In order to reasonably support the people expected to make social security claims over the next thirty years, taxes would have to be doubled at a minimum.
Nevermind that the social security tax rate has already gone up %700!
Assuming you're talking about just doubling your social security taxes (Rather than all taxes) then that would mean social security alone would be taking %30 of your income! (Right now it takes %15. Though only half of that is reported on your paychecks.)
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/taxRates.html
If a private pension plan were administered in this way the perpetrators would be in jail the money returned and everyone would be really angry.
And nobody would be joining the scheme-- its reputation would be ruined.
Yet why are people paying social security now? Cause they get shot by thugs with guns if they don't.
Aint it great to be the government? You can commit widespread fraud on the people and they don't have a choice-- they HAVE to pay!
THIS is what everyone is talking about when they say the government should take care of something-- they are talking about tyranny and oppression the government will take care of it by using lethal force to coerce compliance with whatever scheme it comes up with.
Liberals are just fascists who want someone else to hold the gun for them because it scares them.
Re:We're screwed, my friends
on
Generation Wrecked
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think you laid it out quite well:
Social security and education are both scams perpetrated on the public to take their tax money and return little or nothing of value.
This is true here in the US, where the average family pays over %50 of their gross income in taxes and gets little or nothing in return. Where government meddling has ruined our health care system, our educational system, even our roads aren't getting the money they need- even though we pay far more than enough in taxes to cover them.
We're getting taken by a vendor who demands our money at gunpoint in exchange for services-- and then fails to deliver the services.
And the really amazing thing is whenever you point this out a lot of people scream bloody murder about who "evil" you ware! Obviously, these are people who are on the take for a cut of that tax money that people are being mugged for.
But nature has her own forces, and just as you cannot defy gravity forever, you cannot demand a free lunch every day.
Already people don't count on Social Security-- how long will they continue to pay it when they know its worthless? Furthermore, people are starting to move their money offshore. And the cost of doing so is getting lower-- even though the government is now trying to know everything about what you do. Combine that with the virtual contracting and telecommuting trends and soon the most valuable and profitable members of society will be living in the Caribbean in a tax haven, happily refusing to "Do their part" for the scam that is the US People's Wealth Redistribution Republic.
Any society that makes the cost of living there exceed the value returned by the society itself will soon have to put up an iron curtain as the most productive (and therefore wealthy) members refuse to pay the burden and leave. The US has some nice advantages, but let me tell you, as soon as I Retire, I will become the citizen of another country (Belize has no income tax and charges about $20,000 to become a citizen).
I will take my money elsewhere, and I'm doing absolutely everything legal I can to avoid taxes... fortunately, there are enough loopholes that it seems there is some justice: The financially ignorant, credit card debt having, stock market avoiding, liberal idiots who love this tax system so much are the ones who end up paying the most taxes- cause they can't be bothered (or think its "immoral") to legally avoid those taxes.
Thats one of the things about the free market-- it is robust, and will fill whatever void. You cannot distort it forever because it is a force of nature. You make taxes higher, and you get LESS tax revenue, not more. You make taxes lower and you get more tax revenue, up to a point.
Not all GenXers are stupid slacker idiots, just as not all Boomers are hippie idiots (in fact, most weren't.)
SAVE SAVE SAVE is the rarest call of the wise person.
You do that enough and in 10 years or so you can just SPEND SPEND SPEND your interest because you['re financially independent.
When the average family in this country has a positive net worth, THEN you can lecture about not ruining your life by being too frugal.
But given that we just had the largest boom economy yet, and people went FURTHER into debt on average, telling anyone not to save too much is kinda silly.
Yes cause once you communists come to power (eg: the definition of the world going to shit) that paper money will be worthless.
THAT is the only way there could be nothing available on the free market. That's the nature of the free market-- it provides goods and services when government can't, and when people need them most.
But if history is any guide, even stalin can't stop the free market.
I thought that is what you got with Java on the mac.
I've been doing mostly server side stuff so I can't say for sure, but it is my understanding that you write a Swing UI Java App on the Mac and on the Mac you get the Aqua look and feel. This is from conversations with an Apple developer who was the person who wrote it, but I may have misunderstood.
At the very least it should be one of the choices for looks that you get with swing (Remember windows, metalic, etc?)
So you write a swing app and on OS X it looks like OS X and on Windows it looks like Windows and on Linux it looks like Windows and on Solaris it looks like Swing.
