Actually the primary purpose of coprorations is to create value
Um, no the primary purpose of corporations is to make money, plain and simple. If you do not understand that then perhaps you do not deserve that nice highpaying programming job.
Simply put, we consume the most in the world. We have the biggest houses, the most cars, consume the most fuel, and consume more of just about everything than just about any other country (think Hummers, McMansions and the rest). No other country in the world consumes like we do. Looking at a nation of big fat overconsumers from a country of rampant poverty like India complain about losing jobs must be a rare sight.
So IT salaries will have to drop in the US for a while, as all salaries will. Solution? You'll have to put yourself on a diet for a while (figuratively and maybe literally). Remember that materiel wealth is not equivalent to happiness. People in India lived quite happily relative to their materiel wealth for quite some time. Now it's their turn to get a piece of the pie.
Americans are spoiled rotten and Slashdot is evidence of that.
Bottom line and advice: you're gonna have to learn to live with less for a while. As salaries go down the cost of living will go down. It'll happen, don't worry (actually it is happening, median rents are dropping like crazy). Make yourself a more efficient consumer. Drive a fuel efficient car that reliable. Buy only things you need.
As I said, learn to live with less. 90% of the world does.
You're assuming that it is easy to get those programming jobs in India. Again you're assuming that it is your God-given right to that programming job because you're an American... remember that there will be thousands of Indians competing for that job in India (so I understand).
Moving to India will not solve your problem. It is still easier to get a programming job in the US for an American than it is for an Indian to get a programming job in India. Americans are just whining because they aren't being paid as much.
Dude, get off your high horse. America is a land of excess. There are more cars here than there are people. The average new house being built is like 5K square feet (something like that). I could go on and on but I mean really... the fact of the matter is that America has simply consumed itself to death. We are all culpable in this.
Sigh, read my sig (you're a prime example). The fact is that you can live on 11K a year because immigrants do it all the time and they have enough left over to send a fair amount of it home. It's not easy by any stretch but it is certainly possible.
But the fact is that he's right, you can live in the US for under 11K. Immigrants (legal and illegal) do it all the time. How do they do it? They don't own cars, they crowd into apartments, they also help each other out. Don't say it can't be done becuase it *is* being done.
No talented auto mechanic would ever take an IT job... there's just so much more money to be made as a mechanic. Plus the work is better and it's generally more in demand.
Ok, I know that Slashdot isn't big on people thinking independentally (as opposed to the mass-hysteria usually found on this site), but where does the Patriot Act allow for someone to be evesdropped upon without a warrant?
Actually in the JD Power Associates Quality Survey, American made cars largely outdid European cars in quality this year. Lately Europeans cars have tended to be absolute junk.
If you want a good site on the current state of North American railroads the American Association of Railroads is a good place to start. Interestingly enough rail is on track to set intermodal (truck to rail loading and vice versa) records next year. Slashdot always seems to think that rail in the US is dead but au contraire, the US ships more goods by rail by weight than almost any other nation (along with Canada and Mexico).
I think you're wrong. It promotes incumbency and false majorities
The political process itself does this... politicians essentially buy votes. The Dems bought votes for 50 years with social spending and such, and now that the repubs are in power, they're doing the same thing. This is the same in every country I've seen, politicians protect industries, keep inefficient unions in power (France comes to mind), buy votes with spending bucks, so on and so forth. As for your false majority, again I see no evidence for that. I'm a conservative-leaning voter in a heavily democratic state with almost complete representations by democrats but I don't feel gerrymandered out of power. I'm in the minority and will do the best to get my party in power. In the end, parties need the votes to win, no matter what gerrymandering occurs. Show me a state where a beleagured majority is ruled over by a minority through gerrymandering. California is a very democratic state with a democratic state legislature so I dont' see how that applies.
I think you still fail to recognize what I proposed. I wasn't proposing instant runoff, I'm proposing voting for multiple candidates. Yes it would still be plurality voting(which I don't mind) but you wouldn't waste votes.
