I guess I consider "living wage" to be a form of welfare. When I think of the term "living wage", I think of proposals in some areas to raise the minimum wage so that it is above the poverty line for the given area. To me, this is welfare because it provides a subsidy to the poor. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not passing judgment necessarily on it. I am just saying that to me it is a form of welfare.
Anyway, in your original post you say that the "rich" want to do away with the middle class because they demand a "living wage". What I am saying is that the middle class doesn't benefit from a "living wage" because, by definition, a middle class individual makes enough to live above the poverty line. Based upon this logic, you are defining "middle class" to be "not rich", when in fact it means "neither rich nor poor" (hence the usage of MIDDLE in the term).
I love conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but at least you need to base it on some sort of reality.
First of all, the "middle class" doesn't benefit from things like "living wage" and other welfare type programs. If you are in the middle class, by definition your income is high enough that you don't need government assistance.
As far as not voting the way "the rich" want them to, if what you say is true then how did Bush get almost 50% of the popular vote? Because a lot of "middle class" people voted for him. So much for middle class people not voting the way they are supposed to.
Finally, it makes no sense from an economic point of view for "the rich" to eliminate the middle class, since it is the middle class' consumption that made "the rich" rich in the first place. It's kind of like killing the golden goose, as it were.
Of course, don't let facts and logic get in the way of a good conspiracy theory!
Actually, this is somewhat of a misnomer. There are certain situations where somebody can go after your personal assets, even if you incorporate:
1. It's possible to be held personally liable in cases of fraud, malpractice, or negligence, even if you are acting as an agent of the corporation. Even if you are incorporated, you should still carry personal liability insurance that is appropriate to your profession.
2. If you don't follow all of the proper procedures, it's possible that somebody can "pierce the corporate veil" and go after you personally for business debt.
3. If you are starting out in business, you may have to guarantee your business loan with a personal guarantee (i.e, your personal assets). In this case your personal stuff could be fair game if your corporation goes under.
Schedule X is for SOLE PROPRIETORS (if you don't know what that is, then you really DO need professional tax advice). They are talking about filing taxes for a C Corporation.
I have a DSL connection with Verizon, and they actually advertise networking your broadband connection as a FEATURE. On their web page, they have FAQ's about setting up a broadband router, and I've even gotten spam from them advertising how they will sell you the hardware that you need.
They don't charge on a per-computer basis. You can hook up as many computers as you want for the same price. They do cap your bandwidth, so it's not like hooking multiple machines up costs them anything.
Anyways, I wonder what effect a law like this would have on my situation. I mean, my ISP allows it - in fact they ENCOURAGE it. Would they be in violation of the law, too, because they are, in effect, conspiring to break this law?
Your wage should not be based on your cost of living, it should be based on how much you are worth.
Maybe this is true in your dream world, but in the real world, your wage is based upon supply and demand. I may be "worth" X, but if there is nobody out there who will pay me X, then I'm not going to get it. The FACT is that the market wage in lower cost of living areas is lower than it is in higher cost of living areas. I mean, compare the average salary for a programmer in Boston (high cost of living) vs. Des Moines (low cost of living). People in lower cost of living areas tend to demand less, because they don't need as much to live on.
I think you are wrong, first of all they dont need infastructure for programmers, they just need a bunch of computers and an internet connection, maybe an office.
You sound like somebody who has never actually BEEN to a third world country. What good is a computer if you don't have a reliable electrical grid? How do you get Internet access if you don't have a reliable phone system? And you can forget broadband... Also, they don't have the education system necessary to train a large number of IT professionals. The majority of people are more worried about doing what it takes to survive from day to day. Those that do get educated enough to be trained as programmers are in the minority. One nice thing about living in the West is that, for the most part, everyone has access to a decent education (whether they take advantage of it or not is another thing). In the third world, they just don't have the resources to give everyone a decent education.
I used to work with a guy from a country that is supposedly going to compete with us for IT jobs. He said that because the country can't educate everyone, only the best and the brightest get a decent education. On a side note, rather than staying in his home country, he emigrated to the US. He said that a large number of educated people in his country end up leaving because the quality of life is so much better here. That means that there are fewer and fewer people who can be trained as programmers, and fewer and fewer people for all these "offshore contracts".
When I was majoring in EE, I had looked into getting my PE certification. The more I looked into it, the less relevant it seemed to my work. The PE certification seems to be geared mostly towards the practice of Civil and, to a lesser extent, Mechanical Engineering. It seems to be of interest mainly on projects involving the design and building of things like bridges, tunnels, and other physical structures that Civil Engineering types are involved in.
Virtually none of the EE's that I know have ever even attempted to get their PE certification, because it just doesn't matter for working as an EE. Most of the topics that it covers are things that EE's never take in school and never encounter in the real world. I believe the same could be said for Chem E's, Environmental Engineers, or Computer Engineers (the kind who design processors and other hardware systems, NOT a system admin or code monkey).
Basically what they are saying in Texas is that only Civil Engineers who have PE can call themselves "Engineers". If the PE exam was expanded so that it was relevant to ALL recognized engineering disciples, then I wouldn't have a problem. However, to say that an EE who was educated at an ABET-accredited program and who has worked in their field for years can never be called an "Engineer" is crazy.
I agree that it is time to update the PE exam so that ALL engineering subjects can benefit from the rigor that the certification provides. They should have a separate exam for EE's, for Chem E's, for Mech E's, and maybe even Software Engineers (although I am still not convinced that Software Engineering is a first-class engineering field like that others).
Thats not the point, in New York you make money in dollars, in California you make money in dollars, everywhere you go your dollars are worth the same, the cost of living might vary but your money is worth the same for a REASON, it keeps things fair.
Here's the flaw in your argument, HanzoSan:
Even though every state in the US uses dollars, dollars AREN'T worth the same everywhere. Let me say that again so it sinks in:
DOLLARS AREN"T WORTH THE SAME EVERYWHERE!
