Slashdot Mirror


D.C. Awards Obamacare IT Work To Offshore Outsourcer

dcblogs writes "Infosys, an India-based offshore IT outsourcing firm, recently announced that it had won a $49.5 million contract to develop a health benefit exchange for the District of Columbia. The contract was awarded to a U.S.-based Infosys subsidiary, Infosys Public Services. That's one of the larger government contracts won by an offshore outsourcing firm, but it's unclear whether any of the work will be done overseas. The District isn't disclosing any contract details. An FOIA request for the contract has been submitted. Infosys is one of the largest users of H-1B visas, and has been under a grand jury investigation for its use of B1 visitor visas."

402 comments

  1. Yet another great argument... by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    for why the H-1B system ought to be massively reduced and US contracts should be awarded only to actual US companies instead of shell-game "subsidiaries."

    1. Re:Yet another great argument... by penglust · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nice sound bite. Too bad it is only that. We have never had, and should never have, true free market capitalism. The government has always provided many services to the businesses that make up our economy.

      Even if they had not, out taxes are paying for these contracts. Our government is supposed to represent the citizens. It is in the best interest of the citizens on this country to get people back to work.

    2. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The race to the bottom only benefits the select few on top. With your idea we would all be working for $1/day while the rich get even richer.

      If you want a good example of this see hong kong or another place that allows those kinds of income inequalities. I would rather most americans be able to afford homes and food instead of most living in squalor so a select few can be super rich.

    3. Re:Yet another great argument... by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How does that fit into the free market capitalism that made America great? If someone else can do the same job cheaper, hire them instead.

      You mean to say, "If someone can be hired for slave wages and locked into a single-employer contract with no chance to move jobs rather than hiring people on an equal footing."

      This is about as far from "free market capitalism" as it comes. The H-1B system deliberately alters the agreement and creates a semi-slave labor deliberately paying under-market wages.

      And then there's all the fraud in the system. Including falsely inflated skills listings designed to keep anyone from successfully applying for the jobs later salted to H-1Bs with far less than the originally advertised qualifications. And of course the demand for H-1Bs rather than actual EB-5s where they would have legal right to leave for better employment if it was offered by another company.

      Don't you dare use the term "free market capitalism", you fucking slavemonger. It's nothing of the sort.

    4. Re:Yet another great argument... by PortHaven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because, the government is what's making it uneconomical to hire US.

      First off, we were founded on the principal of having tariffs. Having kept tariffs, we'd have kept much of our manufacturing and middle-class.

      Second, when you claim an American worker costs to much, but point to all the mandated costs the American government has placed upon U.S. workers and business. Then for that reason, go elsewhere. It's not because of capitalism, but regulation.

      Simple way to bring back jobs to America. Mandate ALL contracts abroad must maintain the same benefits and protections. Yes, healthcare must be provided, they must pay into social security, etc, etc.

      Same way to deal with illegal alien employers. Don't fine them for employing illegal aliens. Fine them for not paying minimum wage. And well, if they're paying minimum wage. Let them be.

    5. Re:Yet another great argument... by polar+red · · Score: 1

      This is about as far from "free market capitalism" as it comes

      I question if "free market capitalism" is even possible

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    6. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because, the government is what's making it uneconomical to hire US.

      First off, we were founded on the principal of having tariffs. Having kept tariffs, we'd have kept much of our manufacturing and middle-class.

      Second, when you claim an American worker costs to much, but point to all the mandated costs the American government has placed upon U.S. workers and business. Then for that reason, go elsewhere. It's not because of capitalism, but regulation.

      Simple way to bring back jobs to America. Mandate ALL contracts abroad must maintain the same benefits and protections. Yes, healthcare must be provided, they must pay into social security, etc, etc.

      Same way to deal with illegal alien employers. Don't fine them for employing illegal aliens. Fine them for not paying minimum wage. And well, if they're paying minimum wage. Let them be.

      So, your proposed fix is MORE regulation?

      Yeah, that'll work.

    7. Re:Yet another great argument... by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 0

      This is an interesting concept, if not exactly applicable to 21st century reality. Or maybe you think magically Joe Buttonpusher and Sue Phoneanswerer are suddenly going to develop the aptitude and skills for knowledge work? Hahaha.

    8. Re:Yet another great argument... by randomErr · · Score: 0

      If the government was truly about capitalism them we wouldn't be into Obamacare at all. If someone else can do the same job cheaper, use them instead. Deregulate so companies can make it cheaper over here then a third world country that doesn't even come close to the current health care we offer here.

      --
      You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    9. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, what he seems to be suggesting is the /enforcement/ of /existing/ regulations, the ones which are commonly ignored because they interfere with corporations pillaging the country for their own benefit.

      But that sort of long-term thinking seems to be beyond most CEOs and corporate boards these days; it's anything to get the share-price up 0.1%. Who cares if that means destroying in ten years the middle class that will actually /buy/ the products the company is producing; that's somebody else's problem. Our corporate governors will have their golden parachutes to protect them from the financial disaster...

    10. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try, Mitt Romney.

    11. Re:Yet another great argument... by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Including falsely inflated skills listings designed to keep anyone from successfully applying for the jobs later salted to H-1Bs with far less than the originally advertised qualifications.

      Actually, they don't have to go through that rigamarole any longer: they quietly dropped the requirement that jobs be offered to citizens before hiring an H-1B the last time the various tech kingpins called up their patsies in Congress to ask for a change.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    12. Re:Yet another great argument... by davids-world.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not sure you're familiar with the facts. First, the number of H1B's given to this company indicates precisely that they are _not_ an offshore, outsourcing enterprise - the place of employment (and where taxes are paid by the employer and employees) is the US. Second, H1B requires that employers "Pay the nonimmigrant workers at least the local prevailing wage or the employer's actual wage, whichever is higher; pay for non-productive time in certain circumstances; and offer benefits on the same basis as for U.S. workers;" (http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/h1b.htm) Of course, there is some wiggle room, but that is natural and appropriate for a free market society. The H1Bs I know are getting paid far above what certain US nationals make in similar jobs, because they're worth it. Their job hunt is international, and so are their careers. For other H1Bs - well, don't forget that this country was founded based on immigration. I agree that there are problems though - see Moryath's comment below. The bigger question for me is why it takes $50M to make a website backed by a database, to serve a tiny state in which most potential users will have employer-provided healthcare anyway.

    13. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free market capitalism is not possible for very long.

      A government-controlled market is obviously not a free market. A monopoly (or cartel) controlled free market is just as unfree.

      ALL markets evolve in one direction or the other over time. Too little government intervention, and the monopolies claim ownership of the markets and erect barriers to entry that stop any competitors from ever getting a foot in the door. Too much government intervention, and before you know it the government owns the entire market.

      This happens because free market capitalism is ultimately based on a contradiction. In order to gain the benefits, every business must compete against other, similar, businesses. In order to keep the benefits, no company must ever be allowed to win. You can't have perpetual competition without eventual victors.

    14. Re:Yet another great argument... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      How does that fit into the free market capitalism that made America great?

      It has nothing to do with capitolism, but it has everything to do with democracy and secret ballot free elections, and PR. This just looks shitty to the voting public. As an American IT worker, it looks shitty to me. Obama isn't winning a lot of PR victories lately, and now this.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    15. Re:Yet another great argument... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Protectionism is why sugar prices are so high in America that we use high fructose corn syrup whereas the rest of the world uses ordinary sugar. Protectionism, not the stock market, caused the great depression (Smoot-Hawley tariff act). Protectionism causes domestic steel prices to go up, which makes goods we export cost more than foreign goods.

      I could go on with a ton of examples of why protectionism does far more harm to our economy than good. When trade restrictions are lifted on the other hand, we win.

      A lot of people think we're getting the shaft from China, but it's really the other way around. They give us nice LCD screens, smartphones, and even capital goods (capital goods being tools used to build our infrastructure) and in return we give them useless little pieces of paper that we basically charge them interest on (inflation.)

      Yes, the free market is the way to go.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    16. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a multiplier effect when buying locally. That's lost when outsourcing since the US runs massive trade deficits.

    17. Re:Yet another great argument... by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      So it's OK because they are indentured servants then?

      You don't have to be a communist to be against that sort of thing.

      You can be a Lincoln Republican and be against that kind of thing.

      That's what happens when you have the proudly ignorant rambling on about things they know nothing about.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    18. Re:Yet another great argument... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A gigantic, unexploited continent chock full of resources is what made America great. Americas problems have increased as less of those resources and land remain there for the taking. Meanwhile, we blame each other for what none of us have any control of.

    19. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Protectionism is why sugar prices are so high in America that we use high fructose corn syrup whereas the rest of the world uses ordinary sugar. Protectionism, not the stock market, caused the great depression (Smoot-Hawley tariff act). Protectionism causes domestic steel prices to go up, which makes goods we export cost more than foreign goods.

      I could go on with a ton of examples of why protectionism does far more harm to our economy than good. When trade restrictions are lifted on the other hand, we win.

      A lot of people think we're getting the shaft from China, but it's really the other way around. They give us nice LCD screens, smartphones, and even capital goods (capital goods being tools used to build our infrastructure) and in return we give them useless little pieces of paper that we basically charge them interest on (inflation.)

      Yes, the free market is the way to go.

      And good luck with that bullshit when those "useless" pieces of paper become worthless pieces of paper.

    20. Re:Yet another great argument... by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is in the best interest of the citizens on this country to get people back to work.

      That all depends on who's interests you are invested in.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    21. Re:Yet another great argument... by DigiShaman · · Score: 0

      Free market capitalism works great - when you're not depending on government and/or how much they spend of your tax dollars.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    22. Re:Yet another great argument... by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      what's the argument?

    23. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, what he seems to be suggesting is the /enforcement/ of /existing/ regulations, the ones which are commonly ignored because they interfere with corporations pillaging the country for their own benefit.

      But that sort of long-term thinking seems to be beyond most CEOs and corporate boards these days; it's anything to get the share-price up 0.1%. Who cares if that means destroying in ten years the middle class that will actually /buy/ the products the company is producing; that's somebody else's problem. Our corporate governors will have their golden parachutes to protect them from the financial disaster...

      Well, yeah. Which is why more regulation won't fix the problem. Nor will enforcing existing regulations.

      It all goes back to an overweening government with the power and desire to pick winners and losers. So anyone with the wherewithal (CEO, large unions, etc) to effectively lobby that government to pick THEM as winners is the best way to succeed for that individual or group.

      And if you don't have the wherewithal to effectively lobby that government, you're screwed.

      We wind up with Wall Street keeping profits and socializing risk through "bailouts". We get GE going all-in for Obama then getting rewarded with paying no taxes. We get governments under the de facto control of public employee unions that through union dues turn government money into campaign contributions. We get Microsoft bribing^H^H^H^H^H^Hlobbying their way out of compliance with antitrust laws. We get insurance companies writing health care reform laws that force everyone to buy health insurance. (Yay Obamacare - we pay more, get less care, and insurance companies get more customers. What a fucking travesty....)

    24. Re:Yet another great argument... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The race to the bottom argument is a logical fallacy. Let's suppose this: If you race the prices to the bottom (i.e. everything becomes so cheap that anybody can afford it anyways) then who cares how much money you have? You can't eat money, and you can't use money: You can only spend it.

      What you need to look at is purchasing power, and you need to understand the distinction between money and wealth.

      I'd rather live in a world where I make $10 an hour with my lunch costing only $4 than live in a world where I make $20 an hour and the same lunch costs $20. And as time goes on, this is the reality we live in.

      In the world we live in, yes, the rich become wealthier, but the poor also become wealthier. In fact, the poor are wealthier than they've ever been at any point in history. This is an indisputable fact. Most of today's poor, even in third world countries, own cell phones, TV's, and have ample access to food. In fact food is now cheaper than it has ever been, so where that was a problem in the past it almost no longer exists.

      I remember in the 80's, you were one wealthy SOB if you owned a personal computer, a big screen TV and a carphone. Now try to find somebody who doesn't have these things, and the ones they have are FAR better than the ones the rich had in the 80's. And in spite of this, people like you come around insisting that things are only getting worse for the poor, and it's all the fault of capitalism. You simply look at dollar figures and say "adjusted for inflation, this person now makes less" and with that information alone you conclude that capitalism is the problem, and you wrongly conclude that we're on this race to the bottom where everybody is worse off than they were before. It's just not true, not even close to being true.

      I don't know what your motivations are, but I do know this: When people like you see these things as being wrong, they lobby for the government to "fix" things, and the "fixes" almost always end up making things worse for everybody. Case in point: Smoot-Hawley was supposed to "fix" unemployment, and it did the opposite. We're fine the way we're going now. Technology keeps advancing, and food and luxury items keep getting cheaper.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    25. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      n the world we live in, yes, the rich become wealthier, but the poor also become wealthier. In fact, the poor are wealthier than they've ever been at any point in history.

      The issue is that there are more poor people in the United States than at any point in recent history. You carefully choose your metric to paint a rosy picture, but the fact is that for the average American worker, real wages have been declining for decades. The reason for this decline is in no small part due to the uplifting effects of global trade in labor.

    26. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be true if nations did not manipulate their money. India, South Korea, and China are massive manipulators.

    27. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, the curry will most certainly be hitting the fan.......
      well, the readers will be pleased to know that the current us administration is living on land taken after the genocidal slave-traders occupied and massacred the Indians. this should not be an immigration/ethnicity debate, the directors are not Sub-Continentals, theyre tax-evading sub-contacters!

    28. Re:Yet another great argument... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The race to the bottom argument is a logical fallacy.
      Yes, it's only in that inconvenient real world that it happens. In case you've forgotten, wages in the USA started stagnating in the 70s and the divide between wealthy and poor grows larger each year. Moreover, the real world examples of unregulated capitalism (e.g. Pakistan, Somalia, Mexico, the USA, China) show exactly what happens when the government "gets out of the way." This is solely due to changes in government taxation regulation changes on high income earners and high income corporations, and the demise of checks on finance (i.e. Glass-steagall).

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    29. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some consumer goods get cheaper, but natural resources do not. Your standard of living will, therefore, decrease. The wealthy use their influence for more and more opulence, and the jobs become less fulfilling, and less productive to society at large. I.e. less research, more domestic employment. We don't have to speculate about this, there are historical and modern examples!

    30. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The middle class shrinking is fine?
      All the gains of the recovery going to the top percent is ok?

    31. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's unfortunate if the real value of your work is only $1/day and you feel threatened by other people competing for your job, but why should others be required to subsidize your extravagant standard of living by paying you more than you're worth?

    32. Re:Yet another great argument... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      i'll take a capitalist race to the bottom over a communist forced march to the gulag.

    33. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Awesome false dichotomy you got there.

    34. Re:Yet another great argument... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Easy. This isn't free market. This is government expenditures. Government should spend tax payer money with domestic companies with domestic workers.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    35. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That is totally off topic. I am talking about market manipulation to drive down the price of labor. Like we see with H1-bs, they can come here to compete with Americans but we can't go compete with them.

    36. Re:Yet another great argument... by TemporalBeing · · Score: 2, Informative

      Protectionism is why sugar prices are so high in America that we use high fructose corn syrup whereas the rest of the world uses ordinary sugar

      Incorrect. Sugar prices may be artificially inflated some due to import/export taxes; but the real reason HFC is used is that corn is so cheap because (i) it is highly subsidized, and (ii) we (the federal gov't) pay a lot of farmers to plan corn just to give them work. Both of these are due to Agricultural Lobbying done on behalf the farmers and their unions.

      Of course, now HFC is getting to be more expansive than regular sugar thanks to corn-based ethanol production.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    37. Re:Yet another great argument... by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Troll

      False choice. In free market capitalism the top few percent become extremely wealthy by providing everybody below them with best value, best possible product at lowest possible price. Your idea is that wealth is 'taken' from majority and 'given' to the wealthiest has no basis in reality in the free market. When gov't interferes with the freedom of the people, that is when your thesis becomes a real possibility as it is today, be it inflation created by the federal reserve or taxes, rules and regulations that destroy competition.

    38. Re:Yet another great argument... by lgw · · Score: 1

      All of which is true, but protectionism remains appropriate where there's a duty to keep information inside the US. I have no clue whether this exchange has any HIPAA responsibilities, but if it does it shouldn't be sending work out of the country (there have already been some embarrassments with that). If it's just some code that happens to be health insurance related, but has nothing to do with private information, then fine.

      The more likely objection here is that offshoring customer-facing work often leads to very poor quality/usability, but I'll never live in DC so I don't really have a stake in that,

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    39. Re:Yet another great argument... by KingMotley · · Score: 2

      That is a good question. I would have been willing to do it for half that price, but they didn't ask me.

    40. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So explain why all of these free market places end up with a few rich and everyone else living in squalor.

      Where as the more regulated first world nations don't have that.

      Try to stick to the real world too, none of this theory BS.

    41. Re:Yet another great argument... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      This isn't about protectionism though, it's about how tax money is spent. And tax money spent to improve job prospects for another country is questionable, especially considering the privacy implications of having all that personally identifying information and health records in the hands of a foreign power.

      You won't see China contracting with Northrop Grumman to build Chinese submarines, and we shouldn't be seeing departments of health contracting with foreign firms to manage health care for Americans.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    42. Re:Yet another great argument... by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone working in tech in America is in the 1% - of the world. There's no moral harm when a job moves overseas to someone who objectively needs the money more. Arguing that the rich have too much is a poor strategy when you're part of the richest 1%.

      And the race to the bottom ends with everywhere in the world having a real middle class - hardly a dystopia. Everything people say today about work going to China or India was said when I was young about work going to Japan, and later about South Korea. Emerging nations do eventually emerge, and everyone benefits as a result.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    43. Re:Yet another great argument... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your rhetoric doesn't align well with reality. Imports of sugar from Mexico grew under NAFTA. HFCS has more to do with profit margins and "Big Food's" ability to squeeze as much merchantable material from its raw materials.

      If a large food corporation purchase corn and process it for food, the corporation would rather process the by-products into a useable/sellable ingredient than having to pay for disposal. They can undercut sugar as much as they want since break even or a little loss is still less of an expenditure than disposal.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    44. Re:Yet another great argument... by ArcherB · · Score: 0

      So explain why all of these free market places end up with a few rich and everyone else living in squalor.

      Talk about false dichotomies!

      I'm not living in sqaulor. I'm not rich either. According to your theory, I don't exist.

      Try to stick to the real world too, none of this theory BS.

      Project much?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    45. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a lot's been written about the H1-B fraud and using H1-B visas to pay under-market wages.

      However, when it comes to hiring talented professionals who didn't have the chance to be born in the US, there doesn't seem to be any alternative to the H1-B. If someone completes a master's or PhD in a US university, why should they have to compete for a visa with a limited quota with large corporations that mostly hires foreign workers?

      I work for an engineering company and we have a mix of US and international employees, but it has happened that we couldn't hire the best candidate because the H1-B visa quota was full for the year. Most of those international employees studied here and in the long run end up getting a green card, then citizenship. Tell me this doesn't add value to the US overall?

    46. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Where are you?
      There is no first world nation that is totally free market.

      I was being a bit extreme. What I really meant was they have lots of income disparity.

    47. Re:Yet another great argument... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      Yes, it's only in that inconvenient real world that it happens. In case you've forgotten, wages in the USA started stagnating in the 70s and the divide between wealthy and poor grows larger each year.

      As long as the standard of living continues to grow for both, that divide is irrelevant. That is, it's irrelevant to all but the very wealthy.

      Moreover, the real world examples of unregulated capitalism (e.g. Pakistan, Somalia, Mexico, the USA, China)

      None of those are examples of unregulated capitalism (maybe Somalia, IDK, but they have a very low level of income inequality), those countries run on what is more closely termed Crony Capitalism, where the government picks certain companies and help them to success (US, China, Pakistan), or the companies have so much influence in the government it amounts to the same thing (Mexico).

      Taxation of wages and income have very little impact on wealth disparity. The US has the most progressive tax system in the world (when all taxation is taken into account), yet income disparity seems to be positively correlated to the amount of progressiveness in taxation.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    48. Re:Yet another great argument... by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That's really odd. I can afford a home and I'm not rich. As a matter of fact, everyone in my neighborhood is in the same situation I am in. No one in my entire city is what I'd call "rich" and yet very few of them live in squalor. The few that are "living in squalor" are illegals passing through anyway.

      I don't know what country you live in, but in this country, the average salary is over $50,000/yr. That's ample to buy a house in most communities.

      To put it another way, you are full of shit.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    49. Re:Yet another great argument... by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Awesome false dichotomy you got there.

      I don't think you are in any position to accuse anyone of creating a false dichotomy. Your whole point is that there are only very rich and very poor in America and yet the vast majority in America are neither. The fact that you are using a computer to spread your crap tells me that you are neither extremely rich nor extremely poor. Your existence proves that you are full of crap.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    50. Re:Yet another great argument... by danbert8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You missed his point. There are more poor people in the US than in any point in history because we have been continually raising the cutoff to what we consider "poor". Poor people today are likely to have a car, a fridge, a cell phone, a flat screen TV, air conditioning, etc. The majority of the poor in the US are obese, not starving. Wages may be declining, but standard of living is still increasing.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    51. Re:Yet another great argument... by plover · · Score: 1

      Farm subsidies are just one of many form of protectionism.

      Protectionism isn't simply import/export tariffs. It's any government policy that works to either favor internal production or hinder the import of externally produced goods and services; more broadly, it's any government policy that impacts free market capitalism. In other words, it's a word applied whenever the government decides to spend money in one area and not another, and is generally used in a derogatory fashion by the people who were negatively impacted. California dairy farmers cry protectionism when Wisconsin dairy farmers get higher subsidies than they do. Nike claims protectionism when New Balance gets the contract for military footwear. The list is endless.

      --
      John
    52. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      I never said that. America is not a totally free market country. Thankfully we have lots of nice life improving regulations. It gets me a decent wage, clean water, clean air and advances like the internet.

      I do not live in one of the places I was talking about.

      Your whole point is not reading what was written then spouting off your preconceived notions.

    53. Re:Yet another great argument... by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Here is the folly of your argument, the US government should do whats best for the US people. There are two options one is an overseas contractor, the other is a US contractor. If the overseas company can do it at 10-15% savings then once the 3% pass through fee from the shell company hits only 2.8% is put back into the economy and the government gets 10.2-15.2%. If the US company gets the contract the government will recoup 20-30% through taxes (SS, income, corporation, ...) the other 70-80% will be put back into the economy. The only way the overseas company comes out ahead is looking at the 1 year cost.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    54. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're mixing up prices with wages and assuming the same quality of work. Racing to the bottom for wages does not have a have a directly correlation with the price unless the give up something, like quality.

      I can build you a rocket for 1/100th the price of NASA, but it will probably just explode and be an entire waste of money.

      While cost doesn't have a direct relationship with quality, it tends to be highly correlated.

    55. Re:Yet another great argument... by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Funny, Pakistan (121), Somalia (n/a), Mexico (50), the USA (10) and China (136) are not at the top of the list of economic freedom according to Heritage. Or did you just pull out of your ass countries and say they have unregulated capitalism?