I am unclear on how your proposed system works. If I can "vote" as many times as I want, for as many candidates as I want, then how do you decide who wins?
Same way we do now, whomever has the most votes. For one thing, you only vote once not multiple times. Let's say you have a ballot with 10 people running on it, you may vote for 4 of them, or 1 or them,or 8 of them etc. . At the end of the voting process, you add up the number of votes like in a regular election. Therefor you can really express any number of political opinions (like if you vote for all candidates but one because you don't like that particular candidate) and still have an outcome that is reasonable. So in the presidential election you can vote for Gore and Nader and Buchanan if you want (Gore would probably still win since he has the most visibility).
In regards to gerrymandering, it's effect on US elections is very overrated. If you look at public opinion trends, election trends has generally reflected public opinion. If gerrymandering was all-powerful, the house never would have been wrested fromt he democrats in 1994.
What I want in an system is a generally democratic system that works reasonably well.
You mean the same GOP that recently increased spending on Medicare, farm subsidies, and what-have-you?
leaves the system open to abuse by lobbyists and special interests.
But really, what is the difference between a special interest and a minority party? I mean you got the environmental lobby, you'd have the greens in a PR system, for the corporate lobbies you'd have the libertarians or something similiar, the labor lobby and the gun lobby would probably have their own parties and so on and so forth.
think both parties are minority parties. If you had a representative system, you'd see both the Dem and the GOP with around 30% each, and the remaining 40% split between several other parties. If the current system -- with both parties monopolizing all the available representation -- isn't a clearest case of unfair domination by political parties then I don't know what is.
We're making a circular argument here. I would argue that the non-ideology between the two parties makes your argument irrelevant, you vote for individuals not for parties. In the South, a typical democrat would be more conservative than a republican up here in the Northeast would be. So you listen to their positions on the issues, and you vote for the candidate who best represents your views.
Then maybe you should look at the Irish system of Choice Voting.
Ok, that sounds good (you're not voting for parties which is what I usually dislike about PR), but I mean, why make it that complicated? Let people vote for whomever and how many candidates as they want. Ranking is unnecessary.
I dunno about this one. The constitution recognizes some rights that "shall not be violated". It doesn't say inalienable rights, that is the DoI. And the DoI doesn't say that there are inalienable rights endowed by a creator, it says that we believe there are inalienable rights ("we hold these truths") and we wish to create a government based upon our common beliefs.
How on earth could you categorise US political representation as "non-party oriented" when there are basically just two political parties that evenly divide less than 50% of the eligible voters between themselves?
Easy. Democrats and republicans are really by and large ideology-free, although both tend to have tendencies that lean right or left. So identification with this or that party doesn't mean as much as it does in other countries. We don't have as much "party loyalty" as other countries seem to have and this is for the best IMO. Representatives are more loyal to their geographic areas than to their political parties.
The first stage of counting the votes is to burn the 70% of the total pile of votes that are not for a candidate affiliated with one of the two parties that enjoys a slight lead in a particular region.
I suppose in a sense they're "burned" but in reality such a close call election would discourage the representative from supporting that are too out of the mainstream.
The US system produces artifical majorities of representation by minority parties.
Not really. It's just that what would be minority parties aren't represented, so generally you have two dominating parties and other ideologies attempt to influence the more mainstream parties.
I don't like the US system as it is, but I really would not prefer a representative system. Political parties work against democracy IMO. What I would prefer is a system of either instant runoffs, or allowing people to vote for however many candidates they wish.
Actually I prefer our system to proportional representation. I think we get better, but non-party oriented representation than if we used some kind of parliamentary system. Remember that proportional representation usually requires strong parties (which is *bad*).
Yeah, it's somewhere online. You're assuming only the federal government spends money on education, which is naive. Actually the US spends more, per pupil, on education than any other country in the world, after Canada.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is exactly what outsourcing is doing.
Um, no the primary purpose of corporations is to make money, plain and simple. If you do not understand that then perhaps you do not deserve that nice highpaying programming job.