Here's a basic ecomonics lesson for you. What is dollar? Basically a dollar is just a fancy piece of paper with some pretty pictures on it. If you were stranded on a desert island with a dollar, what can you do with it? You can burn it for fire (if you had a match) and maybe you can wipe your backside with it, but it really isn't that helpful. Why is a dollar so valuable then? Because you can trade them for things that are truly useful, like food or shelter or clothing, etc, etc. To summarize:
A dollar's value comes from the fact you can trade it for useful things.
I hope you are still with me. Let's say you have a pocket full of dollars. Let's say you are driving through Topeka Kansas, and you need gas. You pull over to a gas station and you trade the 10 dollars in your pocket for 8 gallons of gas. Now let's say you drive on to Denver Colorado when you find that your tank is again empty. You trade another 10 dollars for gas, but at the station in Denver, gas is more expensive. Hence, you get only 6 gallons of gas. Let's summarize again:
In Topeka, $10 = 8 gallons of gas. In Denver, $10 = 6 gallons of gas.
Now let's return to your original comment: "Everywhere you go, dollars are worth the same..." Wait one second, if you are right, then why was my $10 only worth 6 gallons of gas in Denver? Contrary to your belief:
Dollars aren't worth the same everywhere!
$10 in Topeka in my example are worth 8 gallons of gas, but it is only worth 6 gallons in Denver. Because dollars seem to be worth more in Topeka, then they must be more valuable there. Same currency but different value. Because a dollar can be traded for more things in Topeka, it is said to have a lower cost of living than Denver. This is because it takes fewer dollars to buy the same amount of tangible goods.
Let's summarize the above lessons:
1. Dollars are pieces of paper with neat pictures.
2. Dollars have value because you can trade them for useful things.
3. In some areas you can trade the same dollars for different quantities of useful things.
4. Because of 3, dollars must have different values depending upon where you are.
5. Areas where you get more tangible things for your dollars is said to have a lower cost of living.
I don't know why I am spending all this time on this. Perhaps you are just a troll in which case, you got me! Even if still haven't seen the glaring flaws in your own arguments, some lurker won't succumb to your illogical rhetoric.
What does the cost of living have to do with your wage? That has nothing to do with it. Sure its cheaper to live in North Dakota, theres more land there, the land is cheaper, and so on. This has absolutely nothing to do with your wage though, If I hire you as a company located in New York, you'll get a New York wage even if you live and work in North Dakota, letting you keep the extra money.
Cost of living has EVERYTHING to do with wage. If the cost of living in an area is low, then a company can pay workers in that area in lower wage. And your last statement make absolutely no sense. Just because a company is a "New York" company doesn't mean they have to pay a person in ND a NY wage. Just like a US company isn't going to pay a programmer in Indian a US wage. I may be mistaken, but isn't this exactly what you have been screaming about? If a company in place X has to pay a person in place Y as if they were in X as you say, then what's your beef. According to YOU this is exactly the problem that you are trying to solve with your Global Currency and Min Wage nonsense.
Theres more people in New York City, population and infastructure. New York is a built up city, you cannot compare it to a place which is mostly grass and trees and wonder why companies dont want to be there.
Now you are refuting your own argument. This is exactly why programming jobs won't go overseas in the numbers that you claim they will. Even though wages are higher in the US, there are advantages to basing operations in the US - you even mention a few!! There is a reason why these countries are called "third world". They have minimal infrastructure (frequent brown outs and limited telcom capabilities), their economies are unstable (think double and triple digit inflation), their political systems are unstable and rife with corruption (even by US standards!), they don't have a strong educational system, their medical care is low by western standards, etc, etc, etc. And you forget probably the most important ingredient to a skilled work force, a strong middle class!
The catch of course is that once a country develops these things, its standard of living increases, but so does the average wage.
Thats assuming theres not an endless supply of Indian programmers, look theres a billion Indians, theres around 300 million Americans, so tell me how in the hell do you think programmers will somehow be in demand again? But even if a billion Indian programmers were hired, you have another Billion Chinese and Africans to hire before hiring the Europeans and Americans.
Yes but how many of those billion Indians have the education, skills, and training to be programmers? And how many of those Indians are already here in the US earning US wages? If there are so many Indian/Chinese/African programmers chomping at the bit to take American jobs, then where were they back in the late 90's when anybody with a brain could get hired as a web programmer?
Thats fair, its not fair however if my Salary in changes because I move to Idaho, or Florida, a Salary should not be dynamic based on where you live.
Why isn't it fair? To me a fair wage is the market wage. In simpler terms, it's fair I'm making about the same as the guy next to me for doing the same job. I've lived in both rural in urban areas and the fact is that wages are lower in rural areas. If this fair to me? I mean, I was probably making less than my collegues in NYC. However, I DID think it was fair because my bills were lower. If anything, I was probably coming out a little bit ahead. Also I had a nice quality of life (close to nature, no traffic, no crowds). Also, if you forced companies to pay the same wage, no matter what the area, then all of the jobs in the low cost of living areas would probably disappear. After all, why should a company locate its operations in a place with all the disadvantages of a rural area (no infrastructure etc) without any of the advantages (lower cost of labor)?
There is a serious flaw in your argument. Here in the U.S., we have a single currency (dollars) and a national min wage, but it is STILL cheaper to live in North Dakota than it is in New York City. I'm sure that companies in ND can pay wages that are a lot lower than a company in NYC. Why is this? After all, according to you, this shouldn't happen since both places use the same currency and the same min wage.
Here's another thing to think about. If ND is that much cheaper for a company to operate in, then why haven't more companies moved to ND, and why are so many companies still based in NYC. Tax credits? Maybe but it had better be a REALLY BIG tax credit to make up the different. Perhaps the the realtor's mantra of "location, location, location" is really true. NYC has more potential employees, better infrastructure, proximity to a major economic center, and being in NYC carries a certain cache in some industries.
As far as jobs going overseas goes, if the U.S. tech industry is go "gloom and doom", why do the best and the brightest from India, China, and other countries come to the U.S. (on H1-B visas) to work here? If the situation is so rosy in India, then why come here to work. You never hear of American workers deciding to emigrate to India or China by the thousands. Even adjusting for cost of living, living in the U.S. offers a better quality of life.