You're right about apple optimizing their JVM etc. The reason 1.4 is delayed (so the rumors go) is that they are doing a complete rewrite. From what I saw with 1.3 they've done some great improvements on what Sun ships.
Wouldn't realbasic do what you want as well? One language-- though it has C support as well-- and deploy on at least Windows and Mac with the same UI.
Inherently when you make a multi-platform dynamically-chosen-look and feel, or consistent look and feel across all platforms, there WILL be compromises because the platforms are different.
So, I'm not sure what you're looking for-- if you think that someone can make one that dynamically picks the right UI without any compromises (java's slowness, or ui variations) then I think you're not quite understanding the problem correctly.
Personally, I have no desire to support the windows platform anymore, so I just do everything in Cocoa with Objective-C. And objective-c rocks. I thought Java was the paragon of perfect languages, but I have to admit I like objective-c better.
I want to work just 50-Hrs a week, pay me less if that's what you think I deserve, but this is what I'm willing to give
I find that amusing-- as I've seen people do this regularly in high tech jobs. From my boss who took time off when his kid was born, to a co-worker who had a side project she wanted to finish. I've done this myself as well, and my request was met.
Furthmore, as a matter of policy, in tech companies when you work overtime, you get comp-time in response. This has been the case in all of the tech companies I've worked in recent years. On top of this, tech companies tend to give good vacation benefits, etc.
It doesn't take a union, it takes a couple people representing the majority to go to bosses and say "Hey, you're going X and a better solution would be Y." Whether its a poor technology choice or the working environment, bosses are amenable.
You acknowledge the problems with unions, but it is you that see it as two choices: large corrupt, mob run unions, or no freedom.
Well, we can have freedom without unions-- in a given company which would be better- one union that can deliver the employees to the bosses, or a dozen unions all representing different groups of employees? The latter will get you better deal, and if your union doesn't represent you well, then you can switch unions.
The way it is now, the laws are such tat the union can get you fired if you don't join (this happened to a father of 4 I know about recently.) What it boiled down to was: "Pay us %15 of your salary, or you loose your job." He didn't, they fired him.
THAT is what should be illegal-- extortion. He has the fundamental human right to make an agreement with his employer that does not require the unions approval. Laws that allow and support violation of that human right are my issue.
Did unions give us the 40 hour work week? No. The 40 hour work week exists in non-union shops... and in general, it is more realistic in non-union shops.
Did they eliminate child labor? No, legislators did that.
But this is rehashing old stuff. whats really interesting to me is this idea that the free market eliminates freedom for people.
How can you say that in the face of the clear example of unions making an unfree market and as a result, a father now has no job to feed his kids. Not because there isn't a job, not because he can't do the job, not because they don't want to hire him, not because he doesn't want to work there- but because the union-- backed by state laws-- forced him out of his job, violating both his and his employers rights.
I think by definition free markets mean freedom for people.
And I hear this claim that free markets and capitalism make people slaves.
But whenever that claim is made- NO EXAMPLES Are ever given to back it up.
For instance, the example that you didn't articulate but referenced makes no sense-- you go work for a company that pays you a salary and in exchange you work 40 hours a week (or 50 if that's the agreement.) If they violate the agreement, you are due compensation (and companies will compensate you.) If you don't like the deal, you can go work somewhere else. You bring this up in your negotiations with them after they make an offer and they are going to work with you.
I went so far as to make a spreadsheet that had a formula that balanced vacation time, stock options (and their market value, factoring in the risk that they would be worth nothing) the average work week in hours, the amount of weekends needed, etc so that for any given set of terms, I could give 3 or 4 alternatives that met the forumula at different salary levels. I found employers that were cash poor were happy to trade stock options for salary, or vacation for salary, etc. And when unexpected things come up, like my friends newborn, they worked out a compromise that allowed him to take significant time off, maintain his job, and they weren't paying for someone who wasn't going to be there months at a time.
You also said:I want to work just 50-Hrs a week, pay me less if that's what you think I deserve, but this is what I'm willing to give
Well, will you be willing to also give up the right to leave the job without their permission? You're demanding that they can't fire you when you refuse to do your job, will you give up the contrary?
You have the right to leave your job. They have the right to fire you. It doesn't matter if you have cause to leave your job (they ask you to work too many hours) or they have cause to fire you (you stole money). IF you just don't like the personalities involved you can end the employment, and so can they. That is what is known as at will employment.