      The REAL countries with economic freedom are Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and Switzerland. Not places you typically think of poverty.

      The race to the bottom is the bottom's race to the middle.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    56. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False, or perhaps backwards. The corn producers lobbied Congress for the sugar tariffs. The correct way is:

      We have high sugar prices because corn producers wanted to sell high fructose corn syrup

    57. Re:Yet another great argument... by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Income disparity exists because there are limited resources and a free market will tend to move resources to the location where they can be more efficiently utilized. That is why you see people who know how to invest and create wealth gain increasingly more wealth and those that make poor decisions and invest poorly tend the opposite. Wouldn't it be more effective to teach people how to create wealth and manage resources wisely than take resources from those that use it efficiently and move it to where it is wasted?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    58. Re:Yet another great argument... by ArcherB · · Score: 2

      The problems you speak of are due to corruption, not free markets. Even in the height of the Soviet Union, most people were living in squalor while the few lived in luxury. I know you are not going to say that the former Soviet Union was a free market.

      Iraq under Saddam Hussein had the same situation. Most people lived in poverty while those that were high ranking party members were rewarded handsomely.

      China is not a free market either. While it does have some capitalist tendencies, it is still a Communist nation. You need government permission to run a business. However, in order to make it, you better be tight with the person approving the application. It's one thing to get your application approved. It's something else entirely to have your competition denied and your abuses of the law and your employees ignored.

      Mexico is another example. While the market there is freer than the other places I've mentioned, the success of your business rests on your ability to grease the palms of the right people.

      Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other countries are in the same situation. It doesn't matter what laws you have in place when those that enforce those laws are on your side. Selective enforcement of the law is a major ingredient in any tyranny.

      What sets Europe and America apart is the lack of corruption compared to most other countries. It's not the laws that are in place, but a willingness to enforce them equally. Unfortunately, America seems to be moving away from that. Our DOJ, EPA and IRS departments seem to apply different levels of enforcement based on the political beliefs of those being investigated.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    59. Re:Yet another great argument... by The+Cat · · Score: 1

      What you need to look at is purchasing power,

      Purchasing power has been stagnant for 40 years.

      You simply look at dollar figures and say "adjusted for inflation, this person now makes less"

      Fact. Compare productivity to the average wage since 1973. The spending power of all Americans on average has dropped 16% over the last 40 years.

      We're fine the way we're going now. Technology keeps advancing, and food and luxury items keep getting cheaper.

      And there are 40 year olds with full time jobs renting rooms. You're wrong. Shut the fuck up.

    60. Re:Yet another great argument... by stretch0611 · · Score: 1

      Protectionism is why sugar prices are so high in America that we use high fructose corn syrup whereas the rest of the world uses ordinary sugar

      Incorrect. Sugar prices may be artificially inflated some due to import/export taxes; but the real reason HFC is used is that corn is so cheap because (i) it is highly subsidized, and (ii) we (the federal gov't) pay a lot of farmers to plan corn just to give them work. Both of these are due to Agricultural Lobbying done on behalf the farmers and their unions.

      Of course, now HFC is getting to be more expansive than regular sugar thanks to corn-based ethanol production.

      Exactly. This is why a lot of companies are now coming back with products that have "real sugar."

      They are returning not because of demand, or because of any health controversy of HFCS, it is only due to the price of corn going up due to a regulation that a certain percentage of fuel sold in the US needs to contain ethanol. This demand for ethanol has increased the price of HFCS to the point that sugar is once again competitive.

      --
      Looking for a job?
      Want your resume written professionally?
      DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
    61. Re:Yet another great argument... by The+Cat · · Score: 0

      The fucking standard of living is not increasing for both the wealthy and the poor, asshole.

    62. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      I am not suggesting other philosophies do not give the same end result. Nor do I argue that corruption is a huge issue.

      I think a tightly regulated market economy is best for everyone. See USA, Europe, etc.

      I think if anything the latest info shows the IRS was targeting all political groups. The EPA needs to step up and enforce the clean air act, no matter who is doing the polluting.

    63. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Nice theory, please explain scams then.

      It would indeed be more effective for some folks to do that. How would we fund such equal education? How would we help those who fail even though they tried very hard but simply had poor luck? For example those who investing in Enron based on its fraudulent documents?

    64. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citation Needed]

    65. Re:Yet another great argument... by Jawnn · · Score: 2

      for why the H-1B system ought to be massively reduced and US contracts should be awarded only to actual US companies instead of shell-game "subsidiaries."

      More crazy talk from the left-wing, socialist, protectionist, wacko crowd. Ain't you not heard? This here's a global econuhmy now, and if we can't compete by sending U.S. jobs overseas, or by flooding the labor market with thousands of cheap imports, Wall Street will collapse. And you don't want that on your conscience now, do you? The nerve! To suggest that American business actually spend money on a quality domestic labor force. What kind of fantasy world do you pinko's live in?

    66. Re:Yet another great argument... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      The fucking standard of living is not increasing for both the wealthy and the poor, asshole.

      Oh, sure it is.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    67. Re:Yet another great argument... by pijokela · · Score: 2

      Yes, but I'm a little worried that China + India = 2 000 0000 000 people. Japan + South Korea is much less. This time there are more people in the emerging nations than in the developed nations. For the positive end result we in the 1% need to suffer, but in the end survive. If we are wiped out by the competition, the end result may not be as positive.

    68. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technology keeps advancing, and poor quality food and luxury items keep getting cheaper.

      Just because you can get a Big Mac for a buck doesn't mean that it's a healthy alternative to real food.

      According to this, fruit prices have gone up about five times what they were in 1980: http://www.mumsnet.com/food/rising-prices

      Timerime.com offers us the following:
      1980 Loaf of Bread: .50 Cents 1 lb Hamburger Meat: .99 Cents Gallon of Milk: 1.69 Dollars
      2000 Loaf of Bread: 1.72 Dollars 1 lb Hamburger Meat: 2 Dollars Gallon of Milk: 1.38 Dollars

      Meanwhile, I look at salary figures, and I see that your initial premise is flawed:

      The reality that we live in as time goes on is that instead of making $10 an hour with your lunch costing $4, you're living in a world where you make $10 an hour and your lunch costs $20.

    69. Re:Yet another great argument... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      That's really odd. I can afford a home and I'm not rich.

      Nice, totally non-specific metric there, pal. The fact is that, for most Americans, we can afford much less home than we could in the past. As has been pointed out previously in the thread, the buying power of Americans has been in steady decline since the late '70's. Now, it often requires two incomes to afford the typical home purchase. The facts about this are as incontrovertible as they are readily accessible. One only needs to, you know, actually look at them. Or, one keep ignoring them and, safe in the temporary refuge of provincialist fallacy, believe that everything is just fine because it's just fine for you (currently).

    70. Re:Yet another great argument... by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone working in tech in America is in the 1% - of the world. There's no moral harm when a job moves overseas to someone who objectively needs the money more. Arguing that the rich have too much is a poor strategy when you're part of the richest 1%.

      And the race to the bottom ends with everywhere in the world having a real middle class - hardly a dystopia. Everything people say today about work going to China or India was said when I was young about work going to Japan, and later about South Korea. Emerging nations do eventually emerge, and everyone benefits as a result.

      But when the job moves overseas so do all of the secondary effects.

      The $100K/year programmer may be in the top 1% so no great harm if that job moves overseas (except for well except for the programmer, but that job is in the 1% and we don't care about the 1%).

      The problem is that that $100K/year programmer owns a house, and the property taxes help pay for services that the 99% use.

      That $100K/year programmer goes to restaurants, where the 99% work.

      That $100K/year programmer gets her blouses dry cleaned, and the dry cleaner's employees are in the 99%.

      That $100K/year programmer pays federal state & local taxes (including sales tax), gets hair cuts, oil changes, buys groceries, remodels his house, and a multitude of other tasks that give money to the 99%.

      When that $100K/year job is outsourced to an outsourcing company for $20K/year, then none of the money stays in the USA.

    71. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what's it like, personally fellating the wealthy?

    72. Re:Yet another great argument... by tgd · · Score: 2

      for why the H-1B system ought to be massively reduced and US contracts should be awarded only to actual US companies instead of shell-game "subsidiaries."

      Here's the reality, though -- Infosys is one of the real big outsourcing companies that is used by most of the very large software companies in the US.

      As a software worker, I think better for this to go to a US company, but the work would likely be done largely by Infosys or another similar company. As a taxpayer, I'd rather the savings on the development go to me, than padding the profits of a government contractor.

    73. Re:Yet another great argument... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Right..., the pressure on the labor market has nothing at all to do with the erosion of Americans' spending power. All those living-wage jobs are gone just because we ran out of trees, oil, whatever, right. Must be damned inconvenient, then, to note that coal production has never been higher in the U.S. Oh, no. We don't actually use it here. We sell it to places where it's cheaper to use it; cheaper workforce and no spendy environmental regulations. Sorry, dude, but the facts just don't line up with your fantasy view of the way the world works.

    74. Re:Yet another great argument... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      "free market capitalism" is your first hint that you're dealing with a cluefuck. "free markets" and "capitalism" are separate ideas that often work well together.

    75. Re:Yet another great argument... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Even the concept of a "corporation" represents massive government regulation of the free market. Can you imagine how different the free market would be if owners were liable for a company's actions? Then you have "intellectual property", which is another massive government regulation upon the free market. Regulation is an American core competency - our whole system is based upon it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    76. Re:Yet another great argument... by danbert8 · · Score: 2

      Both of your examples reference fraud. In a free market, it doesn't mean that there are no regulations. A free market does require regulation, specifically regulations that protect private property, prevent fraud, and protect the lives of citizens. In other words, don't steal, don't lie, and don't kill. Pretty simple regulations.

      Aside from that, the general trend may be upward in a free market, but there are outliers as you point out (those that fail due to poor luck). Those in a truly free market are aided by private charitable organizations. Even in a free market there is a value in helping others. Just because a free market exists doesn't mean that humanity doesn't exist. People share enjoyment of making other people happy. Empathy still exists. You can see this in our current market as the rich create foundations to help alleviate poverty and solve other societal problems.

      The problem with the current system is by making charity a public program and forcing involuntary contributions is that you A) cannot control failed charity that causes dependency and is full of fraud, B) you create a system where people assume that their forced charity is enough and that they don't need to contribute otherwise, C) Charitable resources are often mis-allocated to programs that have little benefit, D) people can have resentment over their involuntary contributions being spent on programs they don't agree with.

      Voluntary mutual exchange is the only form of trade which is moral for anything else relies on force which is an inherent form of slavery.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    77. Re:Yet another great argument... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Interestingly every time an outsource deal like this comes up, there is an outcry of the few people directly affected. It completely ignores the fact that the market as a whole has demonstrably shown to increase in both new jobs created and overall wealth and standard of living for everyone.

      All to often people think of a change to an economic market as being static to the current market, but that change also changes the way the market as a whole works. Things that are good for some are also good for all.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    78. Re:Yet another great argument... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      I was talking about what made America great, the idea of American Exceptionalism as a counterargument to the idea that capitalism is what made America. I said nothing about outsourcing, living wages, or any of the stuff that you've got a bug up your ass about. You probably have decent reading compression, when you're not all in a lather about your pet cause (which my statement actually supports indirectly).

      Calm the fuck down and think.

    79. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      The general trend?
      Free markets as in so limitedly regulated as you suggest tend towards monopolies and very few people capturing all of the surplus. Many fail from simple lack of opportunity as well. Many will never make enough to be able to invest. Add in tax rates that favor the investor over the worker and the problem exaggerates itself.

      The rich also create foundations to avoid taxes and support their own aims. The Gates foundation has been accused of requiring nations/people who take their aid of signing IP agreements that would prevent them from making their own drugs, thus boosting its own investments.

      A) This would be a problem with even private charity
      B) It should be, if not increase it
      C) see A
      D) grow up
      Also of note, without public service there is nothing do say that private charity will actually cover all those in need.

      Voluntary mutual exchange is very rarely totally voluntary or totally mutual beneficial. For instance, I cannot get a good price on computers without windows. So instead I am almost always forced to subsidize a private company I do not want to have anything to do with. Anything I need to live is also not voluntary and can be not very mutually beneficial since I am at such a disadvantage. This means I must pay whatever they charge no matter the cost, healthcare being such a thing. It would be great if reality worked that way, and all transactions were on equal footing but that is not the way it is.

      I disagree with you claim of slavery, one cannot leave slavery one may leave a state with a ideology one disagrees with.

    80. Re:Yet another great argument... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      > Everything people say today about work going to China or India was said when I was young about work going to Japan

      Japan and South Korea adapted western politics (democratic reforms and worker rights + access to education) before widespread acceptance of trade and thus economic growth. I am fine with the outsourcing, but when you have a society (Like china) where the vast majority of the money and power is still going to only the politically connected, while those doing the work don't get enough of a share to live a healthy life, or even have a safe place to work. I think we have the obligation to be restrictive (but not the obligation to force a change) does fall on us, and our government.

    81. Re:Yet another great argument... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      If you mean "The Heritage Foundation" I have a bridge I could sell you...

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    82. Re:Yet another great argument... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      The problem with your argument is that you confuse wealth and money. Pay attention to what you're saying: First you're talk about wages, then in the same sentence you talk about wealthy and poor, as if they're one in the same. Those are two different things. Wage converts to wealth, but it doesn't define wealth. Wealth is material goods, money is simply a medium of exchange. In the period you are referring to, even if wage goes down, wealth still increases. (Which by the way, I don't think wage has gone down - just looking at raw inflation doesn't tell the whole story about the actual value of money.)

      I'm guessing you subscribe to Keynesian theory? Most people who don't favor increased market freedom do even though they don't realize it. But, even Keynesians agree with what I just said above. (They mainly differ in how much they think the government should control things - which includes protectionism.)

      I honestly don't know how anybody anywhere could possibly argue that the poor are even poorer now than they used to be. The material goods we have access to at the prices we pay for them is far far better compared to just 30 years ago. Let's take a look at a few examples:

      An Apple 2 computer cost $1,200 in 1980, which if you look at raw inflation translates to $3,600 today. At that price today, you can buy two very high end gaming rigs with large screen monitors to go with them. The poor though might instead spend $300 on a laptop on sale at walmart that will still be leagues ahead of that apple 2, so basically one tenth the price, or if he was still in 1980 only with today's wealth, he would have paid $100 for something far better than that Apple 2.

      And you're telling me with a straight face that he's poorer today.

      Look at video games - used to be a copy of Mario cost you $60, and now a copy of Starcraft 2 cost you $50 brand new. That copy of Mario today would be about $120. If you took starcraft 2 back to the 80's, it would be $23.

      And again, you're telling me with a straight face that this poor person is now poorer today.

      In order for your assertion to hold true when you look at things from the perspective of purchasing power, the poor would have to be bringing in less than half of the wages that they are bringing in today than they were in the 80's, and that isn't even remotely true. The divide of riches in terms of money may be growing slightly, but the divide between low wealth and high wealth certainly is not, it's very much shrinking.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    83. Re:Yet another great argument... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      This isn't about protectionism though, it's about how tax money is spent. And tax money spent to improve job prospects for another country is questionable, especially considering the privacy implications of having all that personally identifying information and health records in the hands of a foreign power.

      You won't see China contracting with Northrop Grumman to build Chinese submarines, and we shouldn't be seeing departments of health contracting with foreign firms to manage health care for Americans.

      On the other hand, they could hire... say, the guys that recently failed in implementing another massive IT project, recently shown on slashdot. I'm pretty sure they're Americans. Yes, that will really help the USA forward: just throw more money at Americans, because we have way too much tax money and it needs spendin'!

      I agree that it's a nation-level "out of pocket" type spending, but seriously: there's trade with India, I'm pretty sure the money will go back to the USA some time or another anyway. It may just be in something unrelated to IT.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    84. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citation Needed]

      Reality. You're living in it.

    85. Re:Yet another great argument... by sjames · · Score: 2

      Immigration is fine. if a company needs to hire a foreign worker who plans to immigrate, let them help with the green card and get that process started.

      Given how some employers scream for more H1-Bs, you'd think they'd be sponsoring a ton of immigrants and green cards, but for some reason they are only interested in more H1-B.

    86. Re:Yet another great argument... by plopez · · Score: 1

      Both of these are due to Agricultural Lobbying done on behalf of the mega-corp agribusiness

      Fixed that for you. Hope it helps.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    87. Re:Yet another great argument... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      But your metrics are also flawed. Sure, a car costs more in real dollars than a car in 1950. But the cheapest Nissan will out-accelerate almost anything created in the 50s while using less fuel and keeping you alive. Medical care costs more than in the 50s, but you get a lot more for your money. My grandfather died in 1974 because they hadn't yet invented bypass surgery or stents. His brother lived almost 30 years longer because his clogged arteries were treated in the 80s instead of the 70s. The average house in the 50s was a city row home with a coal furnace, no TV and a party line telephone. Home ownership is up from the 50s, at more than 67% now vs around 62% in 1960. People did not have washing machines, let alone dryers. Home entertainment options were extremely limited. Travel was slow and expensive. Fruit might be more expensive now, but I can get raspberries in the middle of the winter. Try that in 1950.

      And let's not forget that you seem to be talking about white people. It might be hard to look at the 50s nostalgically as a black person.

      So you have some good points - it takes two earners these days to keep up with the Joneses. However, to ArcherB's point, the Joneses expect and get a lot more. You could live a 1950s lifestyle and save a lot of money:
      1. Stick to one car per family. If you can find it, get a car with 1950 sedan specs - a used 1994 Honda with 150,000 miles should get you a good approximation.
      2. Get rid of your health care and restrict your medical options to mending broken bones and antibiotics. Hell, go crazy here and spring for any generic medications... that will restrict you to 1990s-era care, but what the hell.
      3. Don't buy any microwaves, washers, dryers, TVs, computers, cell phones, etc. Cancel your cable.
      4. Buy an $80,000, 983 sq ft row home downtown instead of that 2100 sq ft single family in the burbs. Offer does not apply in Manhattan or San Francisco :)
      5. Mend your clothes. Cook your own meals. Clean your own house. Treat yourself and buy a cheap vacuum cleaner.

      Wanna bet your $50,000 average US income will go a bit farther now? Don't worry, we'll still let you breath the cleaner air, and if you are a minority we'll let you sit with us at the local diner.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    88. Re:Yet another great argument... by P-niiice · · Score: 3

      A car, TV, and cell phone are prerequsites if you don't WANT to be poor in America. Wages for the majority of americans have indeed been declining since Reagan, and the inequality only grows. The $800 TV's (bought on credit, not with cash) should most definitely be in our living rooms: we used to get by on one salary, now we need two salaries in order to live check-to-check after paying for two cars for transportation (due to poor transit), childcare, healthcare, and high costs of shelter. It's not a better standard of living when we need to use credit cards to pay bills or eat. The higher productivity of today should be benefitting everyone and truly increasing our standard of living- it's only benefitting the wealthy right now.

    89. Re:Yet another great argument... by sjames · · Score: 1

      protectionism took my jerb, killed my dog and gave me smelly feet! It's true, I swear!

    90. Re:Yet another great argument... by hawguy · · Score: 1

      When that $100K/year job is outsourced to an outsourcing company for $20K/year, then none of the money stays in the USA.

      Yes, but that's $80,000 in tax dollars that does stay in the USA without needing to pass through the programmer.

      Well, except that the $100K worker would have been taxed around 30% on average, so that's just a $50K "savings" to the government.

      That money was saved just in time since the government will need it to pay unemployment benefits to the programmer that lost his job to India, and eventually to all of the other workers that are also out of jobs because the high paid developer jobs are moving to india, so there is less demand here for goods and services from well paid "locals".

      But at least the government had a short-term $50K cost savings to help pay for it.

      While I don't think the government should be funding CCC style "make work" projects, I don't think they should be funding offshore workers with our tax dollars.

    91. Re:Yet another great argument... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Too bad it doesn't align that way. We end up with DVD players that cost $40 instead of $100 but food, clothing, and shelter remain stubbornly high. So we end up with naked starving homeless people who have a nice cellphone. Not a good trade at all.

      The problem is corporations charging 1st world prices but paying 3rd world wages.

    92. Re:Yet another great argument... by P-niiice · · Score: 2

      Your idea is that wealth is 'taken' from majority and 'given' to the wealthiest has no basis in reality in the free market. One goal of a corporation is to minimize costs to produce. Lowering wages is one way to do this. the ultimate goal is to pay the lowest wage possible to get you product produced. How is that not transferring wealth?

    93. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      +1. The difference between immigrant and visiting worker is, of course, the long-term commitment to the local community. As a J-1, then H-1b, and now (nearly!) EB, I have always felt that queuing up in the visitor's lane at the airport seemed unfair, after demonstrating just this commitment time and again, with now two properties owned, board membership at the local sports club, throwing parties, teaching mega-tuition-paying students, and so on. I did not necessarily intend to settle in the US all this time, but I did intend to make a difference for what's around me. So, if anything, that's something that needs to be changed about H1B - an earlier, more sincere invitation to apply for a green card to highly educated people, one that doesn't take $10,000 in lawyer's fees and that doesn't have you risk your status (as in J-category) if you don't get it. If you want less worker-type H1Bs, then you have to improve the education system so that highly-qualified people in tech and elsewhere aren't needed so badly.

    94. Re:Yet another great argument... by sjames · · Score: 2

      I'm all for raising standards in other countries. We can do that intelligently where nobody gets hurt, or the way we are doing it where a few get super rich, and many suffer while the 3rd world barely inches up.

    95. Re:Yet another great argument... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Too bad it's been slipping for the 99%.

    96. Re:Yet another great argument... by chihowa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the race to the bottom ends with everywhere in the world having a real middle class - hardly a dystopia.

      How do you figure? The race to the bottom ends at the bottom. Real wages reach a minimum and only capital has any value.

      That there are local minima along the way (where emerging nations prosper) doesn't mean that the end result is a middle class everywhere. The end result is that a few extremely wealthy persons have most of the capital and everyone else works for peanuts. Look at the money "saved" by outsourcing labor. Do the prices you see at the store reflect all of that savings or are the profits from those products just increasing?

      Globalization is just wealth consolidation. Though it may be nice in the short term, it doesn't end well for most of the global population.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    97. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In an offshore account so that it doesn't get taxed. All of the $100k is lost.

    98. Re:Yet another great argument... by sjames · · Score: 1

      So you're saying 70 foot yachts and gold plated doggie bowls are the best use of resources?

    99. Re:Yet another great argument... by anagama · · Score: 1

      We are the US. We aren't the world and the world is not our responsibility.

      But, remember how knowledge jobs were supposed to replace all those lost manufacturing jobs in the 70s 80s and 90s? Well what the fuck do people do if we begin exporting knowledge jobs too? What's left if you can't work with your hands or your brain?