Also, right now one of the reasons that it appears so much cheaper to hire an Indian programmer in India is because off-shore development really hasn't reached a critical mass. As more and more companies jump on the bandwagon, the demand for Indian programmers will increase, pushing up their cost. As this happens, the advantage of offshore programming will disappear. Also, programming isn't like stitching Nike's together. You can't just hire any farmer, stick them in a factory, and expect them to be productive. It requires a certain level of skill, education, and experience. To develop such a skill, a country needs to make a sizable investment in developing its educational system and infrastructure. The ones who do get educated in IT are the exception and not the rule. If a "third world" country were to develop the infrastructure necessary to churn out IT employees, this would have the effect of pushing up the standard of living, and reduce the wage difference between their workers and ours.
Anyway, economics isn't a static thing. It is a dynamic system where everything is inter-related, and it must be studied as such. Unfortunately, it seems like most people assume that one change or trend will continue indefinitely. You would think that Slashdot people would understand how to analyze dynamic systems, but I guess that only applies to digital ones!:-)
You bring up the fact that the IRS software would be more efficient since they have, among other things, our W-2's. If that's the case, then why do we have to mail in copies of our W-2 to the IRS with our tax return. If they already have them, then shouldn't they be able to look it up based upon my SSN or something?
My speculation is that the IRS either doesn't receive the W-2's or they aren't readily accessible in whatever filing system they have.
Also, why is it we don't have to send in 1099 with our tax returns as well. Either the system that they have for accessing 1099's in more advanced that the one for W-2's, or they don't actually care about what's reported on the 1099.
I think the reason why is that they don't want to compete (i.e. put out of business) the existing tax prep software market. If they did come up with their own e-filing software, they would be putting a million (billion?) dollar a year industry out of business.
Gamecube: $200 * 10 people Warranty: $30 * 10 people one out of 10 people return their GameCube for a replacement: -$200 * 1 person
Net PROFIT from Warranty sales = $100
I made up these numbers like you did, but the idea is accurate. The Warranty price is set so that they collect more money than they have to pay out in replacements.
In fact the movies ultimately fail, in my opinion, because Jackson doesn't recognize that he can't replicate the books on screen and fails to supply the necessary artistic imagination of his own to flesh out the work. What he does add or change is filler. If you are going to adapt a written work for the screen, do it like Kubrick did so often. Ditch the plot and show them what you can make of the work yourself.
And if Jackson had done that, you'd probably have somebody screaming bloody murder that he dared to alter the holy canon of Tolkien. Of yeah, I forgot... in fact you did have people complaining about the changes and omissions (i.e. Bombadil's omission, increased role for Arwen, etc, etc). It goes to show that you can't please everyone, so you might as well concentrate on pleasing yourself. Judging by the interviews I've seen with Peter Jackson, I'd say he was very happy with the final product.
As far as the Jackson-Kubrik comparison goes, Kubrick had the luxury of adapting books that weren't nearly as popular as the Lord of the Ring books. I mean, how many people have actually read _2001_ or _Clockwork Orange_ or even _The Shining_? I would wager that if you add up the number of people who have read these books combined, the total would be nowhere near the number who have read LOTR. In that sense, he was limited in what he could do.
To be honest, I am impressed that Jackson was able to inbue the movie with the spirit of the books as much as he did. I was very skeptical when I heard that LOTR was coming out as a film. It didn't seem like the type of books that could be adapted to film, given their scope. However, I thought that he did an admirable job of capturing their feel, given the limitations of the medium. In particular, I thought that the art direction, the sets, and the cinematography really captured the "atmosphere" in the same way that Tolkiens prose did. Apparently, Jackson hired two well known "Tolkien" artists to head up the art direction on the film. They were in charge of the overall designs for the sets, props, and costumes. Their vision for the world of Middle East really helped shape the movie in a very subtle, but profound way. For instance, they used very consistent motifs for all of the sets and props associated with the different cultures of Middle Earth. Some of it was based upon Tolkien's own writings and some of it was based upon their interpretation of the books. The level of care and detail that went into the design process was really amazing - especially for props that had very limited screen time.
If you want more details, I advise you to watch the "making of" DVD's in the Extended Edition of FOTR. If you are a fan of the atmosphere, like you say, you might gain a new appreciation of the movie.
Gack!! I wouldn't want to use any software you wrote. First there is a need, an itch to scratch, a requirement for something. Then there is a project plan, THEN there is a team, and FINALLY there is code. CODE is the LAST part of the project, not the first.
Eric:
I believe when he says "First there is the code", he doesn't mean "first" in terms of time. He means "first" in terms of importance. My guess is that you are being obtuse in order to get a rise out of the original poster, but you are just making yourself look like a troll (and a lame one at that).
I just wanted to point out that they said that jobs have increased in the service and insurance INDUSTRIES. That means all levels of jobs working for service or insurance companies. When they talk about the software industries, they mean companies whose primary product is software.
During my 10 year career, I have worked for 5 different companies as a software engineer. Only two of them were in the software industry. My other jobs were in the financial industry, insurance industry, and (my current job) in the transportation industry. In every case, I was working as a software professional, in increasingly technical positions.
Re:Why haven't they? Because the culture is broken
on
Sun Sued Over H1-B Workers
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Here's the catch, composer777...
The H1-B didn't come about because of lassez-faire, capitalist economics. It came about because of GOVERNMENT REGULATION. The government passed a law which made it possible for companies to hire foreign workers and pay them below market wages. Because H1-B workers can't switch jobs easily, they have no leverage in negotiating salarys. In effect, this is govermnent subsidy that benefits corporations.
I would argue that the solutions is to have the government stop passing regulations and give H1-B workers the freedom to ask for a raise or leave for a better job.
I agree with your lassez-faire logic, but I believe that you have reached a faulty conclusion. It was government intervention that caused the H1-B "problem" in the first place. What US workers are asking for is not "protection" for themselves, but for the removal of what is, in effect, a government subsidy to big business.