Sure they are. Unless they starve and dehydrate they are consumers.
Simply put, we consume the most in the world. We have the biggest houses, the most cars, consume the most fuel, and consume more of just about everything than just about any other country (think Hummers, McMansions and the rest). No other country in the world consumes like we do. Looking at a nation of big fat overconsumers from a country of rampant poverty like India complain about losing jobs must be a rare sight.
So IT salaries will have to drop in the US for a while, as all salaries will. Solution? You'll have to put yourself on a diet for a while (figuratively and maybe literally). Remember that materiel wealth is not equivalent to happiness. People in India lived quite happily relative to their materiel wealth for quite some time. Now it's their turn to get a piece of the pie.
Americans are spoiled rotten and Slashdot is evidence of that.
Bottom line and advice: you're gonna have to learn to live with less for a while. As salaries go down the cost of living will go down. It'll happen, don't worry (actually it is happening, median rents are dropping like crazy). Make yourself a more efficient consumer. Drive a fuel efficient car that reliable. Buy only things you need.
As I said, learn to live with less. 90% of the world does.
You're assuming that it is easy to get those programming jobs in India. Again you're assuming that it is your God-given right to that programming job because you're an American... remember that there will be thousands of Indians competing for that job in India (so I understand).
Moving to India will not solve your problem. It is still easier to get a programming job in the US for an American than it is for an Indian to get a programming job in India. Americans are just whining because they aren't being paid as much.
Dude, get off your high horse. America is a land of excess. There are more cars here than there are people. The average new house being built is like 5K square feet (something like that). I could go on and on but I mean really... the fact of the matter is that America has simply consumed itself to death. We are all culpable in this.
Sigh, read my sig (you're a prime example). The fact is that you can live on 11K a year because immigrants do it all the time and they have enough left over to send a fair amount of it home. It's not easy by any stretch but it is certainly possible.
But the fact is that he's right, you can live in the US for under 11K. Immigrants (legal and illegal) do it all the time. How do they do it? They don't own cars, they crowd into apartments, they also help each other out. Don't say it can't be done becuase it *is* being done.
No talented auto mechanic would ever take an IT job... there's just so much more money to be made as a mechanic. Plus the work is better and it's generally more in demand.
What, you think we don't pay a VAT? We just have a different name for it, that's all.
Yes but, logically that wouldn't explain how US cars have soared ahead of European cars in terms of long-term quality.
Honestly, heh, Japanese cars are simply the best. They're all I buy. But my experience with European cars is that have quality problems.
Ok, I know that Slashdot isn't big on people thinking independentally (as opposed to the mass-hysteria usually found on this site), but where does the Patriot Act allow for someone to be evesdropped upon without a warrant?
Actually in the JD Power Associates Quality Survey, American made cars largely outdid European cars in quality this year. Lately Europeans cars have tended to be absolute junk.
If you want a good site on the current state of North American railroads the American Association of Railroads is a good place to start. Interestingly enough rail is on track to set intermodal (truck to rail loading and vice versa) records next year. Slashdot always seems to think that rail in the US is dead but au contraire, the US ships more goods by rail by weight than almost any other nation (along with Canada and Mexico).
I thought the first steam powered train didn't come along until the 1820's or something?
No you clearly simply do not understand what I have proposed quite simply ... but on the other hand, you can only explain something so many times.
The political process itself does this... politicians essentially buy votes. The Dems bought votes for 50 years with social spending and such, and now that the repubs are in power, they're doing the same thing. This is the same in every country I've seen, politicians protect industries, keep inefficient unions in power (France comes to mind), buy votes with spending bucks, so on and so forth. As for your false majority, again I see no evidence for that. I'm a conservative-leaning voter in a heavily democratic state with almost complete representations by democrats but I don't feel gerrymandered out of power. I'm in the minority and will do the best to get my party in power. In the end, parties need the votes to win, no matter what gerrymandering occurs. Show me a state where a beleagured majority is ruled over by a minority through gerrymandering. California is a very democratic state with a democratic state legislature so I dont' see how that applies.