IF you're going to demand that they cannot fire you, are you going to also give up the legal right to leave the job?
IF you have an agreement about the hours you're going to work and they are asking you to work more on a continual basis, simply go to them with the issue and ask for redress. Every business thats' still going to be around in 3 years will work something out with you. Either extra vacation, extra pay, or a limitation on the time they are expecting you to work. And any business that won't-- wouldn't be around in a couple years to give you job security anyway, cause they won't be able to retain enough quality employees to compete in the marketplace. Either that or your demands exceed your market value, and simple economics tells you that whenever you have that condition, a company that meets your demands will be going under soon.
Unions are good at maximizing their benefit-- the company is bleed dry and eventually goes bankrupt while the employees keep jobs for awhile (eventually to be laid off) and the union bosses get really, REALLY rich.
This is the condition with Boeing and is why even though they had record plane orders in recent years they could barely keep their head above water.
Nothing stops 10 employees, union or not, from bargaining collectively -- except when a union has a collective bargaining agreement which TAKES AWAY THAT RIGHT. And 10 employees will get what they want, or a compromise that meets both parties needs, if they are reasonable.
People have human rights-- they have the right to form a union.
Unfortuantely, that's not what we have here. Unions don't work to get people a "fair deal" they are an organization that merely extorts a cut of your job. If you don't pay the protection money, you loose your job.
That's why they are the mob-- they are a protection racket pure and simple.
AS to negotiating better terms for you-- they make that HARDER.
Without a union a dozen or so people can form a group and negotiate their terms. With a union, EVERYBODY must agree to the terms the union bosses "negotiate" for you--- which is great for companies-, they just pay off the union bosses and they have their workforce back.
Which is why, in the end, what unions negotiate is the best deal for THE UNION, for the bosses, not for the workers they claim to represent.
AS to the free market being mythical, thats akin to saying gravity is mythical.
The only way a free market can not work is if people refuse to participate-- otherwise by definition you have a free market. Before you discount the free market so quickly-- you should look at what you see as really wrong with it-- and I'm confident you will discover that whats' really causing the distortions you don't like are government interference. Not problems with the free market.
AT its root, people who hate the free market fall into two camps: Those who want tyranny and want slaves instead of free people, and those who think they want free people but at the same time want people to not be responsible for their own actions. I suspect you fall into the latter.
Its funny how I'm so elitist the people I'm defending are those without experience and with less knowledge.
Those are the people who were denied jobs because posers took them.
But its also interesting that the mere fact you disagree with me forces you to put me into this bigoted little idea of the world you have. Somehow I suspect that it is you, and not me, who needs to, as you say, "get a life".
Actually, I'm not abusive. I'm just opinionated, and some people-- such as yourself- can't stand to hear someone with self confidence express their opinions.
Oh, my beef isn't that I didn't get jobs-- I got great jobs.
My beef is that there were a lot of inexperienced, yet dedicated, engineers who didn't get jobs because more experienced b-rate people took them becuase the sector was "hot".
As to unions, they're just another name for the mob.
IF you have the skills get the job. But if you went chasing easy money, you don't get sympathy from me.
The point is, people who don't learn technology in their spare time-- especially those who are proud of the fact that they don't-- are often correlated with those who jumped onto the tech bandwagon because the money seemed easy, and of course now that the money is hard, they are looking for a way out.
Why would I want a mechanical engineering job? I'm a programmer.
I don't put the word engineer on my resume-- my resume is full of accomplishments, kudos and experience. It doesn't have any lables except for the job titles I've had.
Course I could change "Director of Research and Development" to "Chief Engineer" and then I'd have the word engineer on my resume, but I don't see the point.
I am not trivializing the education people get when they get it. I'm merely pointing out that many colleges do a poor job of educating.. and that there is nothing that says that engineers who learned their job in the trade are not real engineers.
Lets see, he called me an ass. And then he says he doesn't know if he'll get flamed or not.
I respond by ignoring that he called me an ass and explaining my position further. I did not flame him, did not call him names, did not criticize him and I couched my words with terms like "maybe".
Yeah, my initial post was a rant-- "posting their own opinion" as you described it, and I have been flamed. But other than Perdo who posted my email address in the clear, people have been generally mature.
I can't agree more-- demand that the comapnies you work for be decent. Don't be a petulant irrational child as many engineers are, yet at the same time put up with stuff that you really shouldn't put up with.