The H1-B visa program actually disrupts the normal rules of supply and demand. Because it makes it difficult for H1-B workers to switch jobs, they have no leverage with which to negotiate their salary and benefits. Because of this, they are forced to accept below market pay. One "free market" solution would be to allow visa holders the freedom to move from job to job. Companies in return will be forced to pay H1-B workers the market wage, thus eliminating the "subsidy" that companies are given by the government's enactment of this program.
On a related note, I do not think that offshore development is going to take off the way that everyone thinks that it is. As demand for Indian programmers increases, they will demand high wages, thus eliminating the cost savings. Already you hear complaints from Indian shops that they now have to compete with lower cost countries like Vietnam and China. Eventually, costs in these places will be bid up as demand grows. Also, a lot of tech workers in these third world countries are going to want to move to the US and other high standard-of-living countries, depleting the third-world of its tech workers. In a sense, the H1-B visa program actually works AGAINST offshore development, since it depletes the employment pool in these third world countries.
One book that you should look at is _Rapid Development_ by Steve McConnell. Although the book primarily is about software project management, there are several chapters on the topics of motivating tech workers and teambuilding that are among the best that I've read. Basically, he notes that tech workers and tech managers are usually motivated by different things, and one big mistake that managers make is trying to motivate their workers in the same way that they would want to be motivated. He backs this up with a lot of primary research, and the bilbliography along makes this book worth the price.
One book which McConnel cites a lot in his book is _Peopleware_, which is also about managing tech workers. I haven't read this book myself, but this book is considered by many to be the seminal work on managing tech workers. McConnell has very high praise for this book, and he quotes it very liberally.
I should warn you that _Rapid Development_ is a Microsoft Press book, and McConnell worked as a Microsoft consultant at one time. McConnell does draw on his experience with Microsoft in this book, but he is very fair in his assessment of the company's processes. He praises them when it is warranted, and he criticizes theme equally often.
Reading your post, I am reminded of a line from the Billy Joel song _Keeping the Faith_:
"The good old days aren't always good. Tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."
Yes, the game of baseball has changed over the years, but that doesn't make it better or worse - just different. Baseball goes through periods where offense dominates and periods where defense dominates, depending on various factors. We've had eras where hitting over 400 was not uncommon. We've had dead-ball eras. We've had a period during the 70's and 80's where only 2 people hit over 50 home runs. And now, we have an era where hitting over 50 home runs is considered commonplace. Given this trend, it is likely that this too will pass and defense will dominate again.
As far as announcers go, there are plenty of "old school" style announcers on both radio and television. These men carry on in the tradition of the Harry Carey's and Mel Allen's. You just need to give them a chance and not ignore them because they aren't the people with whom you grew up. Also, even though there were a lot of gems back in the "good old days", I'm sure there were a lot of dull announcers too. It's just that their dullness is lost in the annals of broadcasting history.
It's funny how nostalgia colors our view of the past (don't get me wrong - I am guilty of this as well).
Actually this is an issue here in the New York area. Most of the Mets and Yankees games are "broadcast" on cable. Plus NYC area viewers who subscribe to Cablevision don't even have the option of watching the Yankees because Cablevision refuses to carry the YES cable network. If you can't watch baseball over the air or on cable (in the case of the Yankees), then what is the point of a blackout?
If you read the article, you will know that the plantiff isn't against product activation. He is against the fact that Intuit didn't disclose the existence of product activation on the box. It was only after he tried to move the installation to a second machine that he realized that he couldn't.
To Microsoft's credit, they do disclose the fact that XP has product activation on the box. At least the consumer knows about it BEFORE they purchase the product, so they can make an informed decision.
Based upon what you have said, it looks like you really need to examine your build priorities. There is a screen where you can set the Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary build priorities, based upon the planet's classification.
For instance, there is a category called "Starving". The AI puts a planet into this category if there isn't enough food being produced. Make "Farming" the Primary priority and the AI will build farm improvements that will help the food situation.
There are about a dozen different categories that the AI uses, plus you can add your own User Defined categories. Once I figured out how to use these categories to my advantage, the AI seemed a lot less dumb.
I bought MOO3 last week, and I had the same reaction as you intially. I was really annoyed by the things that the AI was doing, yet I really didn't want to start micromanaging every little thing.
However, I discovered that the key to the game is knowing how to tweak the AI to achieve your goals. In particular, you need to really pay attention to the following:
1. You definitely need to set your build priorities. The game allows you to set build priorities, based upon how the planet's classification. For instance, you can make "Mining" the primary priority for all planets which are classified as "Mineral Rich". Setting build priorities makes the AI build basically what you want, without setting things manually.
2. I too was annoyed by the number of transports that the AI was building, until I discovered that I needed to set my military spending percentage appropriately. My military spending setting was set to "Peace", which only allows the AI to allocate something like 10% of a planets resources to building ships. For most planets, this meant that the only ship that it could build was a Transport. If you increase it to something like "Limited War", the AI will build more expensive ships. If you really want the AI to build up a big fleet, set it to "Holy War"!
3. You need to manage your ship designs from the Shipyard screen. From here, you determine the types of ships that can be built. As you get new techs, you should remove older ship designs, and create new designs that take advantage of the new techs. This also helps with the "Transport" problem. By simply adding a ship design that has a comparable cost to the "Transport", you will give the AI an alternative ship to build. If you really don't like the "Transport", simple remove its design and they will never get built (or you can create a more expensive "Super Transport" that only gets built in times of war.
Basically, you need to really understand the "Zen" of MOO3 in order to do well at it. Basically, the key isn't to micromanage every little decision. Instead, you should tweak the AI settings and let the AI handle all of the little decisions. Once you learn how to do this, you will gain more respect for the AI.
My main complaint with the game is that I had to figure out the above pretty much on my own. Yes the manual describes all of the options and whatnot, but it doesn't really give you any insight into how to approach the game. Without understanding how to manipulate the AI, the game is very VERY frustrating. I think that's why the reviews have been mixed. WIth MOO3, the lightbuilb doesn't go on until you've really put the game through its paces. Until that little lightbulb turns on, MOO3 makes very little sense.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I consider "living wage" to be a form of welfare. When I think of the term "living wage", I think of proposals in some areas to raise the minimum wage so that it is above the poverty line for the given area. To me, this is welfare because it provides a subsidy to the poor. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not passing judgment necessarily on it. I am just saying that to me it is a form of welfare.
