to prefer, or alternatively "liberal". This is, of course, to emphasize that they are neither democratic nor in favor of liberty)
So wait ... you claim the liberals only tax voluntary ... checking my pay slip ... it seems to me I do not get exempted from the liberal's idiotic new taxes. Where do I opt-out of paying the liberal's taxes ?
Are you seriously claiming you did not know this, or are you a lyer and a thief ? Liberals tend to pride themselves on their supposed intelligence, so I'm going to go with you being a lyer and a thief.
I'm not the one who's trying to make a point and win an argument. I'm just poking at all the stupid which is so abundant in your posts.
So don't argue with me. Instead, you need to get smarter.
Goldman wasn't bankrupt. And they don't play the Saxophone. And anyone who listens to you is a dumbass.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Again you evade the questions. Not a single answer. You must work in politics. So many words. No content whatsoever. Especially the last question. I asked a question that clearly looked at COST of treatments, and you answer without mentioning ANY cost.
We have a *lot* of treatments that are effective, as long as they are continuously applied, and extremely expensive. That, of course was the point of the question. And obviously you evaded it.
ANSWER THE SPECIFIC QUESTION :
Please, also not a few reasonable cases that you will deny treatment ... say a baby born with leukemia, will you cover her ? Without treatment, she dies in 2 months tops. With treatment, she dies in 5 years, and this costs several million dollars. Where do you draw the line and based on what principles ?
Let me put the question differently : HOW WILL YOU CONTROL COSTS ?
This is another false choice. It will be a public plan, without massive cost overruns. You have done nothing to show that this is impossible.
If you honestly believe this, then why are you not advocating a private plan ? A private plan would GUARANTEE no cost overruns.
Cost overruns in national health care, are obviously the real reasons for both the Nazi holocaust (the first people attacked were the long-term ill people and the immediate effect of the holocaust was a 41% drop in health care expenditure. Are you seriously claiming that's a coincidence).
AND it's the cause of the equivalent of the holocaust in Russia.
Please explain what you will do if there are massive cost overruns (like in medicare and medicaid).
And please, I re-iterate the most important part of my question : please explain why you would you oppose that any plan that does not expect massive cost overruns to be private ? Of course, there is only one reason : you DO expect massive cost overruns.
Unless you give an answer, I'm obviously going to assume you're lying. I don't think that's a dishonest thing to do.
And so far my answer remains : you're stealing money to pay for your fantasies. Please stop the innocence act, because you're not innocent. You're a thief. Please pay your fantasies with YOUR OWN money.
Since when is any public company cheaper than a private version of the same company ? That contradicts economics, and you admit as much, several times. Not that you've ever let that stop you before. Please explain why economic theory is wrong here.
The monopolies only exist because the lefty democrats voted in "regulations" prohibiting competition over state lines.
Obviously, you're the typical lefty, the solution to too much regulation prohibiting competition is ... (tadaaa) MORE regulation. This is supposed to be a "liberal" position, despite obviously reducing freedom for everyone involved.
So what do you have to say about the public-private difference ? You admit that a private option would work IF there are no cost overruns, and yet you STILL DEMAND a public option (not request, not think about, not "I'd be happy with a private option too", you DEMAND a public option).
There is only one explanation : you know there'll be massive cost overruns and you don't care, after all you're spending (stealing) other people's money. You're stealing, so why would you care about your spending habits ?
You know perfectly well what has happened historically when those cost overruns happened, and you know perfectly well that it was lefties that started those genocides in the 20th century. But you don't care. After all you're soooooo much better intentioned than those russians and germans so the mighty atheismo will bend the laws of nature to your fantasy.
Or else you'll call him very, very mean ...