      And the race to the bottom ends with everywhere in the world having a real middle class

      Wishful thinking. This not some pie in the sky Starfleet world. All you'll end up with is some people who made a dollar a day feeling prosperous because they're making $8/day while a few more billionaires get a little fatter.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    100. Re:Yet another great argument... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I guess you are being funny, but this was a bidding process, so presumably the company isn't being paid for a $100k programmer, they are being paid for the $20k programmer that was priced into their bid.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    101. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second, H1B requires that employers "Pay the nonimmigrant workers at least the local prevailing wage or the employer's actual wage, whichever is higher; pay for non-productive time in certain circumstances; and offer benefits on the same basis as for U.S. workers;"

      You should probably have a talk to with my company's (One of Fortune 50 companies) lawyers to learn about loophole in the law that bypasses this requirement.

    102. Re:Yet another great argument... by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Then you'd have ownership even more tied up into a very small number of families. Big buisness (I'm talking things like GM and Boeing, not Facebook) requires a lot of capital. You can get that two ways- a lot of small investors (which is what stock is) or a few very big investors. If you hold them personally liable, you can't go route A. Nobody would be able to afford the risk (not to mention the extreme difficulty of finding out who owes how much based on when shares were owned). The end result is that much of advanced industry wouldn't exist, and we'd have even more of a plutocracy.

      The real answer is holding those who run the company liable. The CxOs, the board of directors, the presidents and vice-presidents. Any time a company is fined, someone from that company should be writing a check or going to jail- the highest level person who either knew or should have known had they been doing their job competently. That way you can maintain the benefits of distributed financing and bring accountability back into it.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    103. Re:Yet another great argument... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Should they also be buying American-made goods? Even if getting an American made TV means paying a huge premium?

      I think the government should do these things at the lowest cost feasible and let the private market sort out these things. If off-shoring is a problem, then the government should attack that at the policy level, not at the requisitions level.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    104. Re:Yet another great argument... by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      In the time of the founding fathers, there were no such things as corporations. Additionally, businesses could be taken out of business by the government at the drop of a hat. They had no protections whatsoever. This was intentional. Of course over time businesses worked the system and got laws passed that allowed for the concept of "corporations" where the owners were largely protected from liability and government prosecution. Because of their protections and lack of regulation, corporations can grow in size almost indefinitely and they now use that weight to influence politics greatly.

      But feel free to educate me on how overly regulated we are.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    105. Re:Yet another great argument... by penglust · · Score: 2

      You have also missed the point. Much of the reason the are obese is because the food they can afford is processed crap. It is cheap because while making it easily distributable, and therefor cheap, has removed all the nutritional value. It is just empty calories. While they may not be dying of hunger, they are dying of malnutrition. Scream all you want it is their choice but healthy food is all too often not available to them. We have an extensive school lunch program in this country with not only the same nutritional issue, but the kids often in summer really do go hungry.

      And standard of living is not increasing. I make a pretty good wage and I still have to choose where I spend my money on the items you mention. When I go to the library I see the people there who come in to use a computer.

      You are just parroting the republican talking points. They are shallow and purposefully miss the point that the standards of living in this country have dropped drastically in the last decade.

    106. Re:Yet another great argument... by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Yes I did mean the Heritage Foundation and if you don't like their methodology, how about the Fraser Institute? Same 5 countries at the top... Or do you have a better index of economic freedom? I mean other than the Pulled Out Of gestalt_n_pepper's Ass Index...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    107. Re:Yet another great argument... by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      The sugar market is particularly fucked -- it is not that there are import / export tarriffs, its that the U.S. goverment mandates a bottom price for sugar that is a multiple of the commodity price on the world market outside the US - you literally CANNOT legally buy sugar in the US for less than 18c a pound (raw cane) or 22.9c a pound (beet sugar) -- this is true regardless of source.

    108. Re:Yet another great argument... by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that you'd prefer that yacht makers and gold plated doggie bowl makers aren't deserving of a job? What makes you think you get to decide what defines "best" in terms of resource use. Someone obviously decided that a 70 foot yacht or a gold plated doggie bowl was worth more than the amount of money they spent on it. Compare that with any government organization and see if the average tax payer thinks that we get more value from it than we pay for...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    109. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever worked for or at a company like Infosys? No? Yeah... They're pretty shitty to all of their employees including the ones that are US Citizens.

    110. Re:Yet another great argument... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      In the time of the founding fathers, there were no such things as corporations.

      Exactly. Corporations are entirely an invention of modern American society.

      Oh, wait

      Note: This should not be taken as an argument for or against corporations or regulation. This is only meant as a statement of fact.

    111. Re:Yet another great argument... by evilRhino · · Score: 1

      Not true, the East India Company was a well know corporation that existed in the founding fathers' era. Part of the reason that the US exists is because the founding fathers did not like these corporate interests subverting their democracy.

    112. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have never had, and should never have, true free market capitalism.

      You clearly do not understand "true free market capitalism." You seem to be under the same misconception that many folks are under, namely that "free market" is not "anarchy." Free market capitalism is a minimization of the barrier to enter the market, and is supported and enforced by the legal system.

    113. Re:Yet another great argument... by chihowa · · Score: 2

      However, when it comes to hiring talented professionals who didn't have the chance to be born in the US, there doesn't seem to be any alternative to the H1-B. If someone completes a master's or PhD in a US university, why should they have to compete for a visa with a limited quota with large corporations that mostly hires foreign workers?

      There's the EB series (eg, EB-1) of visas. All of the priority worker goodness and none of the indentured servitude.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    114. Re:Yet another great argument... by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      You know what's a monopoly? Government. They are doing a pretty damn good job of capturing surplus. They are so damn good, they are capturing future surplus by creating debt. If private monopolies come up, they don't have any government power to prevent competition. In the current situation, the government provides legal framework to protect the big players at the expense of the small business. How is that working out?

      Taxes? When did I mention taxes in my roles of government. Ok, maybe it needs some funding, but why would you assume that the funding method we use now makes any sense at all? Taxes are a net drain on resources and should be a small as possible. They should also be fair and not regressive. In addition, simple rules and non-discriminatory taxes reduce avoidance. A simple fair-tax style consumption tax would remove all of your tax issues from the equation.

      Your responses for A and C neglect the fact that private charities rely on voluntary contributions and if they give out too much money to fraud and dependents they go away and new charities that more efficiently allocate resources will gain the contributions that the bureaucratic charity lost. Government charitable programs don't go away, they just spend into debt.

      B) Who gets to determine how much charity is enough? A central authority gets to decide how humanitarian people should be? It gets even more complicated since everyone is not a tax payer, so the central authority decides a small percentage of the population are the only ones responsible for charity and everyone else gets a free pass.

      D) Grow up? You mean people aren't extremely upset about the funding of planned parenthood? If it were all funded by private donations instead of public funding, people who opposed at least can't complain about their money being spent to provide charity they don't support. Instead you think religious people should be forced to fund things against their religion?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    115. Re:Yet another great argument... by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      The corporate entity as a liability limit is a pretty new thing, actually. We didn't need it until very recently.

      When you think about modern many v. 1 liability issues, you probably go straight to "class action" suits, which are commonly flogged as a way lawyers use the small claims of many people to make a lot of money for a small group of lawyers (not entirely false, but useful for putting the lash to a bad actor who cannot be imprisoned because it has no corpus). But actually, the novelty is the product liability action -- before 1916 (less than 100 years ago) if you bought a gas stove from a store, and the stove exploded, you could maybe sue the store (if the store knew the product was defective) but unless you had a contract directly with the manufacturer, the loss was on you. Judge Cordozo, in New York, decided that wasn't fair in 1916 and ruled (in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916)) that you could go back after the entity that created the device for the liability stemming from the defective design or manufacture of their product.

      See, in a true free market, the government doesn't step in to assign liability, you just lose. Better be more careful what products you buy.

    116. Re:Yet another great argument... by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      First off, the EIC was a British company. More importantly, it was granted a royal charter and was, for all intents and purposes, a part of the government. No such thing existed in the US.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    117. Re:Yet another great argument... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that it is extremely doubtful that those are the best use of resources. Are you actually trying to argue that the world is better off overall with gold plated doggie bowls in it? That it wouldn't be better to allocate the needed resources (including the labor) elsewhere?

    118. Re:Yet another great argument... by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      Maybe I should have made it more clear...there were no corporations IN AMERICA. They simply did not exist.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    119. Re:Yet another great argument... by pwizard2 · · Score: 0

      The majority of the poor in the US are obese, not starving.

      They are obese because they have no choice but to eat shit food that is full of sugar and few nutrients. Decent food costs money.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    120. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when the job moves overseas so do all of the secondary effects.

      Raising the standard of living of the 99% of the rest of the world, in this case, India's 99%.

      At the cost of America's 99%

      You should see what real poverty looks like - where people do not get 1 full bowl of boiled rice a day, forget meals with meat and unhealthy fats or govt rations.

      I think it's overall a good thing - considering that your 99% do nothing to change the policies of your Govt and the rest of the world suffers tremendously because of your Govt being controlled by Petroleum and Banking cartels artificially raising the cost of living everywhere in the world.

      It's high time you guys revolted - in some sane way - and took back control of your country and stopped messing around with the economies and internal affairs of other countries - Pakistan for example, was a monster created by the British and sustained by NATO, and USA primarily because Kashmir is a strategic location to keep the Soviet and Chinese threat under control, among many other things.

      USA is a democracy, remember, as you so proudly claim while shoving it down the throats of other nations and so the blame goes directly to you, the people of America.

      Don't blame Indians for the exchange rate being 1 USD = 58 INR, it's your doing, and now it's your undoing.

    121. Re:Yet another great argument... by danbert8 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Typical liberal response is to assume anyone who disagrees is one of those damn republicans. I don't happen to be a republican. I'm one of those even worse libertarians who doesn't make any damn sense applying freedom across the board. The standard of living IS increasing. You have to choose where you spend your money on the items I mentioned failing to realize that 50 years ago, you didn't have that choice, few of those items existed and they weren't as useful back then. People coming into the library to use a computer wouldn't have that opportunity 10-20 years ago. Are they really worse off because they can't afford an iPad and use it at home?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    122. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The government can be replaced or you can move to select a new one. So far it seems to be working fairly well compared to other examples.

      A) This means people starve during that time. I am not ok with that.

      B)That would be determined by need, I would assume. Folks living in the street? Guess we need more assistance. I am not sure how that is a complicated thing. Tax money is used for this, tax payers pay it. Seems simple to this tax payer.

      C) Yes, those people need to grow up. I don't support wars, but I pay for it and STFU. I don't see a problem for the religious, other than their mythology. They can pretend their money is all spend on those wars and I can pretend mine all goes to charities. They will probably be better at pretending than me though.

      Either way you never addressed my issue. In totally free market economies some people suffer far more and others win more. For instance, employers in places with nothing like OSHA benefit while their employees are put in danger. Many folks have to take whatever they get for wages for various reasons including general unemployment. So they cannot go find another employer.

    123. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Says someone who has never seen hong kong. Go look up the people living in cages. Go look at what happens to the maids on sunday.

    124. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Oddly my comment had nothing to do with this country. Good job not reading.

    125. Re:Yet another great argument... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I did not mean that our political system was based upon such regulation - I meant that our economic engine largely relies on corporations and intellectual property.

      You might not like the term "regulation" as applied to corporations, but I feel that "government interference" and "regulations" are synonymous. Once you accept something as radical as a limited liability corporation, any additional interference with that invented entity seems minor. I think we should be rethinking what we want corporations to be.

      Intellectual property is in the Constitution, though I imagine they didn't envision how far it would extend.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    126. Re:Yet another great argument... by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      You are still stuck on this monopoly and single provider idea... People would not starve when a charity fails. Multiple charities exist simultaneously. Every day I am hit up for donations to all kinds of private charities. I decide whether my donation would be better used by the American Red Cross or United Way or Habitat for Humanity, etc. The market is quick to respond to demand (yes, there is a demand for helping those in need). Government is not.

      How do you determine need? What if the person living in the street is there by choice? It sounds horrible, but some people would rather be drunk in the street instead of sober and in a shelter.

      I did address your issue by stating that OSHA equivalent benefits could be provided by the free market if the consumers and workers demand it. Wages will increase if the consumers and workers demand it. You can't force demand. You can only force government. And if we could change government easily we would. However, I'm fairly certain that most governments make it difficult and expensive to expatriate and gain new citizenship, or do people illegally immigrate because it's so easy to change governments?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    127. Re:Yet another great argument... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I pretty much agree. The ease of ownership is demonstrably useful. Like you say, the limit on liability goes too far - it should only extend to blind investors, not to anyone with any role in running the company. I think even activist investors could have some degree of liability.

      But I was mostly bringing up corporations because we were talking about government interference in the free market, and I cannot think of a larger impact the government has had on the free market than the invention of the corporation.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    128. Re:Yet another great argument... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Globalization is just wealth consolidation.

      It amazing me how many people just assert this in the face of about four centuries of increasing globalization accompanied by an ever-increasing middle class.

      Do the prices you see at the store reflect all of that savings or are the profits from those products just increasing?

      Both. This is well studied - imports make products cheaper for Americans far in excess of the total lost wages from those imports.

      Plus most Americans now own stock, directly or indirectly, and so also benefit from better profits.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    129. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone working in tech in America is in the 1% - of the world. There's no moral harm when a job moves overseas to someone who objectively needs the money more. Arguing that the rich have too much is a poor strategy when you're part of the richest 1%.

      And the race to the bottom ends with everywhere in the world having a real middle class - hardly a dystopia. Everything people say today about work going to China or India was said when I was young about work going to Japan, and later about South Korea. Emerging nations do eventually emerge, and everyone benefits as a result.

      You honestly believe that someone making $100,000 a year is in the top 1%? Why would someone that has to attend a 4-year school and graduate with $60,000+ in school loan debt not be rewarded for their efforts with a decent salary and an honest life style? In case you haven't stopped to look around, $100K salaries don't really get you very far in the New England region of the US.

      You don't want programmers making that "absurd" salary, then figure out a way to lower the cost of education for the particular set of skills these corporations desire of their employees.

    130. Re:Yet another great argument... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      (Emphasis mine):

      The US has the most progressive tax system in the world (when all taxation is taken into account), yet income disparity seems to be positively correlated to the amount of progressiveness in taxation.

      That is a gross misstatement. Income inequality (as per Mankiw et al) in the US is driven by lower redistribution than in other OECD countries. In no way is there a positive correlation between "amount of progressiveness in taxation" and income disparity in OECD countries.

      If you stand by your outrageous statement, please provide evidence... I'm assuming you have none (hence the weasel word, "seems").

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    131. Re:Yet another great argument... by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Troll

      Singapore, Switzerland, Hong Kong, China, USA in 19th century. Those are easy examples. You better think of an example where is the economy today NOT falling apart in the world of socialism, theft and redistribution, central banking, where people are actually living free as individuals and not as a herd to be slaughtered or used as voting chips on the political table.

    132. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when that 100k/year programmer gets laid off and moves to another country she takes her talent with her, and improves the economy of someone who can appreciate her skills.

    133. Re:Yet another great argument... by sabri · · Score: 1

      There's the EB series (eg, EB-1) of visas. All of the priority worker goodness and none of the indentured servitude.

      You don't understand US immigration very well.

      EB1 is a preference category of green cards.

      The H1-B visa is a non-immigrant visa, which allows workers to come to the US and work for the sponsoring employer. If someone wants to stay permanently in the US, they will have to be sponsored for a greencard. There are only two categories of greencard sponsors: family based and employment based (see where the eb comes from?). The employment based category is limited and therefore there is some form of QOS going on. The three most commonly used categories are EB1, EB2 and EB3.

      EB1 is primarily used for international managers and executives, and the smartest non-execs such as PhD's and olympic athletes.
      EB2 is primarily used for people with a master's degree (or Bachelor + 5 years of experience).
      EB3 is most of the rest (with the exeption of a few special cases such as religious workers).

      The problem with the above is that there are more applicants than there are greencards (or as you wish: EB1 visas) available. This means that there is a waiting list. This waiting list can be as long as 10 years. For example, the priority date (google it) for EB3-India is in 2002...

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    134. Re:Yet another great argument... by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      You may *WISH* that were true. I manage an IT department and I'm nowhere near the top 1%. I make a "middle-class" salary that I can't even afford medical insurance for my family on.

      The average A+ certified screw-turner still only makes about 25K around here. And with 15 years of IT experience, I only beat that by a little over 1/3rd.

      And it does do moral harm.... tech jobs are so scarce here that if it were possible to outsource mine I'd have to leave my home and extended family behind just to find work. That is unacceptable.

    135. Re:Yet another great argument... by hawguy · · Score: 1

      And when that 100k/year programmer gets laid off and moves to another country she takes her talent with her, and improves the economy of someone who can appreciate her skills.

      If people were insects with no ties to their surroundings, then that might be a viable solution, just pick them up and drop them off where they are needed and they can integrate seamlessly into the next location with no loss of productivity or cost to society.

      The real world doesn't work that way - there's a lot of friction keeping people from moving to another country - relocation costs are high, work visas can be difficult or impossible to get, there's often a language and/or cultural barrier. This is on top of the normal costs of relocating within the same country (or even the same state) like the cost and timeline to sell a house, uprooting spouses and/or children, moving away from family, etc.

      People are not as portable as you suggest.

    136. Re:Yet another great argument... by lgw · · Score: 1

      We are the US. We aren't the world and the world is not our responsibility

      I make no claims about that either way, I simply state that you need a different basis than morality to argue against moving a job to a less developed nation. An argument like "I don't care who gets hurt, I want to keep everything for me and mine" for example. Or some better argument, perhaps.

      All you'll end up with is some people who made a dollar a day feeling prosperous because they're making $8/day while a few more billionaires get a little fatter.

      Yeah, that explains why the average price for a 3-bedroom house in Bangalore is about US$240,000. (A crore is 10 M, so 1 crore Rupees is about US$160 K)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    137. Re:Yet another great argument... by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, corporations, businesses in general do want to minimize costs, that's how they can provide cheapest, most affordable products to the widest audience. Look at WalMart, the owners are billionaires, yet the store provides cheapest products to the masses of poorest in the society.

      Obviously they do this by minimizing every cost that can be minimized and in the NON FREE society, like the USA is (non free because of government regulations, monopoly creation and support, money printing, bailouts for the friends of politicians, etc.etc.), this means that certain people will not find better jobs than working for WalMart, because they are not needed anywhere else at those salaries (the people working for WalMart).

      They are not economically viable in the poor, non-free society outside of WalMart (well, they could do worse).

      However in a free market society resources are used efficiently, this includes labor, but this also means that the free market sets price of everything, including price of labour. There shouldn't be any minimum wage laws, income taxes, money printing, most of what gov't does today (from pension handling and medical payments to student or house or any type of loan guarantees, meddling with businesses, regulating businesses, not the act of interstate commerce itself to maximize competition, but manipulating the market, preventing some businesses from working, giving others huge advantages via tax code, bailouts, fake insurance, etc.etc.)

      Basically the system is broken, you are looking from inside a broken system and everything is confusing to you, so you can't understand what's white and what's black, what's up and what's down, and it's not without intent that you are so confused. There is huge amount of money that is made by politicians and politically connected as long as you stay confused and allow the government authority to go beyond the law, beyond what the Constitution allows it to do.

    138. Re:Yet another great argument... by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      The $100K/year programmer may be in the top 1% so no great harm if that job moves overseas (except for well except for the programmer, but that job is in the 1% and we don't care about the 1%).

      Since when does the average programmer make $100K/yr?!?! Most I know are in the 30-60K range.

    139. Re:Yet another great argument... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      Both your examples are of technologies that were emergent during the times you reference, and as such are not useful for comparison. They are red herrings. We could look, for example, at food prices. Or fuel prices. Or housing.

      You should know that real wages have fallen since 1980. Food, housing, fuel -- these are all more expensive relative to wages today than they were in 1980. You try to explain it away by comparing some consumer goods, but that doesn't prove your point.

      The divide of riches in terms of money may be growing slightly, but the divide between low wealth and high wealth certainly is not, it's very much shrinking.

      That's laughable. High wealth has skyrocketed. Sure, low-wealth individuals now encompass most of the middle class (because the middle class doesn't accumulate wealth anymore), but working-age people with $2 million in assets live a far different lifestyle than those with no assets.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    140. Re:Yet another great argument... by hawguy · · Score: 2

      But when the job moves overseas so do all of the secondary effects.

      Raising the standard of living of the 99% of the rest of the world, in this case, India's 99%.

      At the cost of America's 99%

      You should see what real poverty looks like - where people do not get 1 full bowl of boiled rice a day, forget meals with meat and unhealthy fats or govt rations.

      I think it's overall a good thing - considering that your 99% do nothing to change the policies of your Govt and the rest of the world suffers tremendously because of your Govt being controlled by Petroleum and Banking cartels artificially raising the cost of living everywhere in the world.

      It's high time you guys revolted - in some sane way - and took back control of your country and stopped messing around with the economies and internal affairs of other countries - Pakistan for example, was a monster created by the British and sustained by NATO, and USA primarily because Kashmir is a strategic location to keep the Soviet and Chinese threat under control, among many other things.

      USA is a democracy, remember, as you so proudly claim while shoving it down the throats of other nations and so the blame goes directly to you, the people of America.

      Don't blame Indians for the exchange rate being 1 USD = 58 INR, it's your doing, and now it's your undoing.

      I see, so the fact that we have a high standard of living (and high cost of living) is our own fault, but India's poverty is also our own fault so we should ship our jobs and our money to India? Is there anything that's not our fault? And if we don't revolt against our high cost of living then we are also at fault for all of the problems of the world?

    141. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone working in tech in America is in the 1% - of the world. There's no moral harm when a job moves overseas to someone who objectively needs the money more. Arguing that the rich have too much is a poor strategy when you're part of the richest 1%.

      And the race to the bottom ends with everywhere in the world having a real middle class - hardly a dystopia. Everything people say today about work going to China or India was said when I was young about work going to Japan, and later about South Korea. Emerging nations do eventually emerge, and everyone benefits as a result.

      You know, if you really don't care that only America's bottom 99% is giving up to the rest of the world, if that's really the attitude the rest of the world has because the top of our 99% is rich enough, then I guess we shouldn't give a rat's ass that we're piling onto your own top 1%, because hey, trickle down or something right?

      You might not care about distribution of wealth now because your economies are growing, but tides change, and the top 1% has its own special gravity. The lower end of your wealth spectrum is going to get disproportionately screwed when the waters recede to the next up and comer.

      World middle class... ROFLMAO. By the time there is a balanced-across-the-world middle class, the money tide will have changed direction so many times, "middle" will be a serfdom.

    142. Re:Yet another great argument... by jkauzlar · · Score: 2

      Free market capitalism is a minimization of the barrier to enter the market, and is supported and enforced by the legal system

      It's nice of you to try, but libertarians will only hear what they want to hear. One of my favorite comments on slashdot was this succinct description of the libertarian philosophy: If you buy a toy for your kid, and the kid dies of poisoning, then don't buy the toy for your other kid. Market corrected!