Anyway, in your original post you say that the "rich" want to do away with the middle class because they demand a "living wage". What I am saying is that the middle class doesn't benefit from a "living wage" because, by definition, a middle class individual makes enough to live above the poverty line. Based upon this logic, you are defining "middle class" to be "not rich", when in fact it means "neither rich nor poor" (hence the usage of MIDDLE in the term).
I love conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but at least you need to base it on some sort of reality.
First of all, the "middle class" doesn't benefit from things like "living wage" and other welfare type programs. If you are in the middle class, by definition your income is high enough that you don't need government assistance.
As far as not voting the way "the rich" want them to, if what you say is true then how did Bush get almost 50% of the popular vote? Because a lot of "middle class" people voted for him. So much for middle class people not voting the way they are supposed to.
Finally, it makes no sense from an economic point of view for "the rich" to eliminate the middle class, since it is the middle class' consumption that made "the rich" rich in the first place. It's kind of like killing the golden goose, as it were.
Of course, don't let facts and logic get in the way of a good conspiracy theory!
Actually, this is somewhat of a misnomer. There are certain situations where somebody can go after your personal assets, even if you incorporate:
1. It's possible to be held personally liable in cases of fraud, malpractice, or negligence, even if you are acting as an agent of the corporation. Even if you are incorporated, you should still carry personal liability insurance that is appropriate to your profession.
2. If you don't follow all of the proper procedures, it's possible that somebody can "pierce the corporate veil" and go after you personally for business debt.
3. If you are starting out in business, you may have to guarantee your business loan with a personal guarantee (i.e, your personal assets). In this case your personal stuff could be fair game if your corporation goes under.
Schedule X is for SOLE PROPRIETORS (if you don't know what that is, then you really DO need professional tax advice). They are talking about filing taxes for a C Corporation.
I have a DSL connection with Verizon, and they actually advertise networking your broadband connection as a FEATURE. On their web page, they have FAQ's about setting up a broadband router, and I've even gotten spam from them advertising how they will sell you the hardware that you need.
They don't charge on a per-computer basis. You can hook up as many computers as you want for the same price. They do cap your bandwidth, so it's not like hooking multiple machines up costs them anything.
Anyways, I wonder what effect a law like this would have on my situation. I mean, my ISP allows it - in fact they ENCOURAGE it. Would they be in violation of the law, too, because they are, in effect, conspiring to break this law?
Your wage should not be based on your cost of living, it should be based on how much you are worth.
Maybe this is true in your dream world, but in the real world, your wage is based upon supply and demand. I may be "worth" X, but if there is nobody out there who will pay me X, then I'm not going to get it. The FACT is that the market wage in lower cost of living areas is lower than it is in higher cost of living areas. I mean, compare the average salary for a programmer in Boston (high cost of living) vs. Des Moines (low cost of living). People in lower cost of living areas tend to demand less, because they don't need as much to live on.
I think you are wrong, first of all they dont need infastructure for programmers, they just need a bunch of computers and an internet connection, maybe an office.
You sound like somebody who has never actually BEEN to a third world country. What good is a computer if you don't have a reliable electrical grid? How do you get Internet access if you don't have a reliable phone system? And you can forget broadband... Also, they don't have the education system necessary to train a large number of IT professionals. The majority of people are more worried about doing what it takes to survive from day to day. Those that do get educated enough to be trained as programmers are in the minority. One nice thing about living in the West is that, for the most part, everyone has access to a decent education (whether they take advantage of it or not is another thing). In the third world, they just don't have the resources to give everyone a decent education.
I used to work with a guy from a country that is supposedly going to compete with us for IT jobs. He said that because the country can't educate everyone, only the best and the brightest get a decent education. On a side note, rather than staying in his home country, he emigrated to the US. He said that a large number of educated people in his country end up leaving because the quality of life is so much better here. That means that there are fewer and fewer people who can be trained as programmers, and fewer and fewer people for all these "offshore contracts".
When I was majoring in EE, I had looked into getting my PE certification. The more I looked into it, the less relevant it seemed to my work. The PE certification seems to be geared mostly towards the practice of Civil and, to a lesser extent, Mechanical Engineering. It seems to be of interest mainly on projects involving the design and building of things like bridges, tunnels, and other physical structures that Civil Engineering types are involved in.
Virtually none of the EE's that I know have ever even attempted to get their PE certification, because it just doesn't matter for working as an EE. Most of the topics that it covers are things that EE's never take in school and never encounter in the real world. I believe the same could be said for Chem E's, Environmental Engineers, or Computer Engineers (the kind who design processors and other hardware systems, NOT a system admin or code monkey).
Basically what they are saying in Texas is that only Civil Engineers who have PE can call themselves "Engineers". If the PE exam was expanded so that it was relevant to ALL recognized engineering disciples, then I wouldn't have a problem. However, to say that an EE who was educated at an ABET-accredited program and who has worked in their field for years can never be called an "Engineer" is crazy.
I agree that it is time to update the PE exam so that ALL engineering subjects can benefit from the rigor that the certification provides. They should have a separate exam for EE's, for Chem E's, for Mech E's, and maybe even Software Engineers (although I am still not convinced that Software Engineering is a first-class engineering field like that others).
Thats not the point, in New York you make money in dollars, in California you make money in dollars, everywhere you go your dollars are worth the same, the cost of living might vary but your money is worth the same for a REASON, it keeps things fair.
Here's the flaw in your argument, HanzoSan:
Even though every state in the US uses dollars, dollars AREN'T worth the same everywhere. Let me say that again so it sinks in:
DOLLARS AREN"T WORTH THE SAME EVERYWHERE!
Here's a basic ecomonics lesson for you. What is dollar? Basically a dollar is just a fancy piece of paper with some pretty pictures on it. If you were stranded on a desert island with a dollar, what can you do with it? You can burn it for fire (if you had a match) and maybe you can wipe your backside with it, but it really isn't that helpful. Why is a dollar so valuable then? Because you can trade them for things that are truly useful, like food or shelter or clothing, etc, etc. To summarize:
A dollar's value comes from the fact you can trade it for useful things.