Provide excellence and expect it in return. Be a class act and your employer will know that without treating you like one he'll be likely to loose you.
Make the deadlines realistic and then deliver on them-- it cuts both ways.
Re:Ebb and flow of tech workers
on
Careers After Tech?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Part of the problem is that to discern a quality engineer from one who is a B-list player, as you put it, exceeds the skills of every HR professional I've ever known.
Since the HR industry is even more overwhelmingly staffed by b-list people, they are completely unable to tell an engineer from a "Internet Professional" So it is bad for the good people too-- until their resume manages to randomly hit the desk of someone who can tell and engineer from a resume writer, the market is tough.
But this problem cuts both ways-- if the hiring that was done in the boom had been done correctly in the first place, the hacks wouldn't have gotten hired and the boom probably wouldn't have busted as bad.
The HR profession is close to cops and lawyers on my list. Not as corrupt and evil, but just as incompetent. (Which is not to say I haven't met competent ones. They are just few and far between.)
I hear people who wasted four years and $40,000 or more saying that a lot.
But Dictionary.com disagrees with them.
Since a degree in engineering says nothing about what your skill level is, and lacking one certainly doesn't, then it is irrelevant to whether someone can call themselves an engineer.
I've taught people with engineering degrees a thing or two many times over the years, and they've taught me things they picked up because they had a good prof.
But to say they are a "Real engineer" and I'm not is idiotic-- especially since the ones just out of school are about half as capable as I am.
Interestingly enough the behaviour you describe seems to be manifested in low skill dos and windows programmers, not in engineers or people with high engineering skill.
In my epxerience, people who knew high level languages might periodically suffer from one issue or another, but never suffer from a lot of them.
Low level windows "programmers"- say someone who only knows visual basic-- seem to fit the description you gave.
Certainly not what I've seen at "every company". I think you need to find a better class of company.
AS to tax dodging, I say more power too them. I do everything legal I can to dodge taxes-- after all %90 of the money is wasted.
That's BS. A lot of good programmers I know don't have computers at home, intentionally.
Apparently you have a computer at home.
No, this isn't BS. Its a stone cold truism. And person calling themselves a programmer who has been employed for more than 3 months who does not have a computer at home, should not be hired.
They are in it for the money and their code will likely suck. When there are lots of great programmers out there, why hire a poser who is looking for easy cash?
I never said you had to use your computer all the time at home. Nothing about having a computer throws your life out of balance. But someone who calls themselves a programmer and NEVER FINDS A NEED TO USE A COMPUTER AT HOME. No, they are not a programmer. Dusty- fine. Rather old computer- fine. USed for games- Fine. Spend your weekends sailing- fine, I do too. But to not have ever bought one, or to think that by not having a computer you're somehow adding balance to your life? Bullshit.
And any programmer who admits it is someone without at least the judgment to know that he's telling everyone he doesn't really like to program and isn't going to have any interest in it when he isn't getting paid. He's telling everyone that not only is he just after easy money, but that he's probably doing a poor job of it as well.
Your problem is that you can't find a decent company to work for. You're spending too much time with blown dry idiots (by definition anyone who ignores 30 years of engineering because you don't have 4 years of college is a baffoon.)
I think the solution to this is to form a company. You live in the vally- last time I was there you coldn't cough without running into 4 guys who wanted to start a business. NOW IS THE TIME. Resources are cheap, and hopefully you've learned from the mistakes of the dotcoms.
It doesn't sound like you really want to stop being an engineer. It sounds like you really just don't like your job and are having trouble finding a good one.
I can understand that. Personally, I will stay unemployed or turn down jobs with companies that don't meet my expectations-- even in this environment. Life is too short to work for a someplace like amazon.com.
But it also sounds like working for tech companies, rather than the tech industry is the issue. Maybe working for an insurance company or a major auto parts dealership would be a better environment for you-- all these industries need programmers.
Slashdot Mirror
In order to reasonably support the people expected to make social security claims over the next thirty years, taxes would have to be doubled at a minimum.
Nevermind that the social security tax rate has already gone up %700!
Assuming you're talking about just doubling your social security taxes (Rather than all taxes) then that would mean social security alone would be taking %30 of your income!
(Right now it takes %15. Though only half of that is reported on your paychecks.)
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/taxRates.html
If a private pension plan were administered in this way the perpetrators would be in jail the money returned and everyone would be really angry.
And nobody would be joining the scheme-- its reputation would be ruined.