    143. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, when it comes to hiring talented professionals who didn't have the chance to be born in the US, there doesn't seem to be any alternative to the H1-B. If someone completes a master's or PhD in a US university, why should they have to compete for a visa with a limited quota with large corporations that mostly hires foreign workers?

      There's the EB series (eg, EB-1) of visas. All of the priority worker goodness and none of the indentured servitude.

      you have no clue how this works... only an employer can sponsor EB1 for you and it is only if you have Ph.D., published tons of papers and job is research related. You can't work till your EAD comes and till then either you stay out of the country or work on H1-B. For masters, you get into EB2 queue which is 3-4 years wait if you are from China & 7-8 years if you are from India. In the meantime, you need to work on H1-B or be out of the country.
      http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5993.html

      The solution: give EAD to anyone with MS or PhD from an American university.

    144. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crawling your way from the bottom of tech, getting experience; getting certified, going to college on pail grants and loans to get a degree and never landing a job that could cover the debt and rent... sounds really 1% ish. Like 1% chance of making it when even govt projects are outsourced to India or Pakistan.

    145. Re:Yet another great argument... by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Don't you dare use the term "slave" if you know what it means, you fucking idiot.

      Yeah, getting a few cents on the dollar compared to standard wages for the position simply makes you an indentured servant instead. Which is *SO* much better. heh

      Besides, American Slaves could have quit and headed North at any time right? I don't understand what had those abolitionists so flustered.

      You sir, are a douche. Wanting qualified Americans to work in American companies down the street from their homes making a reasonable living instead of bolstering other countries through abusing H1-Bs does not equal communism. That is the kind of mentality that will eventually lead to us eating the rich. And I'm going to grab some popcorn (and extra ammo just in case) and enjoy it when that day comes.

      A fake "Free Market" does not make it morally acceptable to screw over your neighbors just because you've found shady legal loopholes you can get away with.

      Legal != "the right thing to do"

    146. Re:Yet another great argument... by ranton · · Score: 1

      we used to get by on one salary, now we need two salaries in order to live check-to-check after paying for two cars for transportation (due to poor transit), childcare, healthcare, and high costs of shelter.

      People can still easily get by on one salary if they are willing to live a standard of life similar to the 1960s. You can still get by with one car if only one parent works; we are just too used to being mobile. My dad grew up on a farm in the 60s and they just had one car. If my grandpa wasn't home and it didn't require an ambulance, then they didn't go into town. Basic healthcare for children is free or very cheap for all low income individuals, and high deductible plans are also inexpensive. Most procedures that costs a lot of money probably didn't even exist 50 years ago so those are a luxury by the standards of that generation.

      Shelter is quite cheap if you are willing to have 5 people living in a 900 sq ft home, which was the norm back then. And while home economics classes may no longer teach the basics, it is quite easy to feed yourself on the cheap if you are willing to endure the kind of low level of selection that those in the 60s were used to (not counting food deserts, which I agree is a problem).

      You simply don't recognize how much better things are today if you think that poor people would be better off if they went 50 years back in time.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    147. Re:Yet another great argument... by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      The majority of the poor in the US are obese, not starving.

      They are obese because they have no choice but to eat shit food that is full of sugar and few nutrients. Decent food costs money.

      I'm going to have to call bullshit on this. Meat might be relatively expensive but there are lots and lots and lots of foods that are both inexpensive and good for you. On the other hand they aren't full of sugar and they require both knowledge and time to prepare. Which is to say they aren't compatible with being lazy and just wanting to whip out a box of something and call it "food".

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    148. Re:Yet another great argument... by countach74 · · Score: 1

      Except that monopolies generally only exist due to government intervention, generally by lobbying for regulations that keep new comers out or via supposed "natural monopolies." In the case of "natural monopolies," the government grants monopolies to "utility" companies to reduce duplication of the utility infrastructure, which leads to the same thing that any government-granted monopoly leads to: lack of innovation and thus higher inefficiencies and prices (if not at first, then gradually over time).

      It is exceedingly rare for a company to monopolize a market without government intervention. In fact, the barriers that get erected IS the government intervention.

      And yes, you can have perpetual competition without eventual victors. We like to talk a lot about economies of scale, but people seem to forget about diseconomies of scale: which brings the large corporations back down to size, more often than not. Besides, all it really takes to bring down a large corporation is a team of stupid executives, which is pretty easy to come by these days. Perpetual competition is what forces innovation which in turn utilizes the nation's scarce resources more efficiently.

    149. Re:Yet another great argument... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      Emphasis yours:

      I don't know what country you live in, but in this country, the average salary is over $50,000/yr. That's ample to buy a house in most communities.

      To put it another way, you are full of shit.

      What country are you in that has an average salary of over $50,000/yr? I assume you are referring to National Account wages, not some other methodology that is known to overstate wages... And using NA methodology, *average* wages in the US are $42k. And why are you referring to average instead of median, which would be more appropriate, since salaries are not a normal distribution? US median wage, for only those 24-69 (the highest earning group, by the way), including only full-time workers, is under $40k.

      $40k salary is not enough to afford an average home ($272,900 as per US Census data, 2011).

      Speaking of "full of shit" -- if that applies to anyone in this discussion, that person is you.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    150. Re:Yet another great argument... by atriusofbricia · · Score: 2

      The race to the bottom argument is a logical fallacy.
      Yes, it's only in that inconvenient real world that it happens. In case you've forgotten, wages in the USA started stagnating in the 70s and the divide between wealthy and poor grows larger each year. Moreover, the real world examples of unregulated capitalism (e.g. Pakistan, Somalia, Mexico, the USA, China) show exactly what happens when the government "gets out of the way." This is solely due to changes in government taxation regulation changes on high income earners and high income corporations, and the demise of checks on finance (i.e. Glass-steagall).

      The divide between the wealthy and poor means exactly jack shit unless you can demonstrate that the poor are becoming more poor relative to themselves. It doesn't matter a bit if the rich are getting richer unless you can prove that they are getting that way by directly harming the poor.

      You also fail at life for saying that China is an example of the government getting out of the way and trying to compare the US to any of the places you listed. Yet clearly the solution to all our problems is more government regulation and ever higher taxes and penalties. Surely that will jump start the economy!

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    151. Re:Yet another great argument... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Actually the unprocessed stuff is cheaper, the processed stuff just tastes better and takes far less time to obtain.

      I was just recently diagnosed stage 4 chronic kidney disease (due to IgA nephropathy) and I have to control the fuck out of my diet (potassium, phosphorus, protein, and sodium need to be very tightly controlled) so I pretty much have to cook my own meals. Processed foods are out of the question because they are high in sodium.

      I've actually found out that I've been spending less than $3 per meal since I've been cooking my own food. Used to be I would often buy fast food (del taco, etc) and I would pay $7 for a lunch.

      Also off topic but on the note of rich taking advantage of the poor:

      Through my ordeal with kidney disease I've realized just how backwards our priorities are when it comes to how people think the poor get taken advantage of. I'm in need of a kidney transplant, and I found out that for somebody to donate a kidney to me will cost them anywhere between $800 and $2,000 on average, possibly more due to lost wages (donating a kidney is hell, it requires preparation time and it's also not a simple overnight stay at a hospital,) and I'm legally not allowed to compensate them for that. Alternatively I could go on dialysis in the future which averages about $100,000 per year for the rest of my life. Surveys say people would sell their kidneys for about $25,000. I don't know why we can't just allow the government to buy kidneys for that (DO NOT PERMIT PRIVATE SALES,) it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than dialysis, the quality of life of the recipient is much better, and whoever sells their kidney is happy because they get money. But no, we can't, because that is taking advantage of the poor. Instead people suffer needlessly and we pay up the ass for medicare; what a forward society we are.

      Women can already make similar deals selling their eggs, which happens to be far more dangerous than donating kidneys, yet nobody complains about that one.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    152. Re:Yet another great argument... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I agree, but...

      Don't forget the abundant inflow of cheap labor!

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    153. Re:Yet another great argument... by centipedes.in.my.vag · · Score: 1

      Quiet! If you deny all inherent fault then the basis for the argument of privilege will crumble! Think of the children, why don't you?

      --
      Only on /. can I lose karma with 2x "5, Funny" posts.
    154. Re:Yet another great argument... by centipedes.in.my.vag · · Score: 1

      When you're categorizing and demonizing people for making money there's no issue (in public opinion) with making up all your numbers. They're the rich %1, after all, and they're evil evil evil.

      --
      Only on /. can I lose karma with 2x "5, Funny" posts.
    155. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When that $100K/year job is outsourced to an outsourcing company for $20K/year, then none of the money stays in the USA.

      And then you can concentrate on something else. If you support overpriced work by giving them offers following that nationalistic reasoning, you are rewarding the US workers for incompetency. If you also have to loan the money you pay to the US workers, you'll end up giving lots of money away.

      Also, when the US workers work on their overpriced projects, they cannot make money for the US by selling services to other countries. If they can bring in more than $20k/year when not working on the overpriced project, the end result is more positive than negative.

    156. Re:Yet another great argument... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      That's a really good point.

      I have nothing to add to it, but since I don't get mod points after an argument with Pudge a few years ago... I just wanted to call attention to your post.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    157. Re:Yet another great argument... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      They're not indentured servants, since they can leave the job (and the country) at any time.

      The reason why the system is flawed has nothing to do with slavery. It's because employers are, essentially, allowed to bargain from a different position with H-1Bs compared to citizens. Because the former don't hold citizenship, the promise of sponsoring their green card essentially becomes the part of their compensation, and they will agree to less pay etc relative to someone who is already a citizen. And because the green card process requires them to hold the same job for most of its duration, H-1Bs are incentivized to tolerate more employer abuse than a citizen would. This is not "indentured servitude"; it's just what you get when you have something valuable that some people get for free at birth and others don't. To fix this, you need to make citizenship easier to get, preferably without involving employers at all.

    158. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maslow's heirarchy of needs.

      The lower levels (food, shelter) have long been solved. The rich have food and shelter. So do the poor. nobody cares about these things any more.

      People only care about the top level ("self actualisation"). Apparently the rich can have plenty of that, and the poor can have none.

    159. Re:Yet another great argument... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It varies from company to company. Google, Apple and Microsoft all sponsor their H-1Bs for green cards pretty much indiscriminately. I work at MS as an H-1B with a green card application in progress. I know many other people, most at MS, others now at other companies, who are also here on H-1B; every single one of them has been sponsored for a green card (and some have already got theirs).

    160. Re:Yet another great argument... by hawguy · · Score: 1

      The $100K/year programmer may be in the top 1% so no great harm if that job moves overseas (except for well except for the programmer, but that job is in the 1% and we don't care about the 1%).

      Since when does the average programmer make $100K/yr?!?! Most I know are in the 30-60K range.

      Believe it or not, I didn't pick the round numbers $100K and $20K after a detailed salary survey of software developers in the USA and India. Feel free to do the research and correct my math. Make sure you include the benefit load of the employee on both sides. In the USA, that's around 30 - 40% of salary. Not sure about India.

    161. Re:Yet another great argument... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Those are just arbitrary talking points you're throwing out there.

      How do we define what middle class is? If you define it by wealth, then today's poor are wealthier than yesterday's middle class, so the middle class has expanded and continues to expand. If you're defining middle class as being a certain income point, then you're just talking about money while ignoring wealth entirely.

      If your definition is the later: So some numbers on a spreadsheet changed; what's the big deal?

      And what gains are you talking about here? Wealth or money? The wealth is going everywhere, not to the top percent.

      Here's some more arbitrary numbers for you:

      - Less than 1% of New York participated in occupy wall street, and less than 1% of the population goes around chanting "We're the 99%!" And why all of this animosity towards the "1%ers" (implying 1%er in a derogatory sense)? Why not the 2.25% or the 3.14159%?

      - If you make more than $40,000 per year, you are in the top 1% of the worlds highest income earners. If you make more than that, congratulations, you're one of the despised 1%ers...oooh no, can't be one of THEM now can we? They oppress the people.

      Seriously, the world is only as crappy as you think it is, and I don't think we live in a crappy age at all.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    162. Re:Yet another great argument... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      you really think you can ride the razors edge of kinda-freedom / kinda-safety for ever?

    163. Re:Yet another great argument... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If you race the prices to the bottom (i.e. everything becomes so cheap that anybody can afford it anyways) then who cares how much money you have?

      But not all products & services are subject to 3rd-world-labor cheapification. Housing, clean water, and medical, for example.

      In fact, the poor are wealthier than they've ever been at any point in history.

      "You don't have to eat dirt anymore" is a consolation prize. (paraphrased)

      One of the biggest problems with large inequality is political influence. Using campaign donations, ads, and slick lobbyists, a wealthy person may have say 10,000 times the actual political influence of a poor person.

      We are then no longer a democracy, but slipping toward a plutocracy. The wealthy are already making it harder for poor people to vote by limiting the voting days/hours and requiring at-poll ID's. These practices don't otherwise poll well, but the rich buy these practices in place to protect their stack.

    164. Re:Yet another great argument... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I guess you are being funny, but this was a bidding process, so presumably the company isn't being paid for a $100k programmer, they are being paid for the $20k programmer that was priced into their bid.

      No, because it was a bid they've been able to use $80k for their cost and undercut the US company by $20k per programmer. They'll then be able to pay the worker $20k and keep $60k in profit. That's the problem with always going with the lowest bidder. One of the problems.

    165. Re:Yet another great argument... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      for why the H-1B system ought to be massively reduced and US contracts should be awarded only to actual US companies instead of shell-game "subsidiaries."

      So much for HIPPA.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    166. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... to get people back to work ...

      Sort of how it works:

      The US government pays exorbitant fees to security-compliant labour-exchanges for contractors with community-college degrees then claims they save money by not hiring permanent staff. One wonders that the cost of re-training and pension funds would be less than hiring a new contractor every third year. Plus the former contractor earns more than 'minimum' wage because the labour-exchange isn't charging 60% administration costs.

    167. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes!

    168. Re:Yet another great argument... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      You're right, I'm not familiar with US immigration. On the other hand, the post I replied to said that they had no way, other than H1-B, to get PhD and Masters holding professionals to the US to work for them. Isn't an "employment based" greencard then an option? As it is more appropriate for his situation, maybe we ought to increase the number of them offered. They seem better for the US, anyway (let the best and brightest stay if they want to).

      Or do you just get hung up on the fact that I said visa instead of greencard, get all bent out of shape, and offer little actual insight as to why what I said was any more than semantically wrong?

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    169. Re:Yet another great argument... by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. In a lot of ways, the US colonies were populated by an early form of corporation call the joint stock company. These were created, same as modern companies, to disburse risk between a group of investors. See the Plymouth Company and the London Company.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    170. Re:Yet another great argument... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I make no claims about that either way, I simply state that you need a different basis than morality to argue against moving a job to a less developed nation.

      How about the morality of taking the money from people in the US (by force, if necessary) and spending it someplace else so they people it was taken from don't get any benefit from their labor? That's a pretty good moral standing to prevent outsourcing of taxpayer funded jobs.

      Let's add on the morality of then taking MORE money from the people in the US (again by force, if necessary) to hand over to the people who don't have the jobs because they were outsourced.

      Yeah, that explains why the average price for a 3-bedroom house in Bangalore is about US$240,000.

      And, of course, we know that the average Indian worker buys a three bedroom house, right? And they all live in the nicest places in the largest cities.

    171. Re:Yet another great argument... by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you can argue that royal charter makes a joint stock company a part of the government. It was more of an exclusive licenses, like an FCC spectrum license.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    172. Re:Yet another great argument... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      I see the error of my ways. There's a (way too lengthy) queue to wait in use the EB categories. This is a shame, as these are the people we want immigrating.

      Quoth the post I was responding to:

      However, when it comes to hiring talented professionals who didn't have the chance to be born in the US, there doesn't seem to be any alternative to the H1-B. If someone completes a master's or PhD in a US university, why should they have to compete for a visa with a limited quota with large corporations that mostly hires foreign workers?

      I work for an engineering company and we have a mix of US and international employees, but it has happened that we couldn't hire the best candidate because the H1-B visa quota was full for the year. Most of those international employees studied here and in the long run end up getting a green card, then citizenship. Tell me this doesn't add value to the US overall?

      The solution: give EAD to anyone with MS or PhD from an American university.

      That's a solution I can agree with.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    173. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, just as importantly... that programmer who formerly made $100k is now taking food stamps, utility subsidies, and medicade for his kids. Now he is taking in rather than paying... Well done Corporate America, Well Done!

    174. Re:Yet another great argument... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Personally, I don't invest in China because I believe they have a revolution coming. But I've been very wrong before (especially when it comes to investing). India OTOH is moving not necessarily to copy the West, but certainly to address the sort of problems you mention plus their endemic corruption.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    175. Re:Yet another great argument... by lgw · · Score: 1

      How about the morality of taking the money from people in the US (by force, if necessary) and spending it someplace else so they people it was taken from don't get any benefit from their labor? That's a pretty good moral standing to prevent outsourcing of taxpayer funded jobs.

      I only see that as an argument against taxes. But if a government service is worth having, why spend extra for that service? I vehemently oppose spending tax money just to create makework jobs, that's for sure.

      And, of course, we know that the average Indian worker buys a three bedroom house, right? And they all live in the nicest places in the largest cities.

      No, not the average Indian worker, but the average Indian worker who gets an outsourced US job. That contrast was pretty much my entire point - the jobs that go to India aren't a race to the bottom, because they lift the standard of living wherever they go. (Well, comparing Bangalore to Silicon Valley is fair anyhow, in that way.)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    176. Re:Yet another great argument... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't another company bid at $60k and keep $40k in profit?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    177. Re:Yet another great argument... by losfromla · · Score: 1

      perhaps in economist-land with actual market jobs producing actual goods for commercial companies. Maybe.

      However, these are tax dollar jobs, where each dollar spent is equal to a $1.50 drag on the economy. The least we should do with such spending is to have American nationals receive it. No dollars spent by any US Governmental entity (National, State, City, etc) should go to a foreign entity or subsidiary. What is wrong with a little protectionism? It is working great for China isn't it?

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    178. Re:Yet another great argument... by Gogo0 · · Score: 1

      part of the problem is that a lot of people (very many of which are living very comfortably) see those concessions as substandard because everyone should be equal,or their personal bias leads them to believe that five people in a 900 sq ft home is untenable squalor. its good to want better for everyone, but some people need a dose of reality. most of the world doesnt have what they do, and theyre fine with that.

      to save money, i once lived in a 40 sq foot single-room apartment in tokyo. had to sell most of my belongings because they wouldnt fit and i didnt want to pay for storage. by some people's definition, i was poor. yet the reality was that i had a place to sleep, a climate separate from the seasonal elements, clean water, easy access to food of varying quality, and i was saving money while looking for a better job.

    179. Re:Yet another great argument... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Maybe I should have made it more clear...there were no corporations IN AMERICA. They simply did not exist.

      There were rather more than 300 in America by 1800, only 11 years after the Constitution was ratified.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    180. Re:Yet another great argument... by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      The 100K/yr goes to the senior management that keeps all those uppity programmers that think they're so smart in line. The people that executive management really think drive innovation by reminding those dangerous smart people who they work for.

      Sorry pal... programmers are not in the top 1%. Shareholders and senior management are the top 1% and their jobs rarely, if ever, are outsourced.

    181. Re:Yet another great argument... by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1

      Nice try, but the libertarian philosophy doesn't get rid of litigation. If you buy a toy for your kid and the kid dies of poisoning, then you get to take the company to court and put them out of business. Then you can say the market corrected. The whole point of free market philosophy is to bring back the risk to companies such that they do the right thing. When you constantly bail out companies with government tax money, where is the incentive to self correct ones bad business strategy?

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    182. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I make no claims about that either way, I simply state that you need a different basis than morality to argue against moving a job to a less developed nation. An argument like "I don't care who gets hurt, I want to keep everything for me and mine" for example. Or some better argument, perhaps.

      Oh, so that's why so many companies are outsourcing. Out of the kindness of their hearts to help the poor little less developed nations...

    183. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't want programmers making that "absurd" salary, then figure out a way to lower the cost of education for the particular set of skills these corporations desire of their employees.

      He has. Fuck the American middle class. He has his, so everybody else can just stuff it.

    184. Re:Yet another great argument... by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      A) These were not corporations. There was no such thing in America. The local government could take away your charter to do business at will. You apparently don't know what it means to be incorporated, I suggest you look into it. B) These were English companies.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    185. Re:Yet another great argument... by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      No, there weren't. At least, nothing like we have in modern America. Back then they were under the complete control of the state in which they were created and the state would create a charter for a business that could have whatever restrictions they local government cared to add. Violating your charter in any way would generally result in the loss of your charter and the end of your business. Companies typically had restrictions on how big they could grow and usually could not be involved in politics. These are things that never happen in modern America.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    186. Re:Yet another great argument... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      In fact food is now cheaper than it has ever been
      Perhaps this is true in the rest of the world, but where I live, in the U.S. food is more EXPENSIVE than it has ever been.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    187. Re:Yet another great argument... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Everyone working in tech in America is in the 1% - of the world. There's no moral harm when a job moves overseas to someone who objectively needs the money more.
      When a 1% job in the U.S. goes to India, it goes to someone who becomes a .1%er. If they make even $20,000 they can live in the lap of luxury. Their goods cost less. We make more because our stuff costs more. If we ship our top jobs overseas, it increases the division of wealth in our country and in the overseas country.
      It may surprise you to know that most technical people in India have people to cook and clean for them. Even on a tech salary, we can't afford that here.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    188. Re:Yet another great argument... by thoth · · Score: 1

      And the race to the bottom ends with everywhere in the world having a real middle class - hardly a dystopia.

      That's not the bottom. The bottom is working poor everywhere; people barely making enough to meet their basic life needs but spending all their time working for it.

      How do you figure the middle class is the bottom?

    189. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed his point. There are more poor people in the US than in any point in history because we have been continually raising the cutoff to what we consider "poor". Poor people today are likely to have a car, a fridge, a cell phone, a flat screen TV, air conditioning, etc. The majority of the poor in the US are obese, not starving. Wages may be declining, but standard of living is still increasing.

      People are obese in the US because they have alot of food. Well more like dog food. Fast food, hamburger helper, cookies, candies and food loaded with HFCS. Should we send that food to those that t are staving in the world? Then the entire world will be obese and we can all be poor together. Standard of living is increasing? Hardly.

    190. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are saying that eating this shitty food that makes them obese (right? Go FDA!), then yeah, "MERIKA BEBA!"

      Seriously, you should go over what makes a country a 1st-world, 2nd-world, or 3rd-world. See here:
      http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

      Notice how this whole concept of "worlds" was made up by those that are listed as 1st-world countries. I say, if there were any real, true, no-shit 1st-world countries out there, full of people within the mindset of achieving as a human should achieve, then all other countries would be helped until all of the planet was up and running in a way that propels us all into the right direction. Wars, weapons, borders, religion, race and class would all be a thing of the past. If there was ever a true 1st-world people, they'd be extremely interested in making the world a better place, and they'd be suppressed by the current mindset that prevails in most of the governing bodies that govern the 1st-world countries.