I hope you are still with me. Let's say you have a pocket full of dollars. Let's say you are driving through Topeka Kansas, and you need gas. You pull over to a gas station and you trade the 10 dollars in your pocket for 8 gallons of gas. Now let's say you drive on to Denver Colorado when you find that your tank is again empty. You trade another 10 dollars for gas, but at the station in Denver, gas is more expensive. Hence, you get only 6 gallons of gas. Let's summarize again:
In Topeka, $10 = 8 gallons of gas.
In Denver, $10 = 6 gallons of gas.
Now let's return to your original comment: "Everywhere you go, dollars are worth the same..." Wait one second, if you are right, then why was my $10 only worth 6 gallons of gas in Denver? Contrary to your belief:
Dollars aren't worth the same everywhere!
$10 in Topeka in my example are worth 8 gallons of gas, but it is only worth 6 gallons in Denver. Because dollars seem to be worth more in Topeka, then they must be more valuable there. Same currency but different value. Because a dollar can be traded for more things in Topeka, it is said to have a lower cost of living than Denver. This is because it takes fewer dollars to buy the same amount of tangible goods.
Let's summarize the above lessons:
1. Dollars are pieces of paper with neat pictures.
2. Dollars have value because you can trade them for useful things.
3. In some areas you can trade the same dollars for different quantities of useful things.
4. Because of 3, dollars must have different values depending upon where you are.
5. Areas where you get more tangible things for your dollars is said to have a lower cost of living.
I don't know why I am spending all this time on this. Perhaps you are just a troll in which case, you got me! Even if still haven't seen the glaring flaws in your own arguments, some lurker won't succumb to your illogical rhetoric.
Cheers!
HanzoSan:
Your logic makes absolutely NO SENSE!!!
What does the cost of living have to do with your wage? That has nothing to do with it. Sure its cheaper to live in North Dakota, theres more land there, the land is cheaper, and so on. This has absolutely nothing to do with your wage though, If I hire you as a company located in New York, you'll get a New York wage even if you live and work in North Dakota, letting you keep the extra money.
Cost of living has EVERYTHING to do with wage. If the cost of living in an area is low, then a company can pay workers in that area in lower wage. And your last statement make absolutely no sense. Just because a company is a "New York" company doesn't mean they have to pay a person in ND a NY wage. Just like a US company isn't going to pay a programmer in Indian a US wage. I may be mistaken, but isn't this exactly what you have been screaming about? If a company in place X has to pay a person in place Y as if they were in X as you say, then what's your beef. According to YOU this is exactly the problem that you are trying to solve with your Global Currency and Min Wage nonsense.
Theres more people in New York City, population and infastructure. New York is a built up city, you cannot compare it to a place which is mostly grass and trees and wonder why companies dont want to be there.
Now you are refuting your own argument. This is exactly why programming jobs won't go overseas in the numbers that you claim they will. Even though wages are higher in the US, there are advantages to basing operations in the US - you even mention a few!! There is a reason why these countries are called "third world". They have minimal infrastructure (frequent brown outs and limited telcom capabilities), their economies are unstable (think double and triple digit inflation), their political systems are unstable and rife with corruption (even by US standards!), they don't have a strong educational system, their medical care is low by western standards, etc, etc, etc. And you forget probably the most important ingredient to a skilled work force, a strong middle class!
The catch of course is that once a country develops these things, its standard of living increases, but so does the average wage.
Thats assuming theres not an endless supply of Indian programmers, look theres a billion Indians, theres around 300 million Americans, so tell me how in the hell do you think programmers will somehow be in demand again? But even if a billion Indian programmers were hired, you have another Billion Chinese and Africans to hire before hiring the Europeans and Americans.
Yes but how many of those billion Indians have the education, skills, and training to be programmers? And how many of those Indians are already here in the US earning US wages? If there are so many Indian/Chinese/African programmers chomping at the bit to take American jobs, then where were they back in the late 90's when anybody with a brain could get hired as a web programmer?
Thats fair, its not fair however if my Salary in changes because I move to Idaho, or Florida, a Salary should not be dynamic based on where you live.
Why isn't it fair? To me a fair wage is the market wage. In simpler terms, it's fair I'm making about the same as the guy next to me for doing the same job. I've lived in both rural in urban areas and the fact is that wages are lower in rural areas. If this fair to me? I mean, I was probably making less than my collegues in NYC. However, I DID think it was fair because my bills were lower. If anything, I was probably coming out a little bit ahead. Also I had a nice quality of life (close to nature, no traffic, no crowds). Also, if you forced companies to pay the same wage, no matter what the area, then all of the jobs in the low cost of living areas would probably disappear. After all, why should a company locate its operations in a place with all the disadvantages of a rural area (no infrastructure etc) without any of the advantages (lower cost of labor)?
There is a serious flaw in your argument. Here in the U.S., we have a single currency (dollars) and a national min wage, but it is STILL cheaper to live in North Dakota than it is in New York City. I'm sure that companies in ND can pay wages that are a lot lower than a company in NYC. Why is this? After all, according to you, this shouldn't happen since both places use the same currency and the same min wage.
:-)
Here's another thing to think about. If ND is that much cheaper for a company to operate in, then why haven't more companies moved to ND, and why are so many companies still based in NYC. Tax credits? Maybe but it had better be a REALLY BIG tax credit to make up the different. Perhaps the the realtor's mantra of "location, location, location" is really true. NYC has more potential employees, better infrastructure, proximity to a major economic center, and being in NYC carries a certain cache in some industries.
As far as jobs going overseas goes, if the U.S. tech industry is go "gloom and doom", why do the best and the brightest from India, China, and other countries come to the U.S. (on H1-B visas) to work here? If the situation is so rosy in India, then why come here to work. You never hear of American workers deciding to emigrate to India or China by the thousands. Even adjusting for cost of living, living in the U.S. offers a better quality of life.