Yet why are people paying social security now? Cause they get shot by thugs with guns if they don't.
Aint it great to be the government? You can commit widespread fraud on the people and they don't have a choice-- they HAVE to pay!
THIS is what everyone is talking about when they say the government should take care of something-- they are talking about tyranny and oppression the government will take care of it by using lethal force to coerce compliance with whatever scheme it comes up with.
Liberals are just fascists who want someone else to hold the gun for them because it scares them.
I think you laid it out quite well:
Social security and education are both scams perpetrated on the public to take their tax money and return little or nothing of value.
This is true here in the US, where the average family pays over %50 of their gross income in taxes and gets little or nothing in return. Where government meddling has ruined our health care system, our educational system, even our roads aren't getting the money they need- even though we pay far more than enough in taxes to cover them.
We're getting taken by a vendor who demands our money at gunpoint in exchange for services-- and then fails to deliver the services.
And the really amazing thing is whenever you point this out a lot of people scream bloody murder about who "evil" you ware! Obviously, these are people who are on the take for a cut of that tax money that people are being mugged for.
But nature has her own forces, and just as you cannot defy gravity forever, you cannot demand a free lunch every day.
Already people don't count on Social Security-- how long will they continue to pay it when they know its worthless? Furthermore, people are starting to move their money offshore. And the cost of doing so is getting lower-- even though the government is now trying to know everything about what you do. Combine that with the virtual contracting and telecommuting trends and soon the most valuable and profitable members of society will be living in the Caribbean in a tax haven, happily refusing to "Do their part" for the scam that is the US People's Wealth Redistribution Republic.
Any society that makes the cost of living there exceed the value returned by the society itself will soon have to put up an iron curtain as the most productive (and therefore wealthy) members refuse to pay the burden and leave. The US has some nice advantages, but let me tell you, as soon as I Retire, I will become the citizen of another country (Belize has no income tax and charges about $20,000 to become a citizen).
I will take my money elsewhere, and I'm doing absolutely everything legal I can to avoid taxes... fortunately, there are enough loopholes that it seems there is some justice: The financially ignorant, credit card debt having, stock market avoiding, liberal idiots who love this tax system so much are the ones who end up paying the most taxes- cause they can't be bothered (or think its "immoral") to legally avoid those taxes.
Thats one of the things about the free market-- it is robust, and will fill whatever void. You cannot distort it forever because it is a force of nature. You make taxes higher, and you get LESS tax revenue, not more. You make taxes lower and you get more tax revenue, up to a point.
Not all GenXers are stupid slacker idiots, just as not all Boomers are hippie idiots (in fact, most weren't.)
Clearly he's spending some money.
SAVE SAVE SAVE is the rarest call of the wise person.
You do that enough and in 10 years or so you can just SPEND SPEND SPEND your interest because you['re financially independent.
When the average family in this country has a positive net worth, THEN you can lecture about not ruining your life by being too frugal.
But given that we just had the largest boom economy yet, and people went FURTHER into debt on average, telling anyone not to save too much is kinda silly.
Yes cause once you communists come to power (eg: the definition of the world going to shit) that paper money will be worthless.
THAT is the only way there could be nothing available on the free market. That's the nature of the free market-- it provides goods and services when government can't, and when people need them most.
But if history is any guide, even stalin can't stop the free market.
I thought that is what you got with Java on the mac.
I've been doing mostly server side stuff so I can't say for sure, but it is my understanding that you write a Swing UI Java App on the Mac and on the Mac you get the Aqua look and feel. This is from conversations with an Apple developer who was the person who wrote it, but I may have misunderstood.
At the very least it should be one of the choices for looks that you get with swing (Remember windows, metalic, etc?)
So you write a swing app and on OS X it looks like OS X and on Windows it looks like Windows and on Linux it looks like Windows and on Solaris it looks like Swing.
You're right about apple optimizing their JVM etc. The reason 1.4 is delayed (so the rumors go) is that they are doing a complete rewrite. From what I saw with 1.3 they've done some great improvements on what Sun ships.
Wouldn't realbasic do what you want as well? One language-- though it has C support as well-- and deploy on at least Windows and Mac with the same UI.
Inherently when you make a multi-platform dynamically-chosen-look and feel, or consistent look and feel across all platforms, there WILL be compromises because the platforms are different.
So, I'm not sure what you're looking for-- if you think that someone can make one that dynamically picks the right UI without any compromises (java's slowness, or ui variations) then I think you're not quite understanding the problem correctly.