      Currently there seems to be a great divide between how we all think, and a lot of us are focused mainly on one "side" of this thinking. Listening to each other is going to play a critical role in all of our future.

      It all boils down to the way you measure quality of life, and how you allow others to pursue the same.

    191. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes, the free market is the way to go."

      But not when we're dealing with dot-headed, cow-kissing, curry-eating , elephant jockies. My god, they are disgusting people.

      Indians are corrupted to the core with and their self-righteous hypocritical mentality. Indians like to stare at others because they hate people who are better than them and look down on people who they believe are of lower social status (in their mind they are gods). Not to mention their poor hygiene, I stress to everyone that its best to stay away from such arrogant people with such toxic mentality. They're short, they're disgusting, and their confidence bubble is blown way out of proportion.

      It is their:

        - Leeching and leering at foreign women just the way they do it to us on our streets here. Perverted dirty minds.

      - Disgusting habits of spitting, trashing everywhere.

        - Appalling personal hygiene, smelly oily hair, opening "dabbas" of pungent curries in an air conditioned office, licking hands after meals all the way from their elbows.

        - Double standards and hypocrisy : Saying something and meaning something else, cracking jokes in Hindi and calling a foreigner "Behenchod Chutiya"( Bloody Bastard) while otherwise talking nicely to them in English. You think they don't make out ?

        -Mob mentality : Punjabis stick together with Punjabis, Bengalis with Bengalis, south Indians with south Indians.

        - Making an excuse of studying abroad when the real intention if to get a resident visa, 20 people living together in one 40x40 apartment, wearing lungis and baniyans in white neighbourhoods, disrupting everything.

        -The attitude that money and bribes will solve everything namely called "Jugaad" even aboard. Lying, deceit and cheating about almost everything.

      - The holier than thou attitude and preaching about culture and purity of our race and calling the west immoral. Do not forget you live in their country not your own.

        - When an Indian becomes boss, the whole office will be eventually replaced with Indians.

      - Rude behaviour, total lack of dignity towards their peers. For example conversing in native language such as Hindi when there are other people around who do not understand.

      - The attitude that just because we hold fancy degrees, we are smarter and better than any other people in the world.

      - Shady characters : Suspicious, glaring at whites as if you expect them to burst out with a racist comment, the ever present concept of "Makhan Lagana" i.e licking your boss's arse.

      - We scream at them of being racists when we ourselves are the biggest racists in the world with the CASTE SYSTEM, north Indians detesting South Indians, north east Indians facing subjugation in rest of India.

      - If a few Indian families settle in one area, it eventually becomes Chawdi Bazaar with all their relatives eventually joining them, and their relatives and then their relatives and so on ... that makes them foul people. Fuck Indians, and fuck India.

    192. Re:Yet another great argument... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      That may work if you can pay 1960's prices (inflation adjusted) for that 900 square foot home. Sure, nowadays you can get a 30 year mortgage on that home so maybe the payment may be low enough that you can pull it off with a single income - but you're still taking decades to pay off that house when in 1960 you'd have it paid off in a few years, leaving money to do things like save for retirement or buying a new car every few years (which was quite common back in the day, as your typical car didn't last as long as a modern car). And don't forget the payments on the student loan, because without that college degree you're a lot less likely to get a job that'll make those house payments and support a family (yes, I know there are exceptions).

      On the upside though, your TV will cost a fraction of the 1960's TV and be far, far better.

    193. Re:Yet another great argument... by chihowa · · Score: 2

      It amazing me how many people just assert this in the face of about four centuries of increasing globalization accompanied by an ever-increasing middle class.

      Because until recently, globalization only meant the import/export of manufactured goods or raw supplies (ie, the outsourcing of the working class). Predictably, that had little negative impact on the middle class. Globalization now involves the outsourcing of the middle class, which seems to actually have an effect on the middle class.

      Both. This is well studied - imports make products cheaper for Americans far in excess of the total lost wages from those imports.

      You're going to have to provide some evidence for that assertion. I've not been able to find any credible source to back that up.

      Plus most Americans now own stock, directly or indirectly, and so also benefit from better profits.

      That's a generous stretch of indirectly. The benefit that the minority of middle class Americans who own stocks see from them is tiny compared to the income that the extremely wealthy are making from outsourcing.

      Anyway, you haven't explained exactly how a race to the bottom ends with "everywhere in the world having a real middles class" (and why we have to sacrifice the American middle class to make it). A race to the bottom means that the wages earned per unit time decrease until they just cover what is needed to subsist. Where exactly does a middle class come from that?

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    194. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed his point. There are more poor people in the US than in any point in history because we have been continually raising the cutoff to what we consider "poor". Poor people today are likely to have a car, a fridge, a cell phone, a flat screen TV, air conditioning, etc. The majority of the poor in the US are obese, not starving. Wages may be declining, but standard of living is still increasing.

      So basically, as long as the bread and circuses continue, all is well?

    195. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A car, TV, and cell phone are prerequsites if you don't WANT to be poor in America.

      Wages for the majority of americans have indeed been declining since Reagan, and the inequality only grows. The $800 TV's (bought on credit, not with cash) should most definitely be in our living rooms: we used to get by on one salary, now we need two salaries in order to live check-to-check after paying for two cars for transportation (due to poor transit), childcare, healthcare, and high costs of shelter. It's not a better standard of living when we need to use credit cards to pay bills or eat. The higher productivity of today should be benefitting everyone and truly increasing our standard of living- it's only benefitting the wealthy right now.

      One would do well to think upon exactly what constitutes a higher standard of living.

      Having more toys but no time to spend with your wife (yes, I do realize this is Slashdot) and children is not a higher standard of living. Having no time to exercise because you are stuck in traffic for two hours each day, with the stressful bullshit of corporate America sandwiched in between, is not a higher standard of living.

    196. Re:Yet another great argument... by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      I'd rather live in a world where I make $10 an hour with my lunch costing only $4 than live in a world where I make $20 an hour and the same lunch costs $20. And as time goes on, this is the reality we live in.

      So you'd rather make $76 a day than $140?

    197. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has the most progressive tax system in the world (when all taxation is taken into account), yet income disparity seems to be positively correlated to the amount of progressiveness in taxation.

      Yup, allowing Apple and Google to send all profits through Ireland so millions and millions of dollars never get to pay for bridge and levy repairs.

      Look at HK, look at Singapore. 15% and 9% flat rate income tax. The weather might be crap, but you can actually reach the standard of living your grandparents had back in the 1950's.

    198. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      free market capitalism is possible when the currency used has a standard value, and the participants in the system control the value of the currency.

      the current problem with the economy is the central bank, stipulated inflation, and a currency that has an imaginary value set by the central bank. guess who the members of the 1% of the 1% are - the central bankers.

    199. Re:Yet another great argument... by sabri · · Score: 1

      Or do you just get hung up on the fact that I said visa instead of greencard, get all bent out of shape, and offer little actual insight as to why what I said was any more than semantically wrong?

      On the contrary, I was trying to explain how it works. I could have just said "you're stupid".

      You're right, I'm not familiar with US immigration. On the other hand, the post I replied to said that they had no way, other than H1-B, to get PhD and Masters holding professionals to the US to work for them. Isn't an "employment based" greencard then an option? As it is more appropriate for his situation, maybe we ought to increase the number of them offered. They seem better for the US, anyway (let the best and brightest stay if they want to).

      I tried to explain how there is a "shortage" of employment based green cards, meaning that people will be in the queue for years. However, I failed to explain the practical consequences. Let me try.

      When someone wants to move to the US, permanently or temporarily, he or she needs a visa. A green card is considered a visa for that purpose so you were correct without even knowing it :) Anyway, as said before, the number of greencards (or: immigrant visa's as they are officially called) is limited on a fiscal-year basis. The number of employment based greencards are limited as a whole, but also per country. No country may receive more than 7% of the annual allotment. Chargeability is done by country of birth, not country of residence or citizenship. For Indians (with their 1.2 billion people) this means that they can be stuck in the queue for a long time.

      Since they cannot legally move the the US to work without a valid visa, many of them will first move on a temporary visa. Can they? In general no. But there are two exceptions: the L-1 and H1-B visa are referred to as Dual Intent visas. This means that, while they are considered temporary and limited in time, the holder can have the intent to immigrate. So what happens in practice, is that employers sponsor their H1-B (L-1 has more difficult prerequisites) and then apply for a greencard.

      Now to the bigger problem: the number of H1-B's which were alotted yeary is approx 85.000 with a few exceptions for special workers. As we know, about 75% of all H1-B's end up at Indian workers. Which is by itself not a problem, they qualify and are in general hard workers, and that's what the US needs. However, since the number of greencards is limited to 7% of the annual allotment, the queue for Indians is growing and growing. Each EB category (EB1, EB2 and EB3) will receive 265 greencards per month. Currently, there are up to 40.0000 people from India alone waiting for a greencard. Similar problems occur for Mexicans and Chinese, but in lower numbers.

      In short, increasing the number of H1-B's without increasing the number of greencards is only making matters worse. People will be stuck with their H1-B's longer, which means they will be stuck with their sponsoring employer longer. Which usually means they will receive lower wages longer.

      And this is why I believe that SV companies are lobbying for "immigration reform" that opens up the number of H1-B's, but not the yearly number of greencards. The solution would be to pre-allocate a greencard per dual-intent visa approved. That would mean that as soon as an employment based petition is approved, the adjustment of status is not a problem.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    200. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is actually correct. The subsidies on corn mean that cane sugar is (was) much more expensive then the highly processed high fructose corn syrup. Those subsidies on corn are a form of Protectionism, they protect the USA based farmers from outside economic forces although if I understand things correctly, most of the agriculture in the USA is now done by corporations rather then individual farmers.

    201. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, you are definately unhappy with India(ns). Now, don't be shy just comeput where you are from?, Lahore / Rawalpindi / POK or one of those tribal areas that breed muck of the world?. Is Dawood Ibrahim your neighbour?. Was it Mr.Sayeed whom you see everyday?.

    202. Re:Yet another great argument... by fdisk-o · · Score: 1

      A car, TV, and cell phone are prerequsites if you don't WANT to be poor in America.[snip] The $800 TV's (bought on credit, not with cash) should most definitely be in our living rooms

      The consumer culture that is thriving in the USA, as made example in your comment, are part of the reason the middle class in the USA have to work harder each year as they gradually sink in the economic order. They allow themselves to be fooled by advertising and popular culture into buying things that are not necessary. You _have_ to buy the car because you _have_ to have your McMansion in the suburbs. You _have_ to have the TV because you _have_ to watch your soaps(and advertising). You _have_ to have a credit card because you _can't_ wait to buy that shiny new whosiewhatsit.

      I'll agree that a cell phone is a modern convenience that makes a big difference, but the car and tv, the big house in the 'burbs, and the other trappings of popular middle-class life in the USA are what you need to make yourself poor. America's middle class is being consumed by it's consumerism, and it is so distracted that it doesn't seem able to notice.

      --
      -write unit tests, or else.
    203. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      economic "science" starts with assuming an infinite market, and total information.

    204. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would I care about making a dollar a day if my rent is 50 cents per month? The amount of money you make is irrelevent beyond what is required to live a decent life in your society. To wit: In 1965 (IIRC), minimum wage was $1.25. The current melt value of the silver in 5 1965 quarters is over $25; in today's dollars, a minimum wage earner 50 years ago was better off than much of today's population...

    205. Re:Yet another great argument... by evilRhino · · Score: 1

      It is no more part of the government than modern corporations such as Chase Manhattan or Monsanto. They may be run by the same people, but are distinct entities.

    206. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Go to Hong Kong.
      People are living in cages, on Sundays the maids are forced out to live on the street. You can't possibly be serious about Hong Kong as an example. It is a classic example of the horrors of the race to the bottom. Very few very rich and loads of barely getting by or totally impoverished.
      The 19 century in the USA was horrible. People died in the street for lack of money. Extreme poverty was visible everywhere.

      Northern Europe is a good example of the alternative.

    207. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      It is a balancing act, but just because it is harder does not make it worthwhile.

    208. Re:Yet another great argument... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      That is a gross misstatement. Income inequality (as per Mankiw et al) in the US is driven by lower redistribution than in other OECD countries.

      Only if you define "income" to include government hand-outs for non-productivity. That is, you can claim that people being made dependent on welfare helps them, (that is false), and after you confiscate fruits of labor for nothing more than providing unearned, non-taxable income to others (and claim that it's part of their "income"), then, yea, of course shifting money around by coercion can make the "income disparity" seem smaller. It's not, it's actually worse, but you've hidden the class division in sleight-of-hand, all while making the lower classes even less independent and more docile.

      But tax policy should not be a social engineering tool. That way lies tyranny. It's the reason for a tax code so complicated no one can understand it, other than the highly-paid accountants that ensure the wealthiest elites and large corporations can keep most of their money (overseas, if need be), while the burden falls heaviest on the middle class.

      Income disparity widened as the share of tax payments came more and more from the top 1%. In 1985, the top 1% of earners payed about 25% of the total tax federal tax burden, while the bottom 95% payed 55%. That has swung the other way as Reagan, Clinton and W. Bush shifted greater portions of the share to the upper incomes. In 2007 the top 1% actually payed a greater share (40%) of the total receipts than the lowest 95%. That's a more progressive tax system and yet income disparity has continued to increase.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    209. Re:Yet another great argument... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Look at HK, look at Singapore. 15% and 9% flat rate income tax. The weather might be crap, but you can actually reach the standard of living your grandparents had back in the 1950's.

      I can support a 9% flat income tax in the US!

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    210. Re:Yet another great argument... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Thanks! That was very informative. I wasn't aware of the mismatch between the visas and the fact that this reform is just making it worse. Also, it seems that the guest worker part of the bill was the only part that the House liked about the bill. Ugh.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    211. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      on Sundays the maids are forced out to live on the street

      That's not a result of free market capitalism, but a result of government regulation. Government ruled that those maids are not eligible to apply for residency. In other words, government decided those people do not deserve the welfare and social benefits that Hong Kong residents (taxpayers) get

      The opposition to giving them eligibility is that if they can apply for residency, they'll eventually bring their families over, and that puts extra burden on the Hong Kong welfare system.

      And this maid thing isn't the only social problem. Another one is with mainlanders from China coming to Hong Kong to give birth. Their children would be natural born Hong Kong residents, eligible to reap Hong Kong's welfare and social benefits, even though their parents didn't pay a dime in taxes to fund it.

      On the other hand, all this talk about welfare means that Hong Kong isn't exactly a free market as roman_mir likes to say it is.

    212. Re:Yet another great argument... by DizTorDed · · Score: 1

      The role of the federal government is NOT to represent the citizens nor get people back to work. Our local government is our representatives. It is our place to get back to work.

          To the point of our tax money spent to a foreign company, sure I would rather it spent with companies within our borders, however, our representatives did not put that regulation in the law. People are in such a push for lawmakers to get things done that they chose to forgo getting things right.

    213. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The free market is not providing them with any alternatives. If it was so glorious why would they need those welfare and social benefits? I more meant to indicate that they can't find any place to stay like hotels that are affordable for them. Which seems like the sort of thing roman_mir would suggest.

      Yeah, he would be pretty surprised about switzerland if he ever actually visited it too. I get the impression he is not exactly a world traveler.

    214. Re:Yet another great argument... by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      A) You're still not getting that those were British companies -- not American, and B) companies like the EIC were essentially an extension of the British government. As corporate as America has become, we still have no analog to that. Ergo, you have no argument here.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    215. Re:Yet another great argument... by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

      Libertarian *philosophy* doesn't get rid of litigation, just as communist *philosophy* didn't assume a fascist police state. Philosophy can be fun and though-provoking, but ideologies tend not to account for every variable in the real world. The differences between our world and the libertarian ideal are ones that would inevitably lead to massive accumulation of wealth at the very top and a very stratified class system. Soon enough the upper vestments of power will find the courts to be an unbearable annoyance and simply find various ways to influence them in their favor. Also, the 'bail outs' you refer to (though I would hardly call them 'constant') are NOT based on some feeling of goodwill nor were they part of some leftist plan. They're a result of the corporations buying the government. It's funny when libertarians complain of government corruption and then fight to give more power to the corporations who are corrupting them.

    216. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The free market is not providing them with any alternatives. If it was so glorious why would they need those welfare and social benefits?

      Other way around: if working as maids was so horrible why did they leave their home country to become maids in the first place? That's the alternative, and the maids decided that being a maid is better than the alternative

      And it's not the maids themselves who need welfare. It would be the maid's family who needs welfare, should maids get residency (the kid has to go to school, the elderly parents need healthcare, the husband needs help finding work or might stay unemployed, seeing as Hong Kong isn't exactly hiring them today anyways)

      I more meant to indicate that they can't find any place to stay like hotels that are affordable for them

      As roman_mir would say, nonsense

      By law, their employer has to provide them living accommodations.

      I get the impression he is not exactly a world traveler.

      If you ask me, my impression is that he's a double agent working for government. My impression he's only pretending to despise government and socialism.

    217. Re:Yet another great argument... by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Yup, because I have plenty of time to become a doctor, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, civil engineer, and physicist in order to examine all the products I interact with in day to day life. And of course the vast majority of the world is smart enough to do that too- we're just too lazy due to government interference.

      I'm really, really hoping your post was snark at the libertarians.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    218. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The market failed in the past. I am basing this on history. Go look it up.

      I would allow people to drink in a shelter if it was up to me. Many european nations already do this. Harm reduction is what we should shoot for. I would not allow living on the street by choice. This is nothing new, vagrancy is normally a crime in the USA.

      The market failed to do that in the past. Instead we got workers abused and consumers lied too. If I can just say I give masks to my painters at my car factory I can pocket the extra you are paying me.

      We change the government all the time. The change is slow as it should be. I am very happy you cannot institute your changes. They are foolish short sighted and proven wrong by history.

      Switching nations for someone like you is not too bad. The poor are who generally illegally immigrate.

    219. Re:Yet another great argument... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If the maids are forced onto the street they need something. Like maybe a hotel.

      So why are they staying in the street if they have these options? Sure looks like that 24 hour rest period does not include something.

      I am not a big fan of silly conspiracy theories. Him being an ideologue who ignores facts is far more likely.

    220. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the maids are forced onto the street they need something.

      If

      I think it's more likely they're not forced, and the thing they "need" is entertainment, which is what those streets outside provide.

      I say they aren't forced, because another clause in the law is that the accommodations have to provide a level of privacy. So if a maid chooses to stay in her room at the employer's place the whole day like some nerds, she technically could. Most don't choose to, that's all.

      I can understand why they wouldn't. I mean, do you really want to spend your day off in the same place as you work the other 6 days of the week? I'd be more worried if the maids aren't going outside on their day off, or getting called back by their employer on their day off. You know, like certain IT professions.

      So why are they staying in the street if they have these options?

      Because it's stupid to pay for hotel when (again) your employer already has to, by law, give you a place to stay?
      Because Hong Kong isn't America, and it actually has streets/places worth going to on your day off?
      Because, again unlike much of America, Hong Kong has a robust public transportation system, so those people "staying in the street" can move about to those interesting places?
      Because, again unlike much of America, Hong Kong's public parks and recreation facilities are actually good and worth hanging around, and is cheaper than spending money to go to a hotel?

      You're presenting a false choice that the only reason they're outside is due to a bad one that fits your agenda. roman_mir actually mentioned false choices earlier. Even if roman_mir is wrong before, you're in the process of turning that around and making him right. For your own sake, I suggest you don't do that.

      Him being an ideologue who ignores facts is far more likely.

      That's nice, but whether roman_mir is an ideologue has no bearing on you being correct yourself about the maids. Thinking that "he's wrong, so I must be right" would be another false choice.

    221. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your last paragraph means nothing without knowing the share of income of the 1 and 95 percent groups in those years.

    222. Re:Yet another great argument... by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

      What? The US is drowning in liability. People are suing each other for spilling coffee! Both political parties are run by lawyers for lawyers, and the more lawyers run things the more liability they want everyone to have because they collect more money. Liability prevents entrepreneurs from releasing better products, tv shows, video games, etc and investors from funding these nice things. The Sarbanes-Oxley after Enron further extended liability.

    223. Re:Yet another great argument... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Right, but when people sue McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on themselves, they sue McDonald's Corporation and not the lady who sold them the coffee or Donald Thomson.

      Note that I'm not endorsing that kind of nonsense. I agree that warning labels on hair dryers saying not to use them in the tub goes too far. Every plastic bag I've ever gotten says "not a toy" or some such nonsense on it. Except my expensive Ziplock sandwich bags... what the hell?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    224. Re:Yet another great argument... by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

      "Earn" trumps "Need".

      The word "objectively" is like trying to talk over someone. You're saying they have no right to their opinion because you're talking the loudest and disguising the fact that it is your opinion the most. If anything it should serve to disregard your claim.

    225. Re:Yet another great argument... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Your last paragraph means nothing without knowing the share of income of the 1 and 95 percent groups in those years.

      Only if you assume that property rights don't exist - you know, like in Communist countries and feudal monarchies.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    226. Re:Yet another great argument... by lgw · · Score: 1

      A race to the bottom means that the wages earned per unit time decrease until they just cover what is needed to subsist. Where exactly does a middle class come from that?

      Here's what you're missing: those factory jobs in China are good jobs. They provide a far better lifestyle than subsistence farming. It's very much like America in the 19th century, or Japan in the early 1950s. That makes the local standard of living rise.

      That's the secret. It's not a zero sum game. The rich can make more and the workers can also make more at the same time, because the workers have more to spend and so the pie gets bigger. This has happened over and over again in every country's industrial revolution.

      Sure, companies keep searching for places with a cheaper workforce, because the latest workforce is now well paid. The end is middle class everywhere, not middle class nowhere. Emerging nations emerge, and the world economy grows.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    227. Re:Yet another great argument... by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      http://everything2.com/title/expatriation+tax

      Yeah, except for that huge chunk of change Uncle Sam wants before he lets you leave.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    228. Re:Yet another great argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people think we're getting the shaft from China, but it's really the other way around. They give us nice LCD screens, smartphones, and even capital goods (capital goods being tools used to build our infrastructure) and in return we give them useless little pieces of paper that we basically charge them interest on (inflation.)

      Actually you have that backwards. They give us trinkets and in return we give them money. We export so much money that we need to borrow from china to make it possible to send them more money. Now we owe them money for the money we already gave them.

      Seriously.... you speak about something you know absolutely nothing about.

    229. Re:Yet another great argument... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      It's not a zero sum game, but the end result is that the working classes get paid less and less and the wealthy class collects more and more. Every time this labor arbitrage scheme is pulled in a new location, the wages in the first world fall and the wages in the developing country rise by a much smaller amount (it may seem like a lot to them, but it doesn't raise their standard of living, as a whole society, to our level). The wealthy class keeps this difference and thus own more of the pie (even if the pie is larger).