Also, right now one of the reasons that it appears so much cheaper to hire an Indian programmer in India is because off-shore development really hasn't reached a critical mass. As more and more companies jump on the bandwagon, the demand for Indian programmers will increase, pushing up their cost. As this happens, the advantage of offshore programming will disappear. Also, programming isn't like stitching Nike's together. You can't just hire any farmer, stick them in a factory, and expect them to be productive. It requires a certain level of skill, education, and experience. To develop such a skill, a country needs to make a sizable investment in developing its educational system and infrastructure. The ones who do get educated in IT are the exception and not the rule. If a "third world" country were to develop the infrastructure necessary to churn out IT employees, this would have the effect of pushing up the standard of living, and reduce the wage difference between their workers and ours.
Anyway, economics isn't a static thing. It is a dynamic system where everything is inter-related, and it must be studied as such. Unfortunately, it seems like most people assume that one change or trend will continue indefinitely. You would think that Slashdot people would understand how to analyze dynamic systems, but I guess that only applies to digital ones!
What you say makes total sense.
You bring up the fact that the IRS software would be more efficient since they have, among other things, our W-2's. If that's the case, then why do we have to mail in copies of our W-2 to the IRS with our tax return. If they already have them, then shouldn't they be able to look it up based upon my SSN or something?
My speculation is that the IRS either doesn't receive the W-2's or they aren't readily accessible in whatever filing system they have.
Also, why is it we don't have to send in 1099 with our tax returns as well. Either the system that they have for accessing 1099's in more advanced that the one for W-2's, or they don't actually care about what's reported on the 1099.
I think the reason why is that they don't want to compete (i.e. put out of business) the existing tax prep software market. If they did come up with their own e-filing software, they would be putting a million (billion?) dollar a year industry out of business.
pr0c:
It's more like:
Gamecube: $200 * 10 people
Warranty: $30 * 10 people
one out of 10 people return their GameCube for a replacement: -$200 * 1 person
Net PROFIT from Warranty sales = $100
I made up these numbers like you did, but the idea is accurate. The Warranty price is set so that they collect more money than they have to pay out in replacements.
In fact the movies ultimately fail, in my opinion, because Jackson doesn't recognize that he can't replicate the books on screen and fails to supply the necessary artistic imagination of his own to flesh out the work. What he does add or change is filler. If you are going to adapt a written work for the screen, do it like Kubrick did so often. Ditch the plot and show them what you can make of the work yourself.
And if Jackson had done that, you'd probably have somebody screaming bloody murder that he dared to alter the holy canon of Tolkien. Of yeah, I forgot... in fact you did have people complaining about the changes and omissions (i.e. Bombadil's omission, increased role for Arwen, etc, etc). It goes to show that you can't please everyone, so you might as well concentrate on pleasing yourself. Judging by the interviews I've seen with Peter Jackson, I'd say he was very happy with the final product.
As far as the Jackson-Kubrik comparison goes, Kubrick had the luxury of adapting books that weren't nearly as popular as the Lord of the Ring books. I mean, how many people have actually read _2001_ or _Clockwork Orange_ or even _The Shining_? I would wager that if you add up the number of people who have read these books combined, the total would be nowhere near the number who have read LOTR. In that sense, he was limited in what he could do.
To be honest, I am impressed that Jackson was able to inbue the movie with the spirit of the books as much as he did. I was very skeptical when I heard that LOTR was coming out as a film. It didn't seem like the type of books that could be adapted to film, given their scope. However, I thought that he did an admirable job of capturing their feel, given the limitations of the medium. In particular, I thought that the art direction, the sets, and the cinematography really captured the "atmosphere" in the same way that Tolkiens prose did. Apparently, Jackson hired two well known "Tolkien" artists to head up the art direction on the film. They were in charge of the overall designs for the sets, props, and costumes. Their vision for the world of Middle East really helped shape the movie in a very subtle, but profound way. For instance, they used very consistent motifs for all of the sets and props associated with the different cultures of Middle Earth. Some of it was based upon Tolkien's own writings and some of it was based upon their interpretation of the books. The level of care and detail that went into the design process was really amazing - especially for props that had very limited screen time.
If you want more details, I advise you to watch the "making of" DVD's in the Extended Edition of FOTR. If you are a fan of the atmosphere, like you say, you might gain a new appreciation of the movie.
Gack!! I wouldn't want to use any software you wrote. First there is a need, an itch to scratch, a requirement for something. Then there is a project plan, THEN there is a team, and FINALLY there is code. CODE is the LAST part of the project, not the first.
Eric:
I believe when he says "First there is the code", he doesn't mean "first" in terms of time. He means "first" in terms of importance. My guess is that you are being obtuse in order to get a rise out of the original poster, but you are just making yourself look like a troll (and a lame one at that).
I just wanted to point out that they said that jobs have increased in the service and insurance INDUSTRIES. That means all levels of jobs working for service or insurance companies. When they talk about the software industries, they mean companies whose primary product is software.
During my 10 year career, I have worked for 5 different companies as a software engineer. Only two of them were in the software industry. My other jobs were in the financial industry, insurance industry, and (my current job) in the transportation industry. In every case, I was working as a software professional, in increasingly technical positions.
Here's the catch, composer777...
The H1-B didn't come about because of lassez-faire, capitalist economics. It came about because of GOVERNMENT REGULATION. The government passed a law which made it possible for companies to hire foreign workers and pay them below market wages. Because H1-B workers can't switch jobs easily, they have no leverage in negotiating salarys. In effect, this is govermnent subsidy that benefits corporations.
I would argue that the solutions is to have the government stop passing regulations and give H1-B workers the freedom to ask for a raise or leave for a better job.
Jason:
I agree with your lassez-faire logic, but I believe that you have reached a faulty conclusion. It was government intervention that caused the H1-B "problem" in the first place. What US workers are asking for is not "protection" for themselves, but for the removal of what is, in effect, a government subsidy to big business.