Personally, I have no desire to support the windows platform anymore, so I just do everything in Cocoa with Objective-C. And objective-c rocks. I thought Java was the paragon of perfect languages, but I have to admit I like objective-c better.
Yeah. Sure.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Applications can be slow. The OS is not slow.
Java on OSX is rather speedy, and compares favorably with the previous platform I've used it on, Linux.
Cocoa apps are totally speedy, as fast as C apps.
Carbon apps that are poorly made will be slow, and if they're really poor (like IE) they can slow the whole system down.
But your generalizations are just wrong.
I want to work just 50-Hrs a week, pay me less if that's what you think I deserve, but this is what I'm willing to give
I find that amusing-- as I've seen people do this regularly in high tech jobs. From my boss who took time off when his kid was born, to a co-worker who had a side project she wanted to finish. I've done this myself as well, and my request was met.
Furthmore, as a matter of policy, in tech companies when you work overtime, you get comp-time in response. This has been the case in all of the tech companies I've worked in recent years. On top of this, tech companies tend to give good vacation benefits, etc.
It doesn't take a union, it takes a couple people representing the majority to go to bosses and say "Hey, you're going X and a better solution would be Y." Whether its a poor technology choice or the working environment, bosses are amenable.
You acknowledge the problems with unions, but it is you that see it as two choices: large corrupt, mob run unions, or no freedom.
Well, we can have freedom without unions-- in a given company which would be better- one union that can deliver the employees to the bosses, or a dozen unions all representing different groups of employees? The latter will get you better deal, and if your union doesn't represent you well, then you can switch unions.
The way it is now, the laws are such tat the union can get you fired if you don't join (this happened to a father of 4 I know about recently.) What it boiled down to was: "Pay us %15 of your salary, or you loose your job." He didn't, they fired him.
THAT is what should be illegal-- extortion. He has the fundamental human right to make an agreement with his employer that does not require the unions approval. Laws that allow and support violation of that human right are my issue.
Did unions give us the 40 hour work week? No. The 40 hour work week exists in non-union shops... and in general, it is more realistic in non-union shops.
Did they eliminate child labor? No, legislators did that.
But this is rehashing old stuff. whats really interesting to me is this idea that the free market eliminates freedom for people.
How can you say that in the face of the clear example of unions making an unfree market and as a result, a father now has no job to feed his kids. Not because there isn't a job, not because he can't do the job, not because they don't want to hire him, not because he doesn't want to work there- but because the union-- backed by state laws-- forced him out of his job, violating both his and his employers rights.
I think by definition free markets mean freedom for people.
And I hear this claim that free markets and capitalism make people slaves.
But whenever that claim is made- NO EXAMPLES Are ever given to back it up.
For instance, the example that you didn't articulate but referenced makes no sense-- you go work for a company that pays you a salary and in exchange you work 40 hours a week (or 50 if that's the agreement.) If they violate the agreement, you are due compensation (and companies will compensate you.) If you don't like the deal, you can go work somewhere else. You bring this up in your negotiations with them after they make an offer and they are going to work with you.
I went so far as to make a spreadsheet that had a formula that balanced vacation time, stock options (and their market value, factoring in the risk that they would be worth nothing) the average work week in hours, the amount of weekends needed, etc so that for any given set of terms, I could give 3 or 4 alternatives that met the forumula at different salary levels. I found employers that were cash poor were happy to trade stock options for salary, or vacation for salary, etc. And when unexpected things come up, like my friends newborn, they worked out a compromise that allowed him to take significant time off, maintain his job, and they weren't paying for someone who wasn't going to be there months at a time.
You also said:I want to work just 50-Hrs a week, pay me less if that's what you think I deserve, but this is what I'm willing to give
Well, will you be willing to also give up the right to leave the job without their permission? You're demanding that they can't fire you when you refuse to do your job, will you give up the contrary?
You have the right to leave your job. They have the right to fire you. It doesn't matter if you have cause to leave your job (they ask you to work too many hours) or they have cause to fire you (you stole money). IF you just don't like the personalities involved you can end the employment, and so can they. That is what is known as at will employment.
IF you're going to demand that they cannot fire you, are you going to also give up the legal right to leave the job?