      This uplifting of poorer economies can be done without causing any damage to the developed world and increasing the wealth inequality here (the race to the bottom for wages). It's being done not because these wealthy capital owners are being kind to the developing countries, but because it is making them more wealthy. And the race to the bottom for wages makes income fall for the working classes (by design), while prices have steadily increased (see the CPI, etc), and wealth increases for the wealthy. This is not a beautiful world of plenty for all that is being made here.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    230. Re:Yet another great argument... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, opinions about how the economy works will always differ I guess. But you can tell who's right: the ones who accumulate wealth over time by betting their beliefs. Hope yours work out for you as well as mine have.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    231. Re:Yet another great argument... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Money is a relative number. It is completely pointless to compare two numbers without context. In his context, you could get lunch for 30min of work, while in the other context, you could get the same lunch for 1 hour of work.

      I would prefer working 30min to eat than 1hour.

    232. Re:Yet another great argument... by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

      Sarbanes-Oxley means they can sue Donald Thomson (the CEO), and yet you propose liability is too limited?

      Liability is ludicrously out of control. Corporations should not be liable because of spilt coffee, let alone their CEO's or their investors. The Enron investors should be punished by the fact that the free market determined their shares in Enron are worthless.

    233. Re:Yet another great argument... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      What? So you close the argument by saying, "I've got mine"?

      For the record, I'm fine financially and my job is quite secure. But you can't seriously argue that a system designed to benefit one group over another works for everybody because the people who designed the system are benefiting.

      There are many people out there who can't manage their money and who will never accumulate wealth. That does not, however, give anyone else a moral free pass to abuse them for profit.

      I'm financially better off every year by virtue of my contributions to society. To the extent that I am able, my well-being isn't propped up by the suffering of anyone else. (I cannot directly affect foreign policy, but I try to influence it as much as I can. Otherwise, I buy locally and domestically produced goods, which don't really cost that much more than goods produced overseas by children in sweatshops.)

      Betting on one's beliefs is just a virtuous-sounding way of saying gaming the system at the expense of the other players.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    234. Re:Yet another great argument... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      None of that stuff that you listed matter. All that matters is if I work 1 hour of time, can I purchase 1 hour of someone else time. With advancement of technology, time becomes more efficient, so 1 hour of someones time can get you more, but it doesn't increase the value of the time.

      If I work for 8 hours and make enough money to purchase a microwave oven, that doesn't make me more rich than someone 100 years ago who could work their entire life and not purchase a microwave oven because they didn't exist.

      All that matters is if I work 8 hours, I can purchase 8 hours of work from someone else. Obviously some professions are in more demand. Say a doctor is in demand 100x more than me. If I work 100 hours, I should be able to purchase 1 hours of a doctors time and get my heart fixed. If 50 years ago they couldn't fix my heart, but I could get 1 hour of a doctor's time for only 10 hours of work, then I was effectively making 10x more "money".

      Time is money and time's value is based on the ratio of demand. I can purchase a pocket calculator for $5 from a Walmart check-out line, but that doesn't suddenly make me "rich" because a computer that strong 30 years ago was worth millions of dollars.

      Problems arise when my one's time is worth 1/10th that of a doctor's time, but one has to pay 100x because of imbalances in the system.

    235. Re:Yet another great argument... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If I work for 8 hours and make enough money to purchase a microwave oven, that doesn't make me more rich than someone 100 years ago who could work their entire life and not purchase a microwave oven because they didn't exist.

      It certainly gives you a higher standard of living. Perhaps a microwave isn't the best example, but a clothes washer sure is. You get to spend the hour that you would have been scrubbing clothes doing anything else you want. You are 1/24 richer every day that you would have done laundry.

      All that matters is if I work 8 hours, I can purchase 8 hours of work from someone else.

      Why in the world should I care how much work went into something?

      I can purchase a pocket calculator for $5 from a Walmart check-out line, but that doesn't suddenly make me "rich" because a computer that strong 30 years ago was worth millions of dollars.

      As an engineer, I have to disagree. When I watch the NASA engineers in newsreels from the 50s yanking away on their slide rules, I realize I never would have gone into this occupation at all. The amount of time that I save myself each year by using Excel or MATLAB versus hand calculations is just staggering.

      You claim that "time is money", but you ascribe no value to the extra time you are getting from these conveniences.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    236. Re:Yet another great argument... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think I agree with you, but we are kind of talking past one another. Lawsuits like the spilled coffee episode are indeed ludicrous. But it would be just as ludicrous if a local coffee shop owner was sued rather than McDonalds. However, this is a separate issue from what I am talking about. I'm all for ways to reduce frivolous or ridiculous lawsuits in general. However, if you step back from product liability for a moment you can see that there are other types of completely reasonable lawsuits.

      For instance, let's say I buy a hunk of land and put a gas station on it. I screw up and leak gas all over the place and it screws up the ground water. You, my neighbor, sue my gas station for screwing up your drinking water. I lose the case, and my gas station has to go bankrupt. Hell, maybe you even "win" my polluted gas station. But my house, my car, and any other assets I have are completely safe, since I took advantage of the government concept of the corporation.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    237. Re:Yet another great argument... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Long term, wealth multiplies in the hands of those whose understanding of the economy is correct, and dwindles in the hands of those who fail to understand it. That's one hell of a lot better system than the previous one (wealth being the reward for military victory).

      Gaming the system at the expense of other players is a poor long term strategy, unless the government's in your pocket. Buy what you think people should buy. Invest where you think people should invest. The whole world's problems aren't yours to solve, just one man's share of them.

      But, ultimately, you gain wealth by helping people create it. It's a fair measure, at least among those who don't pull the puppet strings on the government.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    238. Re:Yet another great argument... by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      LOL, of course, I didn't even imagine it could be read any other way.

    239. Re:Yet another great argument... by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

      I can't tell whether or not you're saying the example where your personal assets are protected (even if you lose your business) is good or bad.

      If you view it as bad people are not going to want to run businesses. They will cash out on the cheap, customers will lose confidence in the service/product, and a misery cycle ensues. Certainly businesses will not open themselves up to new markets (new liabilities) because coming out even (not making a profit) is not acceptable to anyone and certainly losing money (or a marginal probability of losing money) is going to dry up the interest of anyone thinking about providing a new product or service.

      If you view the limited liability model as good then we agree.

    240. Re:Yet another great argument... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If you view it as bad people are not going to want to run businesses.

      I can't agree with you. People have sole proprietorships today, and they certainly had them 100+ years ago prior to the creation of the modern limited liability corporation.

      My view is more nuanced than agreeing or disagreeing with the limited liability model. I can agree that it is a good thing for blind investors - you shouldn't be liable for an Exxon oil spill just because you own some shares in your 401(k). I don't think that it's a good idea for activist owners or employees.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    241. Re:Yet another great argument... by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

      Yes, I don't think there is a right/wrong between SP and LLC's. There should be some amount of freedom.

      On the other hand, back in the early 20th century -when people were forming the big name sole proprietorships- juries were not giving away millions of dollars of someone else's money because they felt bad for somebody. A lot of the big name SP's have moved to corps for just this reason. You just can't make a business work when its getting shakedowns from greedy lawyers all the time.

    242. Re:Yet another great argument... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Simple regulation. Goods coming in receive tariffs like we used to, based on ethics. In other words, much of western Europe has similar rights & protections, so they trade freely. A nation that might not meet those levels would pay varying tariffs. Maybe 20% for Russia. 40% for Chinese goods. Korea and Japan would trade freely. Cuba might have a 200% tariff.

    243. Re:Yet another great argument... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      No, I think the thousands of unemployed programmers will find jobs. Good jobs, which equate to $50,000 job in the 1970's. Oh, what is that in today's world $200,000.

      Here is the sad truth, today, my salary is the equivalent of a $15,000 job when I was born. (mid-70's)

  2. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why is this type of work not being done by an American company with American workers? This must be how Obama said we would "save money" on healthcare. By offshoring jobs critical to the program.

    With everything that's been going on recently, can Obama do anything worse? We're finding out day after day that this guy is a colossal screw up.

    1. Re:Why? by CrzyP · · Score: 2

      Because it would cost D.C. about 5 times more if it was done here?

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's put it this way: outsourced Indian IT is no better or worse than your typical government contractor or employee.

    3. Re:Why? by penglust · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Number? Studies? Actual data? I keep hearing this kind of crap. The problem is every time a project I was on got associated with off shoring it ended up costing time and effort here to cover up the screw ups.

      Again, present actual facts. I am sick and tired of the same old sound bites that just never seem to be true.

    4. Re:Why? by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, but it will cost 20 times more to be burdened by and the be forced to fix a shitty first implementation.

      Do it right the first time or you're going to pay even more to do it right the second.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    5. Re:Why? by PortHaven · · Score: 0

      Good, and then guess what...

      That 5x as much, would mean 5x as many jobs. Those jobs would pay taxes. The rest of the $$$ they'd spend on goods and services. Creating more jobs, which would in turn ALSO pay taxes.

    6. Re:Why? by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 2

      Yeah, because American companies have an excellent track record with government IT projects.

    7. Re:Why? by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      Average salary of systems administrator in India - ~$4,000 US
      Average salary of a systems administrator in Washington DC - ~$75,000 US

      'nuff said

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    8. Re:Why? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Because it would cost D.C. about 5 times more if it was done here?

      Then maybe we shouldn't do it anywhere.

    9. Re:Why? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about the real question, since companies are ephemeral entities with no real way to measure their "americanness." Why have we inserted pointless middlemen of contracting companies into our government's process of managing itself. The fact is that it's an internal project, and having developers working for the government wouldn't really cost us much more. We've yoked ourselves to the wagon of privatization, without really caring what that means. I'm not entirely convinced of the value of having entire industries built around providing workers to the government when the government can damn well hire its own employees.

    10. Re:Why? by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because all companies have an excellent track record with government IT projects.

      FTFY

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    11. Re:Why? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      If this ends up being like their programmer outsourcing, you will pay 10 people to do the work of one over here, then you will still have to fix it when the work comes back

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    12. Re: Why? by StormyWeather · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I work for Accenture, my counterparts in India cost 1/5 of my wage and in many ways equal my quality. I'm not going to stick my fingers in my ears and him loudly, it is the facts.

    13. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Average salary of systems administrator in India - ~$4,000 US
      Average salary of a systems administrator in Washington DC - ~$75,000 US

      'nuff said

      Average quality of systems administrator in India - ~$4,000 US
      Average quality of a systems administrator in Washington DC - ~$75,000 US

      'nuff said

    14. Re:Why? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Pretty much that.
      What no one thinks about is the for an outside source to provide you with something they have to charge what that costs and profit. Now if you need a single trinket that works, but if you need lots of work done hiring directly can be substantially cheaper. For this kind of thing I would think some direct hire and some contract workers would be best.

      Shopping it out has to be the most expensive way to do it.

    15. Re:Why? by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      Average quality of a government systems administrator - Priceless

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    16. Re:Why? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Except outsourced overseas IT doesn't have to suffer the consequences of a bug. Government employees (excepting congressmen) do.

    17. Re: Why? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I work for Accenture, my counterparts in India cost 1/5 of my wage and in many ways equal my quality. I'm not going to stick my fingers in my ears and him loudly, it is the facts.

      So in the name of helping the american economy you should clearly accept an 80% pay cut to make yourself competitive with someone from India :)

      (PS - This is a joke, in my experience offshoring to India is an utter disaster as your average indian outsourced development company will never give you an honest assessment of time involved in a project or actually admit when they are going to overrun the deadline before they do, causing any sort of confrontation is just too alien to the local culture even when it is better in the long run)

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    18. Re:Why? by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Average salary of systems administrator in India - ~$4,000 US
      Average salary of a systems administrator in Washington DC - ~$75,000 US


      Availability of your systems administrator when the shit hits the fan:
      Outsourced to India - ~The third Thursday after Monsoon season ends.
      In-house in DC - ~Already waiting in your office with an apology and an action plan.

      Which one do you want to explain to the board you hired to save $71k/year, while the company hemorrhages 10x that per day in downtime because of your savings?

      Now in fairness, I've worked with Indian H1Bs, and they pretty much have the same skills profiles as Americans - Half can just about get the job done when nothing exciting comes up, a quarter suck, and a quarter rock. But despite that, outsourcing still simply doesn't work for one simple reason - Management views it as waving the magic green wand and making a pesky project someone else's problem; when in reality, outsourced work requires more careful management than traditional in-house development.

      Any PHB who thinks coding something to spec means a job well done, has never actually looked at the craptastic quality of most real-world specs.

    19. Re: Why? by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Do you compare the bills you both have to pay?

      Cause, you know, in my homeland in Eastern Europe I can get along nicely with 1/5 of a German salary....

    20. Re:Why? by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      I know and completely agree with everything you said. However, as far as the government is concerned, they look at $$$, not at the quality of work or any of the numerous important factors which you spelled out.

      The government is like the guy that needs to buy a lawnmower and finds something on Craigslist. He spend $50 for a lawnmower that works for a month then blows up. So he buys another $50 lawnmower on Craigslist. The cycle repeats. By the end of the year, he's spent $300 buying used lawnmowers because they are "cheaper," when he could have bought a brand-new one for $250 and not had any problems.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    21. Re:Why? by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Effects, directly, note 1, note 2
      Another person either
          On the dole ( increases govt spending in US ), possibly leading to increase in crime in US
          Jobless, possibly homeless ( note 1 ), possibly leading to increase in crime in US
          Going after the dwindling pool of jobs in "career", resulting in downward pressure on IT wage ( which reduces tax revenue in US ).
          Going after pool of jobs out of career, downward pressure on wages ( reduction in tax revenue ).

      Note 1, Lost tax revenue to US govt, decrease in aggregate amount available to spend in US economy
      Note 2, Additional tax revenue to India's govt, increase in aggregate amount available to spend in India's economy

      There are other cascade effects, prices in US will have to fall, given the decreases in amounts available to spend.
      ( I.E., you have less to spend, so you move out of your house ( reducing mortgage/rent paid ), you tighten the belt ( spending less on food, and non-essentials ) , which means lowered amounts going to your creditors/people-you-pay-for-stuff, which means, in turn, less for them.....

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    22. Re: Why? by KingMotley · · Score: 2

      my counterparts in India cost 1/5 of my wage and in many ways equal my quality

      I'm not sure if you are trying to sell us on the quality of the work done by off-shore workers, or your lack of quality. Either way it works I suppose.

      BTW, I'm working 3 blocks north of you, and I've never seen an off-shore team that was of any quality.

    23. Re: Why? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      The US mid-west has a much lower cost of living than areas like say California or New York, more expensive than say India or Manila. There are companies that instead of outsourcing move operations into this are of the US and do great when working with other American companies.

      I have worked with companies that work with Accenture and when I hear the name I cringe.

    24. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's a brilliant move. Most large scale US Gov't software projects (DTS, ERP, the new-ish VA system) not only are NEVER completely finished, they spiral into the BILLIONS of dollars.

      If we are going to be perpetually re-designing and re-implementing we might as well opt for the cheapest labor, afterall if you "get what you pay for" why shouldn't we "pay for what we get".

    25. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if your writing skills are any indication, you are severely overpaid.

    26. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was hired a few years by a US firm to "help move along" a project that was 3 years late brought back in from India. The software was total crap, had to do 90 percent rewrite, had "fixed" in 3 months and shipping to customers. After that the company brought in the same off-shore coders for me to show how the software worked. A few months later they gave them a few other projects then let me go because as my manager said "they could hire 10 of them for your salary". Fast forward 2 years, company asked if I was interested in working for them to help with late projects. My reply... go fuck yourself !

    27. Re: Why? by plover · · Score: 1

      I know some great offshore developers, and I also know some American developers that aren't worth their salt. Each assessment needs to be made at a personal level; you can't make a valid blanket stereotyped claim that fits everyone.

      What I see causing most of the poor quality work is developers who are suffering from idiotic corporate practices, policies, and rules. "All developers shall submit their UML drawings to the UML Governance Board, and have them approved by no less than three board members, thus ensuring quality software will be developed from them." Very few developers (onshore or offshore) are successful producing quality software in such an environment, and it's especially tough for contractors who feel constrained to follow the letter of the rules without question. Now apply that constraint to a culture that reinforces the idea to accept work tasks without question anyway, and the lack of feedback pretty much ensures you'll get unexpected results.

      Take the chains off, though, and you can get spectacular results from good people. You'll never get those results from bad developers, regardless of which landmass they live on.

      --
      John
    28. Re:Why? by plover · · Score: 1

      Average quality of a government systems administrator - Priceless

      Is that an advertising joke, or a division by zero error? :-)

      --
      John
    29. Re: Why? by Xeleema · · Score: 1

      I work for Accenture, my counterparts in India cost 1/5 of my wage and in many ways equal my quality. I'm not going to stick my fingers in my ears and him loudly, it is the facts.

      Well I've worked alongside Accenture for years, and if what you say is technically factual in the slightest that means that
      a) You are as technically competent as your Indian peers
      a) That standard of competency is not very high.

      tl;dr Best to be thought a fool and say nothing, than to speak and remove all doubt

      --
      "When I am king, you will be first against the wall..."
    30. Re: Why? by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Oh look, accidenture is here.

    31. Re:Why? by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      Since a government systems administrator wrote the post, it MUST HAVE been a division by zero error. We are not expected to do many things. And the few things we are expected to do, have such a low standard that monkey's on a typewriter could do it.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    32. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you have a bunch of problems too. Just that they probably don't affect middle class/upper class white people.

    33. Re: Why? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I know some great offshore developers, and I also know some American developers that aren't worth their salt. Each assessment needs to be made at a personal level; you can't make a valid blanket stereotyped claim that fits everyone.

      I'm in finance, not development. But my experience is that you get what you pay for. Good finance people in India are only slightly cheaper than here in the US; add in the off-shoring complications, it's a losing prospect. We save money on drone jobs, but that's about it.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    34. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it will cost 20 times more to be burdened by and the be forced to fix a shitty first implementation.

      Thereby creating more jobs. See, it's a win-win! ~

    35. Re: Why? by penglust · · Score: 2

      I agree with you completely. Over the last 25+ years I have come in early to work with the German, French, Dutch, Finnish and Israilis. Every one of them had their own quirks and problems (including me) but we always manged to work together and get the problems solved. I even moved to Germany and wrote software there for 3 years. Had a blast.

      I have often worked as a consultant here remotely. It can be tough to keep things together when you are remote. For the last 18 years there has often been been Indians along with the other nationalities in the office. I get along pretty well with them but I never claimed to get along with everybody in any situation.

      I do not know what it is with outsourcing to India. It has in the projects I have been associated with be a failure. I believe it is partly culture and partly just the fact that we are pretty much exactly 12 hours out of phase and it makes it impossible to coordinate on a real time basis. I know it seems the concept of CYA is a strong one in the projects I have seen.

    36. Re:Why? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Number? Studies? Actual data? I keep hearing this kind of crap. The problem is every time a project I was on got associated with off shoring it ended up costing time and effort here to cover up the screw ups.

      Again, present actual facts. I am sick and tired of the same old sound bites that just never seem to be true.

      The original poster won't give you the data, because any data that exists doesn't support his/her point. Take the Snowden/NSA debacle. If Snowden were a government employee, he wouldn't be making $200,000/yr even with benefits. Now figure in the salaries of the his supervisors and the owners, etc., plus the profit being made by the company. A government network administrator would have made $60,000 add another 40% for benefits, brings the total to $84,000 or $116,000 less than what was actually being paid.

      Outsourcing makes sense in some situations such as temporary positions or extremely technical positions, but the outsourcing of common jobs by the government doesn't meet these conditions and has nothing to do with cost savings but instead is the modern form of political patronage.

    37. Re:Why? by trojjan · · Score: 1

      Availability of your systems administrator when the shit hits the fan: Outsourced to India - ~The third Thursday after Monsoon season ends.

      How deluded are you? I work as a system admin in India with a company that has most of it's clients in US/Europe/Australia and I can't use that excuse. Of course you were using a hyperbole but it isn't even close to reality. The reason the quality suffers when you are outsourcing is *not* because of the competence of the workers it's because they don't really have an incentive to perform. We outsourced some of work to US(To be clearer it was a US based company that we bought out) and guess what the 2 projects with them are 2 years overdue. And here's the kicker they used company funds for personnel benefit and now we are suing them (or trying to, I don't know the details since I'm not in management)

    38. Re: Why? by plover · · Score: 1

      We have India offices staffed with employee developers, not contractors. And that really is the best thing about our organization - we're all in it together, so there isn't an us-versus-them mentality. It's convenient to hold contractors at arm's length, and blame them when things go awry, and it's easy to say "let's end this contract." But it's very hard when you're all reporting to the same boss. That's had a lot to do with our success.

      And you're absolutely right about the time difference being an issue. But you can make it work to a degree.

      They've shifted their working times to start later in the morning and end later in the evening, and we have shifted our mornings to accommodate earlier meetings. We can get two hours of overlap every day with few problems, and depending on the situation we can get an additional couple of hours. It's enough to have hand-off kinds of meetings, and to discuss a project or specific problem, but not enough to work with them in a coaching, mentoring, or close partnership kind of role. That takes expensive travel, so it doesn't happen as much as either side would like. But when it does, it's great. I have some very good friends who just happen to live on the other end of a long plane ride, and I appreciate that globalization introduced us.

      --
      John
  3. pretty much required, isn't it? by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These kinds of contracts are supposed to be bid out to the lowest bidder.

    If that actually happens: people complain that a company like Infosys wins the contract.

    If it doesn't happen: people complain that the government is overpaying for IT services, and back up their allegations by quoting a much lower price someone in the private sector got (...from Infosys) as evidence that the government is inefficient.

    1. Re:pretty much required, isn't it? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is this cost plus or fixed price?

      I ask because I suspect the former and that there will be lots of extra costs not factored into the quote. Like rewriting it over and over when the lowest bidder not surprisingly supplies crap.

    2. Re:pretty much required, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably would have given two bids also. A US developed bid, and a Indian developed bid.

    3. Re:pretty much required, isn't it? by slashmydots · · Score: 2

      Any time my company looks for subcontracting bids, we automatically eliminate companies that are in legal hot water or have other significant reasons to not hire them, like for example if it's primarily outsourced. I hope the media drags this through the fires of hell until they make a different decision.

    4. Re:pretty much required, isn't it? by csumpi · · Score: 0

      It all depends. If republicans do it, they are killing our economy by sending jobs overseas. If democrats do it, it's a genius move to lower spending.

    5. Re:pretty much required, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These kinds of contracts are supposed to be bid out to the lowest bidder.

      If that actually happens: people complain that a company like Infosys wins the contract.

      If it doesn't happen: people complain that the government is overpaying for IT services, and back up their allegations by quoting a much lower price someone in the private sector got (...from Infosys) as evidence that the government is inefficient.

      "We gave the work to the lowest bidding US based firm", sounds pretty good to me.

    6. Re:pretty much required, isn't it? by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These kinds of contracts are supposed to be bid out to the lowest bidder.

      Not necessarily. Another common standard is, "best value."