The H1-B visa program actually disrupts the normal rules of supply and demand. Because it makes it difficult for H1-B workers to switch jobs, they have no leverage with which to negotiate their salary and benefits. Because of this, they are forced to accept below market pay. One "free market" solution would be to allow visa holders the freedom to move from job to job. Companies in return will be forced to pay H1-B workers the market wage, thus eliminating the "subsidy" that companies are given by the government's enactment of this program.
On a related note, I do not think that offshore development is going to take off the way that everyone thinks that it is. As demand for Indian programmers increases, they will demand high wages, thus eliminating the cost savings. Already you hear complaints from Indian shops that they now have to compete with lower cost countries like Vietnam and China. Eventually, costs in these places will be bid up as demand grows. Also, a lot of tech workers in these third world countries are going to want to move to the US and other high standard-of-living countries, depleting the third-world of its tech workers. In a sense, the H1-B visa program actually works AGAINST offshore development, since it depletes the employment pool in these third world countries.
One book that you should look at is _Rapid Development_ by Steve McConnell. Although the book primarily is about software project management, there are several chapters on the topics of motivating tech workers and teambuilding that are among the best that I've read. Basically, he notes that tech workers and tech managers are usually motivated by different things, and one big mistake that managers make is trying to motivate their workers in the same way that they would want to be motivated. He backs this up with a lot of primary research, and the bilbliography along makes this book worth the price.
One book which McConnel cites a lot in his book is _Peopleware_, which is also about managing tech workers. I haven't read this book myself, but this book is considered by many to be the seminal work on managing tech workers. McConnell has very high praise for this book, and he quotes it very liberally.
I should warn you that _Rapid Development_ is a Microsoft Press book, and McConnell worked as a Microsoft consultant at one time. McConnell does draw on his experience with Microsoft in this book, but he is very fair in his assessment of the company's processes. He praises them when it is warranted, and he criticizes theme equally often.
Reading your post, I am reminded of a line from the Billy Joel song _Keeping the Faith_:
"The good old days aren't always good. Tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."
Yes, the game of baseball has changed over the years, but that doesn't make it better or worse - just different. Baseball goes through periods where offense dominates and periods where defense dominates, depending on various factors. We've had eras where hitting over 400 was not uncommon. We've had dead-ball eras. We've had a period during the 70's and 80's where only 2 people hit over 50 home runs. And now, we have an era where hitting over 50 home runs is considered commonplace. Given this trend, it is likely that this too will pass and defense will dominate again.
As far as announcers go, there are plenty of "old school" style announcers on both radio and television. These men carry on in the tradition of the Harry Carey's and Mel Allen's. You just need to give them a chance and not ignore them because they aren't the people with whom you grew up. Also, even though there were a lot of gems back in the "good old days", I'm sure there were a lot of dull announcers too. It's just that their dullness is lost in the annals of broadcasting history.
It's funny how nostalgia colors our view of the past (don't get me wrong - I am guilty of this as well).
Actually this is an issue here in the New York area. Most of the Mets and Yankees games are "broadcast" on cable. Plus NYC area viewers who subscribe to Cablevision don't even have the option of watching the Yankees because Cablevision refuses to carry the YES cable network. If you can't watch baseball over the air or on cable (in the case of the Yankees), then what is the point of a blackout?
If you read the article, you will know that the plantiff isn't against product activation. He is against the fact that Intuit didn't disclose the existence of product activation on the box. It was only after he tried to move the installation to a second machine that he realized that he couldn't.
To Microsoft's credit, they do disclose the fact that XP has product activation on the box. At least the consumer knows about it BEFORE they purchase the product, so they can make an informed decision.
Based upon what you have said, it looks like you really need to examine your build priorities. There is a screen where you can set the Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary build priorities, based upon the planet's classification.
For instance, there is a category called "Starving". The AI puts a planet into this category if there isn't enough food being produced. Make "Farming" the Primary priority and the AI will build farm improvements that will help the food situation.
There are about a dozen different categories that the AI uses, plus you can add your own User Defined categories. Once I figured out how to use these categories to my advantage, the AI seemed a lot less dumb.
I bought MOO3 last week, and I had the same reaction as you intially. I was really annoyed by the things that the AI was doing, yet I really didn't want to start micromanaging every little thing.
However, I discovered that the key to the game is knowing how to tweak the AI to achieve your goals. In particular, you need to really pay attention to the following:
1. You definitely need to set your build priorities. The game allows you to set build priorities, based upon how the planet's classification. For instance, you can make "Mining" the primary priority for all planets which are classified as "Mineral Rich". Setting build priorities makes the AI build basically what you want, without setting things manually.
2. I too was annoyed by the number of transports that the AI was building, until I discovered that I needed to set my military spending percentage appropriately. My military spending setting was set to "Peace", which only allows the AI to allocate something like 10% of a planets resources to building ships. For most planets, this meant that the only ship that it could build was a Transport. If you increase it to something like "Limited War", the AI will build more expensive ships. If you really want the AI to build up a big fleet, set it to "Holy War"!
3. You need to manage your ship designs from the Shipyard screen. From here, you determine the types of ships that can be built. As you get new techs, you should remove older ship designs, and create new designs that take advantage of the new techs. This also helps with the "Transport" problem. By simply adding a ship design that has a comparable cost to the "Transport", you will give the AI an alternative ship to build. If you really don't like the "Transport", simple remove its design and they will never get built (or you can create a more expensive "Super Transport" that only gets built in times of war.
Basically, you need to really understand the "Zen" of MOO3 in order to do well at it. Basically, the key isn't to micromanage every little decision. Instead, you should tweak the AI settings and let the AI handle all of the little decisions. Once you learn how to do this, you will gain more respect for the AI.
My main complaint with the game is that I had to figure out the above pretty much on my own. Yes the manual describes all of the options and whatnot, but it doesn't really give you any insight into how to approach the game. Without understanding how to manipulate the AI, the game is very VERY frustrating. I think that's why the reviews have been mixed. WIth MOO3, the lightbuilb doesn't go on until you've really put the game through its paces. Until that little lightbulb turns on, MOO3 makes very little sense.
That's funny, since 50% of all US public corporations (including 58% of the Fortune 500) are incorporated in Delaware.
See http://www.state.de.us/corp/ if you don't believe me...