I think you still fail to recognize what I proposed. I wasn't proposing instant runoff, I'm proposing voting for multiple candidates. Yes it would still be plurality voting(which I don't mind) but you wouldn't waste votes.
Same way we do now, whomever has the most votes. For one thing, you only vote once not multiple times. Let's say you have a ballot with 10 people running on it, you may vote for 4 of them, or 1 or them ,or 8 of them etc. . At the end of the voting process, you add up the number of votes like in a regular election. Therefor you can really express any number of political opinions (like if you vote for all candidates but one because you don't like that particular candidate) and still have an outcome that is reasonable. So in the presidential election you can vote for Gore and Nader and Buchanan if you want (Gore would probably still win since he has the most visibility).
In regards to gerrymandering, it's effect on US elections is very overrated. If you look at public opinion trends, election trends has generally reflected public opinion. If gerrymandering was all-powerful, the house never would have been wrested fromt he democrats in 1994.
What I want in an system is a generally democratic system that works reasonably well.
You mean the same GOP that recently increased spending on Medicare, farm subsidies, and what-have-you?
leaves the system open to abuse by lobbyists and special interests.
But really, what is the difference between a special interest and a minority party? I mean you got the environmental lobby, you'd have the greens in a PR system, for the corporate lobbies you'd have the libertarians or something similiar, the labor lobby and the gun lobby would probably have their own parties and so on and so forth.
think both parties are minority parties. If you had a representative system, you'd see both the Dem and the GOP with around 30% each, and the remaining 40% split between several other parties. If the current system -- with both parties monopolizing all the available representation -- isn't a clearest case of unfair domination by political parties then I don't know what is.
We're making a circular argument here. I would argue that the non-ideology between the two parties makes your argument irrelevant, you vote for individuals not for parties. In the South, a typical democrat would be more conservative than a republican up here in the Northeast would be. So you listen to their positions on the issues, and you vote for the candidate who best represents your views.
Then maybe you should look at the Irish system of Choice Voting.
Ok, that sounds good (you're not voting for parties which is what I usually dislike about PR), but I mean, why make it that complicated? Let people vote for whomever and how many candidates as they want. Ranking is unnecessary.
I dunno about this one. The constitution recognizes some rights that "shall not be violated". It doesn't say inalienable rights, that is the DoI. And the DoI doesn't say that there are inalienable rights endowed by a creator, it says that we believe there are inalienable rights ("we hold these truths") and we wish to create a government based upon our common beliefs.
Easy. Democrats and republicans are really by and large ideology-free, although both tend to have tendencies that lean right or left. So identification with this or that party doesn't mean as much as it does in other countries. We don't have as much "party loyalty" as other countries seem to have and this is for the best IMO. Representatives are more loyal to their geographic areas than to their political parties.
The first stage of counting the votes is to burn the 70% of the total pile of votes that are not for a candidate affiliated with one of the two parties that enjoys a slight lead in a particular region.
I suppose in a sense they're "burned" but in reality such a close call election would discourage the representative from supporting that are too out of the mainstream.
The US system produces artifical majorities of representation by minority parties.
Not really. It's just that what would be minority parties aren't represented, so generally you have two dominating parties and other ideologies attempt to influence the more mainstream parties.
I don't like the US system as it is, but I really would not prefer a representative system. Political parties work against democracy IMO. What I would prefer is a system of either instant runoffs, or allowing people to vote for however many candidates they wish.
Don't know much about science do you? *grin*
Actually I prefer our system to proportional representation. I think we get better, but non-party oriented representation than if we used some kind of parliamentary system. Remember that proportional representation usually requires strong parties (which is *bad*).
Yeah, it's somewhere online. You're assuming only the federal government spends money on education, which is naive. Actually the US spends more, per pupil, on education than any other country in the world, after Canada.