      Cheapest "up front" doesn't always equal cheapest total cost.

      Cheapest doesn't necessarily mean you are getting a good deal.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. Re:pretty much required, isn't it? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      There actually are rules on that, but in this case the firm winning the contract was technically a U.S.-based firm, which happens to be a subsidiary of a foreign company.

      You could try to prohibit that, but that would cut out a lot of companies that often legitimately bid for contracts, e.g. Siemens USA is the American subsidiary of German-based Siemens. You could alternatively disqualify companies that outsource more than a certain percentage of their work, but that would disqualify a number of US-based firms, too, like IBM.

    8. Re:pretty much required, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any time my company looks for subcontracting bids, we automatically eliminate companies that are in legal hot water or have other significant reasons to not hire them, like for example if it's primarily outsourced. I hope the media drags this through the fires of hell until they make a different decision.

      They won't. There's going to be some cruise ship run out of gas or a Kardashian said WHAT to her waiter?

      The conservatives may try and cause a stink, but I bet not, since they'd have to answer to any outsourced projects they've ever been involved with.

    9. Re:pretty much required, isn't it? by Krazy+Kanuck · · Score: 2

      I've made a living cleaning up after these clowns (Infosys, not the government, well not directly anyways). So when the money runs out, and/or you get tired of shoveling money at them, feel free to give me ring. They excel at playing shell games with resources you just trained to proficiency or completed KT sessions with. Deadlines are often met with rehashed code form other projects or dummy code (always love digging through forms and procedures to find its hard coded to NULL or finding code that has the rare comment or variable that has another firm's name on it). When you think you can't possibly explain an idea or concept any other way they'll still come back asking you to explain it again, and again, and again....

    10. Re:pretty much required, isn't it? by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      This is the D.C. government we're talking about. Procurement irregularities there have kept investigative reporters employed there for decades.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    11. Re:pretty much required, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like IBM.

      Good. They're already on a warpath to expunge American workers from their workforce. While IBM seemingly did a good job with Watson (and a couple memory discoveries), they appear to be an atrocious company.

      In their case, maybe we should just expedite the process.

    12. Re:pretty much required, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These kinds of contracts are supposed to be bid out to the lowest bidder.

      I can come up with a pretty low bid too if I'm using workers in India who work for a tenth what you do. Or, alternatively, exploit what passes for immigration law in this country and bring my teeming masses of programmers here, working for what will become starvation wages.

  4. Groan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is too bad. I very much want to see the new healthcare plan succeed. Now the conservatives are going to say "See? See? Told you it doesn't work! No one deserves reasonably priced healthcare. Let The Free Market sort it out."

    And to be clear, it wouldn't have been much different if the contract were awarded to IBM, Accenture, etc. The problem is the level of abstraction that an outsourcer adds to the project. Having the coders offshore just makes it worse.

    I've been on a couple of Infosys projects in the past (both as a third party contractor and an FTE) and for the most part, they're just like any other outsourcer -- super-expensive, taking forever to do anything, etc. Code quality was garbage, just like any other firm . Indian or not, that's the root of the problem. Everything can be done cheaper in-house, but the accounting tricks employed by business make it expensive to have FTEs.

    1. Re:Groan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, I know the argument tends to reach fever pitches of hysterics on both sides, but the core reasons for not undertaking government sponsored health-care is because ultimately it makes promises that the government won't be able to deliver on in the long run.

      It has little do do with "deserving health care" or "not being communists".

      The fact is that health care is a gigantic black hole that you can pay for while things are good, but sooner or later, something happens and flushes it down the toilet. Demographic collapse is already threatening to destroy pensions. Consider what happens when all your old people live even longer, but are still retired and getting government supported health care, but there are fewer workers to pay for it.

      Hopefully, our efficiency will get that much better than we can support them, but the reality is that the market appears to be evening out labor cost disparities by flooding production into markets where labor has a low cost due to years of artificially protecting wages of First World workers.

      Fully utilizing and improving the lot of poorer countries and their people is helping humanity overall in the long run, but until wages even out, those who were sailing on top of artificially produced wage disparities are going to suffer a loss of standard of living.

      So, in the end, the fact is that while everyone wants free or "better" health care, just legislating it into existence doesn't actually make it work, at least not in the long run. Some of us would prefer that we didn't make promises that we can't responsibly keep in the long run, and would prefer to hold the line at something like meaningful reform to improve efficiency.

      Personally, I see government health care, and its eventual failure as something that could throw the country into complete chaos and even rebellion. It would be sad indeed if we ended up in a bloody revolution and eventual dictatorship simply because we couldn't avoid destroying ourselves with "bread and circuses". I know that seems a little alarmist, but look at the past and understand that revolutions like that happen when governments start writing checks that can't be cashed, but the people are accustomed to expecting that these issues will be handled by the government, and they are angered when their needs aren't met to their expectations. In retrospect, I wonder if perhaps it is already too late, and if the time to stop this was before we even developed this reliance on government.

    2. Re:Groan by thoth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You know, I know the argument tends to reach fever pitches of hysterics on both sides, but the core reasons for not undertaking government sponsored health-care is because ultimately it makes promises that the government won't be able to deliver on in the long run.

      How is this any different than private corporations running the insurance? They'll make the same promises and just declare bankruptcy when they can't meet the obligations. They'll prescreen their population to ensure profitability (i.e. no pre-existing conditions, jacked up rates for the elderly, etc.) so enter government regulations... and if the government has to regulate to ensure fairness, why not let them administer the program? It seems to work (so far) in basically every other country in the world.

      Fundamentally, health care (and education for that matter) aren't "market" products. Everybody needs them, and that is something the "free market" doesn't handle well in the case where some portion of the customer base cannot afford them.

      The free market handles car sales and stuff like that great - prices float, lots of competition, but ultimately if you can't afford one you can do without. Maybe its inconvenient, but that's entirely different that say you with the congenital heart defect, who cannot afford the health care you need to stay alive.

      Now the free market would simply say "fuck you" to those people and let them die. Can't afford the service = you don't get the service. After all, they were selected by random biology to suck up more resources to screw them, right?

      The rest of us in the modern world, with the richest country in the history of the known universe, find this outcome simply unacceptable. In fact, rather than piss away the resources of the country on random bullshit to benefit the wealthy, how about investing some into the actual literal welfare of the population. You know, one of those functions government is supposed to provide for its people?

      Your nightmare scenario about the failure of government health care leading to chaos is exactly balanced by the same failure of the private insurance/medical industry causing the same chaos. People get sick and have their retirements wiped out. A car accident through no fault of their own tosses the family into poverty. Debts mount people simply can't handle. Etc. Sorry but this is a time when government reliance is the only answer, that being: too goddamn bad medical industry, we're imposing a ceiling on the profits you're allowed to make. That's what it all revolves around, capping fees and controlling costs, versus private industry exercising monopoly situations to extract maximum profit of people's suffering.

  5. What an inflammatory submission by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obamacare + foreign workers = WIN! (for you click-whoring editors)

    By this logic, probably every government IT project has some element of either outsourced labor or parts manufactured overseas. Right now, I'm trying to find an article that I can reduce to a headline with big tits, gun rights, and failed Bush foreign policy in it...

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:What an inflammatory submission by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Obamacare + foreign workers = WIN! (for you click-whoring editors)

      Transparent click-bait for sure.

      ...reduce to a headline with big tits

      Nobody wants to hear more about Karl Rove.

    2. Re:What an inflammatory submission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama rocks, he really does. I can't wait to read all the anti-capitalist rants from developers who make more than 50K a year and people who get PAID from employers who make evil profits. Go stupid Americans. yey

    3. Re:What an inflammatory submission by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      Sadly, and speaking as a hardcore life long democrat/progressive, Obamacare is what this is all about: simply jacking up the prices and offshoring the jobs as a backdoor bailout of the insurance industry, owned by the banksters, and hit hard by the exponentially increasing offshoring of American jobs --- meaning fewer workers and companies to buy those group health insurance policies.

      Best blog post on Obamacare, the reality:

      http://www.nomiprins.com/thoughts/2012/11/10/real-danger-of-obamacare-insurance-company-takeover-of-healt.html

  6. Dey took are jerbs!!! by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would be great if immigration policy could be decided based on something other than the interests of suppressing wages and controlling the workforce.

    Agribusiness loves cheap labor from Mexico. Keep 'em coming, but keep that deportation threat over their heads so they don't get uppity about those "wages" and "working conditions" things.

    Then the wealthiest companies America need tech workers and don't want to pay American wages. Since they can't pile in illegals to run the data centers, get those h1bs rammed through congress. There we go, cheap tech workers who are nice and easy to control because they don't want to get deported after two weeks if they lose their job.

    Feudalism. Fascism. Whatever, it's a racket.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    1. Re:Dey took are jerbs!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. Now what are we going to do about it?

    2. Re:Dey took are jerbs!!! by some+old+guy · · Score: 2

      Yep yup. Funny how our chronically dysfunctional Congress always seems to come together when it comes to pandering to their Big Biz masters and sell the American dream ever farther down the river, while their media buddies keep John Q. Public preoccupied with single-issue zealotry (abortion, LGBT, 2nd Amendment, w/e) or benumbed with network television.

      If one must vote in this charade in hope of change, vote Green or Purple or Pink, anything but Red or Blue. Reinstalling the perpetrators only prolongs the agony.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    3. Re:Dey took are jerbs!!! by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Ummm....get worked up about whether or not Paula Deen called Kanye and Kim Kardashian's potentially gay-marrying baby a certain 6-letter word?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:Dey took are jerbs!!! by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Feudalism. Fascism.

      Funny, I read the second one as Federalism.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    5. Re:Dey took are jerbs!!! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Dey took are jerbs!!!

      Agribusiness loves cheap labor from Mexico. Keep 'em coming, but keep that deportation threat over their heads so they don't get uppity about those "wages" and "working conditions" things.

      You're hardly the one to complain. You apparently outsource your "Comment Subject" writing to the Caribbean, Jamaica, from the looks of it, or maybe Minnesota.

      No worries man!

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:Dey took are jerbs!!! by plover · · Score: 1

      You apparently outsource your "Comment Subject" writing to the Caribbean, Jamaica, from the looks of it, or maybe Minnesota.

      It's from an old South Park episode. While I wouldn't exactly call someone uncultured for not knowing that, I also wouldn't call someone on it who is obviously mocking the position it represents.

      --
      John
  7. Re:Prepare Yourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You forgot the water fluoridation and vaccination conspiracies, Comrade.
     

  8. I applaud this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this type of work not being done by an American company with American workers?

    Because American companies are incompetent and expensive.

    How are they incompetent?

    1. With all this unemployment, they can't get enough "qualified" workers.
    2. They charge too much
    3. And after charging all that money, you still get H1-Bs or....
    4. Your work is offshored anyway.

    See, why pay through the nose for an American company who's just going to basically go offshore and use the premium they charge for paying their CEO and salespeople too much money (see IBM, Oracle, HP, etc...) when you can cut out the middleman and go directly to the source?

    So corporate America who won't hire us Americans because we are not "qualified" or whatever your BS excuse is - payback is a bitch!

    Ahahahahahahhahahaah!

  9. Does it matter who does this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everyone, except for small companies, is using H-1b programmers. InfoSys, Tata, and the like have discovered that an American front company can get them past the "we want to support American companies" view of business so they started buying up their American competitors.

    Since we can't get away from foreign programmers, then we need to ensure that the job they do is good. What the D.C. and the U.S. really need are decent lawyers who won't let something like this become a honeypot that any vendor can raid as they see fit. If InfoSys makes a bid, they should have to live up to it.

  10. Surprised? Shouldn't be! by s.petry · · Score: 1

    The people in power have been outsourcing everything possible to off shore work, against the law in many cases (several pieces of DOD work have been outsourced to South American countries). The only thing they are trying to keep local are the people needed to implement a police state when desired.

    You only need to look at what they are doing and compare that to the state of our economy to figure out that they want the country to collapse. They are trying as hard as they can to make it collapse without being obviously criminal.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  11. These should be American contracts by TomR+teh+Pirate · · Score: 2

    You want American corporations such as Google and Apple to get these so that they can later dodge the income taxes rather than giving the contracts out to foreign companies who contribute nothing to the American tax coffers.

  12. new reality by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

    US companies do business in India? Wait.. To get in there you have to fight to pass innumerable hurdles thrown in your way.
    How about China?

    If the world was a level playing field, I'd probably be ok with the H1 Visa scam bullshit. But I'm not (and I'm a Brit in the UK). Globalisation is fine, I have no problem with it in its bassic capitalist basis. But it has to cut both ways. If China and India get to grow their middle class by working on US workload, then US companies should have the same access to do the same in China and India.

    I watch real time each week. Its somewhat weird seeing the slagging off the republicans get there. The dems in the US seem very very friendly to immigration, and to globalisation, and seem to take a lot of funding from the Apple and 'Media' funding. In the meantime on an observational level, seems to me the bone marrow of America - the middle class person is under seige. I can't fundamentally understand off shoring, from a business perspective. Even in raw capitalists terms - eroding the middle class is eroding away your own customer base long term.

    Globalisation in the west now seems to be 'worry about the H1 visa holders', and immigrants, and 3rd world - more than your own people. Screw them. Very strange way to proceed.

    Its ok to have a concern about minorities and immigrants, but its got strangely out of kilter.

    --
    We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
    1. Re:new reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a CEO, you don't get raided based on long term performance. You get rated based on quarterly/annual growth. Companies ran by their founders are often different, as they want the company to survive so they can leave their legacy. CEO's for hire, just want to cash out.

    2. Re:new reality by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Its ok to have a concern about minorities and immigrants, but its got strangely out of kilter.

      You have to understand that, while H1-B visas can be a way to immigrate, and can be a path to naturalization, they don't really exist due to concern for immigrants. They exist because the US is kind of xenophobic and hostile to immigrants. H1-B visas are a method of creating an underclass of what are essentially indentured servants strung along with the carrot and stick.

    3. Re:new reality by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      I watch real time each week. Its somewhat weird seeing the slagging off the republicans get there. The dems in the US seem very very friendly to immigration, and to globalisation, and seem to take a lot of funding from the Apple and 'Media' funding.

      There are no innocents. Agribusiness wants (and gets) millions of pickers wandering the land unfettered by the INS. Industrialists want (and get) finished goods flowing from third world hell-holes to a Walmart near you without any burdensome tariffs or port authority inconveniences. Gentry liberals incentivise all of this with BANANA policies, pulling up the ladder and adopting ever greater levels of environmental rigor while evacuating our industry to Asia.

      Right now we are building new, larger Panama locks and even larger locks in Nicaragua. East coast ports are being dredged to accommodate super-post panamax shipping from Asia; the desire to import is so great we're geoengineering new canals through central America to avoid the shipping costs from the West coast.

      That dredging required waivers of the clean water and endangered species acts, which were quietly granted by Obama sans any Keystone-like drama or outrage from Sierra, or anyone else. They just pencil-whipped them out of existence.

      The same thing is going on in the UK with post-panamax capable Liverpool2 coming online.

      Those that have theirs are not interested in paying their fellow citizens. Well compensated workers might not pine as eagerly for statist bennies. People with incomes do terrible things like develop land and buy SUVs. Better to have them subsist on their third or forth mortgages and not get any big ideas.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    4. Re:new reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans aren't hostile to immigrants. The US is very open and welcoming to immigrants on the whole. What Americans are hostile to is the immigrants that make up the underclass you are describing. Those immigrants are depressing wages and conditions for native workers.

      Culturally, it's bizarre to refer to the US as xenophobic. Compared to most countries (especially in Asia, but very pronouncedly in Europe, too) the US is incredibly welcoming of (legal) immigrants and foreign culture.

    5. Re:new reality by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      You have to understand that, while H1-B visas can be a way to immigrate, and can be a path to naturalization, they don't really exist due to concern for immigrants. They exist because the US is kind of xenophobic and hostile to immigrants.

      You're so full of shit with this comment it isn't even funny. My parents are immigrants, as are nearly all of my close friends. They're all doing reasonable well and haven't encountered any hostility. I have friends who's parents came here with literally nothing and now have their own businesses. Yes, there are bigots out there and some companies are absolutely exploiting illegal immigrants but you're unjustified in extrapolating that to mean all Americans.

      In fact, the US makes it much easier to immigrant and become a citizen than most countries. I'm pretty sure you haven't ever lived overseas, otherwise you'd realize how much worse things could be. Other countries, unlike the US, require you learn the official language. Other countries, even with a residency via often prohibit foreigners from owning property. Some don't even allow you to get a mobile phone under your own name. And many countries expect proof that you're educated and can sustain yourself before they consider you for immigration.

      But sure, keep telling yourself that the US is unfriendly to immigrants.

    6. Re:new reality by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Just curious, are you an immigrant? I am. I've been an immigrant to multiple countries. Trust me on this one, the US is a bit xenophobic. It's certainly not the worst, but it's far from the best either.

      Also, the "underclass" I was describing was people here on legal work visas. If the people of the US are hostile to those visa holders, how exactly does that disprove my point?

    7. Re:new reality by tragedy · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you haven't ever lived overseas

      I have. I've lived in several countries in several continents/geographic regions and I am currently an immigrant to the US. I'm well aware that there are places that are far more xenophobic and hostile to immigrants than the US but let's just say that there's still plenty of room for improvement here.

    8. Re:new reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US government has devised a visa that brings guest workers in on extremely disadvantageous terms. Although it may be legal, a legal group of underclass, systematically abused foreign workers is functionally the same as an illegal group of underclass, systematically abused foreign workers.

      You're caught up on the fact that the visa holders are here legally and dismissing the fact that they are basically brought in as scabs to undercut the position of all other workers (native and immigrant, alike). It's this aspect of the visa holders that upsets natives, not the people, their culture, or the fact that they're immigrants.

    9. Re:new reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't mean to ignore your first point. There are definitely xenophobic Americans, but we have a normal distribution of intelligence here, just like everywhere else. I don't think the xenophobia here is an intrinsic part of American culture, even though it is present at times.

    10. Re:new reality by tragedy · · Score: 1

      You're caught up on the fact that the visa holders are here legally and dismissing the fact that they are basically brought in as scabs to undercut the position of all other workers (native and immigrant, alike). It's this aspect of the visa holders that upsets natives, not the people, their culture, or the fact that they're immigrants.

      Um, I'm the one who wrote:

      H1-B visas are a method of creating an underclass of what are essentially indentured servants strung along with the carrot and stick.

      Blaming and hating the workers for being here on those terms is irrational and stupid, however. The exploitive system is the problem.

    11. Re:new reality by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Maybe. Sometimes I feel that way, then I listen to someone talking about how drugs, unemployment, crime, moral decay, etc. are all the fault of immigrants. Or I just hear the subject of the French come up.

    12. Re:new reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to understand that, while H1-B visas can be a way to immigrate, and can be a path to naturalization, they don't really exist due to concern for immigrants. They exist because the US is kind of xenophobic and hostile to immigrants...

      Not nearly xenophobic enough. Witness the "Let them all in, give them food stamps, welfare and free health care" immigration bill just passed by the US Senate.

    13. Re:new reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also wrote:

      They exist because the US is kind of xenophobic and hostile to immigrants.

      to which the reply was aimed.

      Blaming and hating the workers for being here on those terms is irrational and stupid, however. The exploitive system is the problem.

      Of course it's irrational and stupid, but then many people are irrational and stupid. The workers are the face of the exploitative system that the frustrated natives and permanent residents see, so they end up bearing the blame.

    14. Re:new reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to find better people to hang around. These same people (or from the same group anyway) will blame kids, gays, republicans, democrats, longhairs, or anyone but themselves for the problems they imagine around them. I've met the same people in many places around the globe.

      People on the whole are disappointing at best.

    15. Re:new reality by tragedy · · Score: 1

      You also wrote:

      They exist because the US is kind of xenophobic and hostile to immigrants.

      to which the reply was aimed.

      Sure, I wrote that. You wrote:

      ...dismissing the fact that they are basically brought in as scabs to undercut the position of all other workers...

      Which would be fine if the only thing I had written was:

      They exist because the US is kind of xenophobic and hostile to immigrants.

      However, since I wrote more than just that, it's a little disingenuous to aim an attack (a least an attack that claims that I'm dismissing something that I was essentially addressed in a sentence to which the reply wasn't aimed) at just one sentence out of context.

  13. Re:Prepare Yourselves by P-niiice · · Score: 1

    they are also preparing....the bigfoot attacks

  14. want obamacare to fail? this would be the way by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    spagetti code that does not work is what they just purchased.

  15. Re:Surprised? Shouldn't be! by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    companies are trying to reduce their labor costs and have enough money to lobby the government. They don't care about the citizens of any of these countries, it is a means to an end.

  16. Enough is enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This government and administration is the most corrupt, unpatriotic bunch of criminals to ever curse this country. This is even more proof they do not care about America and Americans, only what is cheaper to pass their projects. They will slowly start outsourcing everything while there are competent American firms who could do this even better. When will people wake up and storm the gates?

    1. Re:Enough is enough by cmoss · · Score: 1

      This government and administration is the most corrupt, unpatriotic bunch of criminals to ever curse this country. This is even more proof they do not care about America and Americans, only what is cheaper to pass their projects. They will slowly start outsourcing everything while there are competent American firms who could do this even better. When will people wake up and storm the gates?

      I think this is the health care exchange for the District of Columbia not one contracted by the federal government. According to the ACA the states (+D.C.) had flexibility on how to implement the state level exchanges.

      My state (VA) deferred to the federal government to implement it.

  17. What a great way to create jobs by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    I also loved the the Martin Luther King statue was done in China

  18. Why not an American firm... by kaizendojo · · Score: 1

    I know Booz Hamilton has at least one opening.

  19. Re:Surprised? Shouldn't be! by s.petry · · Score: 1

    What I mentioned is not a private company, this is the US Government shitting on US Citizens. The difference is huge!

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  20. Hmm....H1-B you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting the massive push from the government to allow more H1-B visas the last few months.......

  21. 3rd party health care was failing any ways by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    where you had sick people being drooped / hit with bills with 400%-500%+ markup and other bs like they coded it the wrong way so we will not pay.

    health care places that take your money for years and when you get really sick they look back and say you had a zit 20years ago so it's a pre existing condition and you are not covered.

    mini med planes that don't cover jack shit it you do get sick.

    When you switch jobs you have to change health plans.

    The obamacare is not the best idea but it's a good starting point and it does fix some issues and shits other stuff around. As for the 29 hour rule places have been doing stuff like that for years. But is it the best way to fix that? Maybe it should have a higher bar or at least be setup to go after the walmarts that just about dump there works on to medicaid.

  22. 49.5 million is not a large government contract. by Ryyuajnin · · Score: 1

    I would estimate that between 50-200 people would be actively involved in this project, and probably shouldn't be thought of as "Large", or even "Larger". Furthur, any US government contract 100 million, in my experience, would never be classified as "Large". This is simply anti-political sensationalism.

  23. part of the issue is HR and the schools / training by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    part of the issue is HR and the schools / training.