IF you have an agreement about the hours you're going to work and they are asking you to work more on a continual basis, simply go to them with the
issue and ask for redress. Every business thats' still going to be around in 3 years will work something out with you. Either extra vacation, extra pay, or a limitation on the time they are expecting you to work. And any business that won't-- wouldn't be around in a couple years to give you job security anyway, cause they won't be able to retain enough quality employees to compete in the marketplace. Either that or your demands exceed your market value, and simple economics tells you that whenever you have that condition, a company that meets your demands will be going under soon.
Unions are good at maximizing their benefit-- the company is bleed dry and eventually goes bankrupt while the employees keep jobs for awhile (eventually to be laid off) and the union bosses get really, REALLY rich.
This is the condition with Boeing and is why even though they had record plane orders in recent years they could barely keep their head above water.
Nothing stops 10 employees, union or not, from bargaining collectively -- except when a union has a collective bargaining agreement which TAKES AWAY THAT RIGHT. And 10 employees will get what they want, or a compromise that meets both parties needs, if they are reasonable.
People have human rights-- they have the right to form a union.
Unfortuantely, that's not what we have here. Unions don't work to get people a "fair deal" they are an organization that merely extorts a cut of your job. If you don't pay the protection money, you loose your job.
That's why they are the mob-- they are a protection racket pure and simple.
AS to negotiating better terms for you-- they make that HARDER.
Without a union a dozen or so people can form a group and negotiate their terms. With a union, EVERYBODY must agree to the terms the union bosses "negotiate" for you--- which is great for companies-, they just pay off the union bosses and they have their workforce back.
Which is why, in the end, what unions negotiate is the best deal for THE UNION, for the bosses, not for the workers they claim to represent.
AS to the free market being mythical, thats akin to saying gravity is mythical.
The only way a free market can not work is if people refuse to participate-- otherwise by definition you have a free market. Before you discount the free market so quickly-- you should look at what you see as really wrong with it-- and I'm confident you will discover that whats' really causing the distortions you don't like are government interference. Not problems with the free market.
AT its root, people who hate the free market fall into two camps: Those who want tyranny and want slaves instead of free people, and those who think they want free people but at the same time want people to not be responsible for their own actions. I suspect you fall into the latter.
TANSTAAFL.
Ah, I see. You're a bigot.
Its funny how I'm so elitist the people I'm defending are those without experience and with less knowledge.
Those are the people who were denied jobs because posers took them.
But its also interesting that the mere fact you disagree with me forces you to put me into this bigoted little idea of the world you have. Somehow I suspect that it is you, and not me, who needs to, as you say, "get a life".
Actually good economics is why the real engineers are sticking around. That was part of my point.
The tech industry did not end when flooz went out of business.
By the same token, any friend who works too much can't be much of a friend. I mean realistically where is the time to be friends?
That's why god created weekends.
Actually, I'm not abusive. I'm just opinionated, and some people-- such as yourself- can't stand to hear someone with self confidence express their opinions.
Sheesh.
Oh, my beef isn't that I didn't get jobs-- I got great jobs.
My beef is that there were a lot of inexperienced, yet dedicated, engineers who didn't get jobs because more experienced b-rate people took them becuase the sector was "hot".
As to unions, they're just another name for the mob.
IF you have the skills get the job. But if you went chasing easy money, you don't get sympathy from me.
Thats even worse. You're taking one example and claiming its true for the whole world.
Brilliant.
Oh, that's great. I'm causing your burnout.
Whatever.
The point is, people who don't learn technology in their spare time-- especially those who are proud of the fact that they don't-- are often correlated with those who jumped onto the tech bandwagon because the money seemed easy, and of course now that the money is hard, they are looking for a way out.
Why would I want a mechanical engineering job? I'm a programmer.
I don't put the word engineer on my resume-- my resume is full of accomplishments, kudos and experience. It doesn't have any lables except for the job titles I've had.
Course I could change "Director of Research and Development" to "Chief Engineer" and then I'd have the word engineer on my resume, but I don't see the point.
I am not trivializing the education people get when they get it. I'm merely pointing out that many colleges do a poor job of educating.. and that there is nothing that says that engineers who learned their job in the trade are not real engineers.
Lets see, he called me an ass. And then he says he doesn't know if he'll get flamed or not.
I respond by ignoring that he called me an ass and explaining my position further. I did not flame him, did not call him names, did not criticize him and I couched my words with terms like "maybe".
Yeah, my initial post was a rant-- "posting their own opinion" as you described it, and I have been flamed. But other than Perdo who posted my email address in the clear, people have been generally mature.