    When you have HR doing stuff some time it's not even that they are looking for a H1-B it's just that they don't know about IT when setting the job posting.

    Like listing each skills that IT may use or even stuff that they only touch 1-2 times a year or maybe even 1-2 times in 3-5 years and say we want people with 5 exp, saying that we want EXP with tool X and passing over people with tool Y that is just about the same thing or even when tool X is easy to pickup.

    Thinking that CS = IT when it does not.

    Passing over the tech / trades schools / even in house training that have much less skill gaps then what a CS school gives people.

    Passing over people who do it contracting even when lot's of IT work is contracting or thought staffing firms.

    Some even it's when PHB are running IT and don't know about IT so they look for key words / say I want X done in Z time and when real IT people say that can't be done they go to H1-B firm that says we can do that even when it ends up going over Z time.

  24. Not pretty much required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, most government-funded constructions projects include a requirement that prevailing wages be paid for work on the project. Second, the lowest bid on any project does not always win; it is often based on significant differences in the way the project would be delivered.

    A lot of people complain about a lot of things including overpaying for IT systems, bridges, roads, police, fire departments, etc. Just becuase people complain about high prices does not mean that the prices are actually high.

  25. Another day, another dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yesterday before bed I thought, gee our worthless goverment heads just can't have much more stupid ideas to screw their IT workers. After all there's lots of high-tech US workers needing jobs. So.. get up, fire up the Winshit puter and.... Obumacare farms out IT work offshore... WTF !!

  26. Obamacare? by tragedy · · Score: 1

    Is Obamacare the official name for this healthcare reform package? Somehow I don't think it is. It's not very good legislation. It's definitely not healthcare done right. But using the term "Obamacare" still seems to smack of bias, especially when you consider that main details of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are implementations of the Heritage Foundation's plan that the Republicans were pushing back when the US was trying to get meaningful healthcare reform. US politics seems to be driven by short memories and nasty, hypocritical backstabbing.

  27. Re:49.5 million is not a large government contract by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    If it is so small, then it would not cost much more to do it domestically. This is a disgrace.

  28. Re:Why does this surprise anyone? by whoever57 · · Score: 0

    Obama is the most conservative president the US has had in the past 30 years, and possibly in all of time.

    And the scary part of this? That he is more liberal than the mainstream opposition.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  29. Re:49.5 million is not a large government contract by Ryyuajnin · · Score: 1

    Hardly "disgraceful", but yes, it would be considerably more expensive, from a labor perspective, for an American contractor to fulfill the contract. India's per capita GDP: $1510 VS United States per capita GDP: $48100 so at a ration of 31:1, the contract might cost more than 1.5 billion. Personally, I'm glad they are looking for cost cutting measure where they can. (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=GDP%2C+United+States%2C+India)

  30. Re:49.5 million is not a large government contract by JWW · · Score: 1

    Agreed. This is disgraceful. DC should be widely called out on this in the media.

  31. Mod parent up. by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Sadly, Americans are quite ignorant and need to read INFORMATIVE things like this.

    BTW, D.C. is heavily managed by the US HOUSE which is part of the reason it is a mess, it's an odd situation, not like a state or the fed.

  32. Imported ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Indian culture, Cheating was called 'competition' and 'inevitable.' Plagiarism was a 'cultural practice' and a 'perceptual construct' that required sensitivity.

    A problem to stop decaying of ethics in America is to require H1Bs and F1/J1 visa students to enroll in re-education military camps for one year before they are allowed to be employed or go to school.

  33. All of it by The+Cat · · Score: 1

    All of the work will be done overseas. The reason is very simple: the government has joined big business in making sure white people stay unemployed.

    Face the truth.

  34. Edward Snowden knows this by PhuckIndian · · Score: 0

    The government don't give a shit to its own citizens.

  35. Yeah Phuck Them by PhuckIndian · · Score: 0

    Want to see all those dark skin Asian ni66ers vs the sub-Saharan types tn these re-education camps, who get a better ass rape?

  36. Re:49.5 million is not a large government contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    love your logic bomb, by using the same logic.
    A US programmer roughly equals 45 times an indian programmers quality and there for in the end this contract in India will end up costing 2.2B in actual dollars to the US tax payers.

  37. Who *really* cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We've already past the event horizon of technology+over population to the point that there will never be enough jobs for the population. Automation has become a cheap, viable, alternative to hiring people for pennies and paying enormous shipping costs. Instead of worrying about who is taking "our" jobs, we should be worrying about how we will be taking care of the population when there are "no jobs for anyone". It will be a very real problem in the coming generations. I don't really mean this in a negative light. It will people to spend more time with their families, learning, exploring. But food and items will need to be properly rationed out to everyone.

    1. Re:Who *really* cares? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      last time we were at a point when there were truly jobs for everyone was maybe mid 19th century..

      after that a sizable ever increasing number has been just working what can be said to be luxury products of which by definition you can never have "enough"(in the west anyways.. some people in the jungles are still living so that most people are working on immediate necessities, except elder men).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  38. Re:Prepare Yourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Erosion of family structure and morals.

    Why do you care about this one? The other ones seem to make sense.

  39. Infosys will always do a lowball bid. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Informative

    They know the spec game inside out, right side left and top side down. They will implement a totally useless piece of software and when you complain they will insist they have implemented exactly what was in the original contract. That archaic grammar book by Wren and Martin is God's gift to them. They will endlessly argue what is meant by "shall" and "may" and "will". Most high school teachers in India still swear by this book as the ultimate authority in English grammar. So you will be forced to amend and correct the original specs. That will trigger all sorts of revised estimates and revised costs, and by the time you are done, you would have spent about 50% more than your highest bidder, taken twice as long, and gotten yourself software that does 50% of what you want, and probably 75% of what you wrote in the spec sheet but 100% of exactly what is in the spec sheet according to Messrs Wren and Martin as interpreted by Infosys.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Infosys will always do a lowball bid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They know the spec game inside out, right side left and top side down. They will implement a totally useless piece of software and when you complain they will insist they have implemented exactly what was in the original contract. That archaic grammar book by Wren and Martin is God's gift to them. They will endlessly argue what is meant by "shall" and "may" and "will". Most high school teachers in India still swear by this book as the ultimate authority in English grammar. So you will be forced to amend and correct the original specs. That will trigger all sorts of revised estimates and revised costs, and by the time you are done, you would have spent about 50% more than your highest bidder, taken twice as long, and gotten yourself software that does 50% of what you want, and probably 75% of what you wrote in the spec sheet but 100% of exactly what is in the spec sheet according to Messrs Wren and Martin as interpreted by Infosys.

      So expecting well written clear specifications is wrong ?

    2. Re:Infosys will always do a lowball bid. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      This is precisely how most managers and buyers approach the problem. "All they are asking for is clear specs. Whats wrong with that? Anyway it is better to put it in writing, given that they may not have very high English skills. Give them enough time to understand the spec at their own pace and time". Then some totally useless unusable product gets delivered and the vendor goes through the spec with a fine-tooth-comb and selectively deploys Wren and Martin when it suits him and colloquial English when it does not, uses the spec in bad faith and games the system.

      You give up in disgust, and fork over the money because, it is too late and the product is due and you blame yourself for picking this vendor.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  40. Here's a thought... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 3

    Here's a thought, suspend the H-1B visas and educate or retrain US citizens to take those jobs. Corporate America keeps exclaiming that the H-1B visa process is expensive and the only reason they go that route is that they can't find qualified US applicants. Well, use those funds to train your own employees. Then, when the US is at full employment (at whatever that rate really is), if more workers are needed, then bring them in.

    A large percentage of college graduates are not gainfully employed in the fields they studied, including STEM. It is hard to argue, that we need to import more STEM workers when we can't even employ the recent graduates. But maybe it has to do with that new math, you know the kind where you can build wealth in America by creating jobs overseas and importing workers for the rest of the jobs here.

    What was that called by Reagan? Trickle down economics, where the majority of the population trickles further down the system so the few at the top can accumulate the wealth. If it costs corporations too much to hire trained labor, then either train them yourself (as in the past), cut dividends and executive pay, or find a different line of work. After all, isn't that how economics is supposed to work?

  41. This makes sense. by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    If they have the contract to an American firm, they'd take the initial payment and invest it in lobbying for why they need more money because they didn't understand the scale of the project when they started. They would be late, messy and never get done doing it. Then after being 5 years late, they'll go to court and only the lawyers will end up the better for it.

    The Indian company on the other hand will simply develop an unusable product which will represent a product which is a literal interpretation of the original contract but will be a disaster since they'll always choose the wrong meaning of any word which could have to meanings.

    Either way, the project will be a wreck because American companies suck at delivering software to the government and Indian companies never actually understand what they're supposed to make... They do make great things... Just not what they were supposed to. Haha

  42. Proof that government stimulus creates jobs by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    ... in other countries.

  43. it applies both ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    google, yahoo, microsoft ,facebook,oracle all sell in india /china/ and all other places where they can, cause they are good at building products..
    india seems to be good at providing software services and delivering projects at cheaper rate . . so i guess we can't complain sitting here in america... about not allowing indian company to bid for projects...that will be against free trade..

  44. Infosys? pick 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. The product will be delivered in a working state
    2. The product will cost $50 million at most
    3. The product will be delivered on time

    Pick any 1 (as in between 0 and 2, excluded) of the above.

  45. Re:Why does this surprise anyone? by cmoss · · Score: 1

    Obama is the most conservative president the US has had in the past 30 years, and possibly in all of time. This is exactly in line with everything else he has done to produce more money for the wealthiest Americans while under the conservative guise of "it's good for everyone else too". He has consistently chosen the kinds of fiscally conservative actions that Bush Jr, Bush Sr, Reagan, and Nixon all could only dream about.

    It is not completely clear from the headline, but the summary and article would make me guess that this contract was issued by the District of Columbia government not the Obama administration.

  46. I thought... by multimediavt · · Score: 2

    I saw, "D.C. Awards Obamacare IT Work To Offshore Outsourcer" and immediately thought, IBM?

  47. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100% Insightful

  48. Re:49.5 million is not a large government contract by Ryyuajnin · · Score: 1

    45 times? Where did you get this BASELESS figure from? I work with plenty of Indians here in my US Govt contract, who are getting paid American wages, and do top notch work. So take your pick, Indian Developers in America can do the job at American wages, OR Indian developers in India can do the Job, and Indian wages. here's some advice for you: 1) Ignore Inflammatory Sensationalism 2) Accept the fact that the United States government MUST find ways to do more with less, thanks to the sequester. 3) It IS cheaper, MUCH cheaper, to outsource work to a place where wages are cheaper. Again, I'm happy to see DC being smart about the money they spend.

  49. Re:49.5 million is not a large government contract by Ryyuajnin · · Score: 1

    Are you kidding? The Media is making WAY more than 49.5 million airing all the garbage about the Zimmerman trial.

  50. You must have nodded off for the past two years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Originally, the so-called "Affordable Care Act" (Most legislation by politicians of both parties gets mis-named to mislead low-information voters who will never read the actual bill) was labelled "ObamaCare" by its opponents (just as the earlier attempt under Bill Clinton, where he had his wife champion the cause got labelled "HillaryCare"). Democrats hated this because they wanted every one to use the name they'd given the bill and to assume it would produce "affordable care"... but it just does not work that way in American politics (in the 1980's, Democrats who hated missile defense labelled Reagan's "Strategic Defense Initiative" as "Star Wars" to paint it as violent and science fiction/fantasy and THAT moniker stuck)

    Obama himself, however, has publicly embraced the moniker "ObamaCare" and has said he is proud of the name; He, no doubt, thinks it will all be good "in the end" and that future generations will identify it with him as his legacy. Given that Obama has embraced the moniker, it's valid for people on either side to use it and not automatically be presumed to be starting a flame war.

  51. Re:Why does this surprise anyone? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    I think every Medically Uninsured, and or Gay person could debate your thesis on point. On top of that, the president did what his comic predecessor couldn't do; harm a Bin Laden Kin Folk. I guess when you're involved with the Oil Industry, murdering people is a trivial event?

  52. That's not how it works by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    wages are going down, prices are going up. Sure, _toys_ are cheaper. But housing, food and medicine all cost a _lot_ more. You're lunch is more like $6 or $7 now, even at McDonalds, and you're probably making $9/$9.50.

    Also, I'd be interested in _which_ logical fallacy you'd like to site disproves the broad statistical evidence of declining wages and what debate techniques you would use to show prices are going down.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  53. Did mine eyes decieve me? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    or did Ranton spend the first half of his post saying everything was A-OK because we have the same quality of life as we did in 1960, then finish by saying how much better things are 50 years later (1960 + 53 = 2013)?

    Seriously, is anyone buying this? What the hell happened to _progress_? I know slippery slope is a 'logical fallacy' and all that rot, but 'come on. If you think the rich are content with rolling us back just to the 60's in wealth inequality you're nuts.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Did mine eyes decieve me? by ranton · · Score: 1

      or did Ranton spend the first half of his post saying everything was A-OK because we have the same quality of life as we did in 1960, then finish by saying how much better things are 50 years later (1960 + 53 = 2013)?

      I never said that we have the same quality of life as we did in 1960. I just took specific examples from the GP and showed how things are at least as good now as they were in 1960.

      Seriously, is anyone buying this? What the hell happened to _progress_? I know slippery slope is a 'logical fallacy' and all that rot, but 'come on. If you think the rich are content with rolling us back just to the 60's in wealth inequality you're nuts.

      While some things do get cheaper, the price of things such as housing are probably not going to get significantly cheaper because populations keep growing and we aren't getting new land until we colonize deserts/oceans/other planets. We can and do go up with skyscrapers, but usually not as fast as populations grow.

      Read the Progress Paradox by Gregg Easterbrook if you want specific examples on how things have got so much better than in the recent past, and why people have a hard time noticing these changes. The book turns a bit into a morality lecture near the middle, but the first few chapters have a great deal of good examples of recent progress.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    2. Re: Did mine eyes decieve me? by sabbede · · Score: 0
      There is a fundamentally flawed assumption here. You are stating that the rich actively desire, and work towards, the impoverishment of everyone else.

      That is patently absurd.

      For one, the economy is not a zero sum game. One person doing well does not mean someone else must suffer.

      Second, the idea that a business would want to keep its customers poor is utterly nonsensical. Consumers with rising incomes purchase more.

      While there is more than enough shortsighted greed going around humanity, and not limited to the wealthy, you have to have a pretty dim view of the world to make the assumptions indicated.

  54. Ah libertarians by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    people who just plain don't like being told what to do, even when it's the _right_ thing.

    Also, the iPad fallacy is just that, a fallacy. Those people aren't worse off because they don't have an iPad. They're worse off because 76% of them are living Paycheck to Paycheck. The highest percentage since the 1940s!

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Ah libertarians by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      The highest percentage since they kept data maybe. How many people lived harvest to harvest if they managed to survive that long a century ago? What got them out of agrarian poverty was not government or charity, it was the free market and the opportunities it created. Those that live paycheck to paycheck are not living that way because they are desperate, they are living that way because they don't know how to manage money. Not that the government is setting a good example for them, I'd throw a party if the government could live paycheck to paycheck. They are the ones saying "more debt is better for the budget". And what do you know, between them acting that way and encouraging others to do the same, we had a debt bubble. A debt bubble the Fed is insistent upon re-inflating. Maybe the next bubble will be college education which the government tries to sell everyone on and instead is the LEADING CAUSE of debt and living paycheck to paycheck in young people.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  55. Not a fair compairison by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    The jobs aren't going because of need. They're going because people in those countries lack an EPA, access to medical care, a social safety net, low cost education, etc, etc. They're going there because the super rich in those countries, e.g. the real 1%, have made those people's lives hell for their own profit.

    I can't complete with some who drinks dirty water, dies of cancer at 45, and if his house catches fire he burns to death before he can open a window. I suppose if I want to tank my quality of life I could. But why in God's good name would I do that for some misguide notion of "Libertarianism"? Christ, if you want to do that go off to Galt's Gulch already. We don't need or want you here.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  56. The middle class was a product of WWII by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it was largely an accident. Following WWII large parts of the world were destroyed and in need of rebuilding. Also, Eisenhower recognized that without a large scale gov't effort we'd slip back into the policies of wealth inequality that lead to so much unnecessary suffering, so he kicked off the Military Industrial complex (or as I like to call it, Weaponized Keynesianism). Finally the cold war scared companies and prevented the global race to the bottom that Karl Marx predicted (but all you can remember about him is that Mao/Stalin used his books for their dictatorships).

    The cheap imports won't last. Already the price of almonds is skyrocketing because they're being exported. You will compete and lose on the global marketplace.

    Also, what in God's good name makes you think most Americans own stock? Half of them are below the freakin' poverty line, which we haven't changed since the 50s'.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The middle class was a product of WWII by lgw · · Score: 1

      That's a very imaginative history you believe in.

      I guess you're surprised about stock ownership? Half is a recent low - it's been as high as 2/3s briefly. 401Ks are common now.

      OTOH, I can't find any credible links that half of Americans live in poverty. Below the poverty line at one point in their life? Sure - makes sense, unless you're a trust fund baby, why wouldn't you be when you're just getting started. You're supposed to be poor when you're young.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  57. That's not what happens by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    in 'free' market capitalism like you're probably in favor of Trusts develop that control all capital. Cyclic down turns like what happen in 2008 wipe out the wealth of all but the well connected (capitalism is for the poor, while socialism for the rich).

    You're dreaming of an idealized capitalism you were taught in grade school that never has, and never will exist. It just doesn't happen. You will never keep people from using their privilege to your detriment. The only solution is for us all to band together to regulate that privilege. That's called Government.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  58. Ensured That It Will Be A POS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This means the work will be certain to suck. I have yet to see an Indian firm that didn't suck. They always make a lot of noise about how smart they are but the work they produce never follows requirements and has to be rewritten by domestic American-born resources. This just means that DC's project will fail

  59. Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now they will have to deal with subpar indian code.
    It is a well known fact that by the virtue of being born in America, our software developers are the best in the world, regardless of what community college they graduated from or what experience do they have.

    1. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now they will have to deal with subpar indian code.
      It is a well known fact that by the virtue of being born in America, our software developers are the best in the world, regardless of what community college they graduated from or what experience do they have.

      Good one...Idiot :)

  60. If you have to call India, and NSA monitors Calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not contract the NSA and cut out the middle man?

  61. Re:You must have nodded off for the past two years by tragedy · · Score: 1

    Obama himself, however, has publicly embraced the moniker "ObamaCare" and has said he is proud of the name;

    I suppose, if that's the case, it's fair. One would wonder why he would want his name attached to it though. That just makes it more of a target. It's already pretty clear that it's going to be dismantled on partisan grounds as soon as there's a shift in power. It's also a bit of an abomination anyway.

  62. Medical information leaving the country... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awesome. I can't believe that people bother with services like LifeLock when our own government uses our money to hand our most personal information to foreigners...

  63. stop breeding and increase your standard of living by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If India's population was 300 million instead of over a billion, then maybe everyone could have a rice bowl every day. I hope you see what I'm getting at.

  64. Caste system in USA due to H1Bs from India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans should be concerned about the creeping Caste system in USA due to H1B/Immigrants from India.
    http://dsnuk.org/2013/04/25/the-uk-parliament-outlaws-caste-based-discrimination/

    Caste system is worse than terrorism. It's a hidden apartheid and a slow poison that will destroy your economy.
    Google "Companies ruined or almost ruined by Indias".

    Adaptec - Indian CEO Subramanian Sundaresh fired. (forward caste)
    AIG (signed outsourcing deal in 2007 in Europe with Accenture Indian frauds, collapsed in 2009) (forward caste)
    AirBus (Qantas plane plunged 650 feet injuring passengers when its computer system written by India disengaged the auto-pilot). (forward caste)
    Apple - R CLOSED in India in 2006. (forward caste)
    Australia's National Australia Bank (Outsourced jobs to India in 2007, nationwide ATM and account failure in late 2010). (forward caste)
    Bell Labs (Arun Netravalli took over, closed, turned into a shopping mall) (forward caste)
    Boeing Dreamliner ES software (written by HCL, banned by FAA) (forward caste)
    Bristol-Myers-Squibb (Trade Secrets and documents stolen in U.S. by Indian national guest worker) (forward caste)
    Caymas - Startup run by Indian CEO, French director of dev, Chinese tech lead. Closed after 5 years of sucking VC out of America. (forward caste)
    Caterpillar misses earnings a mere 4 months after outsourcing to India, Inc. (forward caste)
    Circuit City - Outsourced all IT to Indian-run IBM and went bankrupt shortly thereafter.(forward caste)
    ComAir crew system run by 100% Indian IT workers caused the 12/25/05 U.S. airport shutdown when they used a short int instead of a long int (forward caste)
    Deloitte - 2010 - this Indian-packed consulting company is being sued under RICO fraud charges by Marin Country, California for a failed solution. (forward caste)
    Dell - call center (closed in India) (forward caste)
    Delta call centers (closed in India) (forward caste)
    Fannie Mae - Hired large numbers of Indians, had to be bailed out. Indian logic bomb creator found guilty. (forward caste)
    GM - Was booming in 2006, signed $300 million outsourcing deal with Wipro that same year, went bankrupt 3 years later (forward caste)
    HSBC ATMs (software taken over by Indians, failed in 2006) (forward caste)
    Intel Whitefield processor project (cancelled, Indian staff canned) (forward caste)
    Lehman (Spectramind software bought by Wipro, ruined, trashed by Indian programmers) (forward caste)
    Medicare - Defrauded by Indian national doctor Arun Sharma & wife in the U.S. (forward caste)
    Microsoft - Employs over 35,000 H-1Bs. Stock used to be $100. Today it's lucky to be over $25. Not to mention that Vista thing. (forward caste)
    MIT Media Lab Asia (canceled) (forward caste)
    PeopleSoft (Taken over by Indians in 2000, collapsed). (forward caste)
    PepsiCo - Slides from #1 to #3 during Indian CEO Indra Nooyi' watch. (forward caste)
    Polycom - Former senior executive Sunil Bhalla charged with insider trading. (forward caste)
    Qantas - See AirBus above (forward caste)
    Quark (Alukah Kamar CEO, fired, lost 60% of its customers to Adobe because Indian-written QuarkExpress 6 was a failure) (forward caste)
    Rolls Royce (Sent aircraft engine work to India in 2006, engines delayed for Boeing 787, and failed on at least 2 Quantas planes in 2010, cost Rolls $500m). (forward caste)
    SAP - Same as Deloitte above in 2010. (forward caste)
    Skype (Madhu Yarlagadda fired) (forward caste)
    State of Indiana $867 million FAILED IBM project, IBM being sued (forward caste)
    State of Texas failed IBM project. (forward caste)
    Sun Micro (Taken over by Indian and Chinese workers in 2001, collapsed, had to be sold off to Oracle). (forward caste)
    UK's NHS outsourced numerous jobs including health records to India in mid-2000 resulting in $26 billion over budget. (forward caste)
    Union Bank of California - Cancelled Finacle project run by India's Inf