I can't agree more-- demand that the comapnies you work for be decent. Don't be a petulant irrational child as many engineers are, yet at the same time put up with stuff that you really shouldn't put up with.
Provide excellence and expect it in return. Be a class act and your employer will know that without treating you like one he'll be likely to loose you.
Make the deadlines realistic and then deliver on them-- it cuts both ways.
Part of the problem is that to discern a quality engineer from one who is a B-list player, as you put it, exceeds the skills of every HR professional I've ever known.
Since the HR industry is even more overwhelmingly staffed by b-list people, they are completely unable to tell an engineer from a "Internet Professional" So it is bad for the good people too-- until their resume manages to randomly hit the desk of someone who can tell and engineer from a resume writer, the market is tough.
But this problem cuts both ways-- if the hiring that was done in the boom had been done correctly in the first place, the hacks wouldn't have gotten hired and the boom probably wouldn't have busted as bad.
The HR profession is close to cops and lawyers on my list. Not as corrupt and evil, but just as incompetent. (Which is not to say I haven't met competent ones. They are just few and far between.)
Someone who posts an email address in the clear is the lowest form of scum.
you attack my skills - nevermind that you've never been able to back up your positions with facts- and then post my email address in the clear?
When I find yours, I'll be sure to route all my spam your way, pussy.
I hear people who wasted four years and $40,000 or more saying that a lot.
But Dictionary.com disagrees with them.
Since a degree in engineering says nothing about what your skill level is, and lacking one certainly doesn't, then it is irrelevant to whether someone can call themselves an engineer.
I've taught people with engineering degrees a thing or two many times over the years, and they've taught me things they picked up because they had a good prof.
But to say they are a "Real engineer" and I'm not is idiotic-- especially since the ones just out of school are about half as capable as I am.
everywhere I worked
Interestingly enough the behaviour you describe seems to be manifested in low skill dos and windows programmers, not in engineers or people with high engineering skill.
In my epxerience, people who knew high level languages might periodically suffer from one issue or another, but never suffer from a lot of them.
Low level windows "programmers"- say someone who only knows visual basic-- seem to fit the description you gave.
Certainly not what I've seen at "every company". I think you need to find a better class of company.
AS to tax dodging, I say more power too them. I do everything legal I can to dodge taxes-- after all %90 of the money is wasted.
Sure it *can*.
Who said anything about not going on beer hikes?
Hell, I was volksmarching in the late 70s and drinking beer afterwards. Nothing like german forests-- they seem to be unique in my experience.
That's BS. A lot of good programmers I know don't have computers at home, intentionally.
Apparently you have a computer at home.
No, this isn't BS. Its a stone cold truism. And person calling themselves a programmer who has been employed for more than 3 months who does not have a computer at home, should not be hired.
They are in it for the money and their code will likely suck. When there are lots of great programmers out there, why hire a poser who is looking for easy cash?
I never said you had to use your computer all the time at home. Nothing about having a computer throws your life out of balance. But someone who calls themselves a programmer and NEVER FINDS A NEED TO USE A COMPUTER AT HOME. No, they are not a programmer. Dusty- fine. Rather old computer- fine. USed for games- Fine. Spend your weekends sailing- fine, I do too. But to not have ever bought one, or to think that by not having a computer you're somehow adding balance to your life? Bullshit.
And any programmer who admits it is someone without at least the judgment to know that he's telling everyone he doesn't really like to program and isn't going to have any interest in it when he isn't getting paid. He's telling everyone that not only is he just after easy money, but that he's probably doing a poor job of it as well.
Your problem is that you can't find a decent company to work for. You're spending too much time with blown dry idiots (by definition anyone who ignores 30 years of engineering because you don't have 4 years of college is a baffoon.)
I think the solution to this is to form a company. You live in the vally- last time I was there you coldn't cough without running into 4 guys who wanted to start a business. NOW IS THE TIME. Resources are cheap, and hopefully you've learned from the mistakes of the dotcoms.
It doesn't sound like you really want to stop being an engineer. It sounds like you really just don't like your job and are having trouble finding a good one.
I can understand that. Personally, I will stay unemployed or turn down jobs with companies that don't meet my expectations-- even in this environment. Life is too short to work for a someplace like amazon.com.
But it also sounds like working for tech companies, rather than the tech industry is the issue. Maybe working for an insurance company or a major auto parts dealership would be a better environment for you-- all these industries need programmers.