A surprise, onsite inspection would be far better. Otherwise you just get a Potemkin Village demonstration that things are cleaner than they actually are.
The only skill that the US doesn't have that these workers have is being overly pliant. Businesses hate freedom unless it is solely in the hands of business.
But ultimately, Apple executives say curing unemployment is not Apple's job. 'We don't have an obligation to solve America's problems. Our only obligation is making the best product possible.'"
If Apple had no other option, they would still be able to make high-quality products with large-scale US labor. A tariff based on worker freedom that punishes the practices of China et al while it rewards the practices of the US and EU with tax deals would go a long way.
The only good thing to do is to make it not only Apple's obligation, but everyone's obligation that sells in the US.
The only reason they dislike the US so much is that workers have too much freedom versus the slave-labor countries that Apple uses.
If Apple really wanted to invest in the US, and not have contempt for worker freedoms, it would find that there would be no shortage or issue with getting the job done.
Give business no option to go offshore, reward them with tax incentives for staying onshore, and then deeper incentives for retaining people on a directly hired, FTE basis.
I'm sure there'd be plenty of room if the government didnt have to administer a guest worker program, much less worry about the obvious fraud and waste in it.
You cannot train people to correct for such deficiencies if (a) the universities aren't there and (b) the workers aren't interested. The original article states both problems exist, ergo training is not possible.
The universities are there, and the workers are interested. It is business that is at fault.
A more practical goal is to see at the very least the US, or SOME nation in the world, adopt the philosophy of doing best by their citizenry and have the citizenry respond by becoming as highly educated, as mentally flexible and as dextrous in work environments as possible. This would still be incredibly hard to achieve. Your own post shows why - you're not interested in being at the top of the heap by being the best. "you underestimate the power of the US Government and its ability to make an overseas move unprofitably painful" is another way of saying you're only interested in being at the top of the heap by impairing others.
It's national defense, something the US does quite well at. If someone wishes to fundamentally destroy the US through some sort of departure - it should be thwarted.
Merit is nice, but it's always good to have a backup when it fails or is structured to fail. Whether you consider that a negative or positive, is your opinion.
I, therefore, am not the one in contempt of US citizens. You are. You are the one who is holding that it is only at knife-point that the US can achieve a damn thing, that it cannot succeed by competency alone. I am the one who is saying that it CAN achieve everything through competency alone. That isn't contempt for Americans, that's admiration for their sheer potential intelligence, their potential guts and their potential determination. The only contempt is for why it's potential and not realized, and therefore contempt for your notion of superiority by force.
When businesses refuse to realize it in the US or cultivate it, they are at fault. I do not have the contempt for Americans in general, reserving it for those that hold back work or use the excuses of skill and competition to not build citizens up.
Not really - global competition is a reality. American companies need skilled employees, but can't get them in the USA because of the above. The establishment helps companies (via mechanisms like elimination of trade barriers) access skilled employees outside the country, where they won't vote in the US elections.
Only if national policy resigns to it. Once the US is willing, it can override the "global competition" herpderp.
There needs to be a willingness to combat those that won't train US citizens for actual deficiencies (as opposed to those claimed by business).
Sen. Sherrod Brown(D) - who has been quite the firebrand when it comes to things like China and trade
Rep. Mike Turner(R) - his focus being national defense, as well as making sure Wright-Patterson AFB (as well as the associated contractor work) exists.
Then the US would be waiting with a tariff for what it couldn't seize within the US's borders. You don't play by the rules in good faith, your goods don't enter the US.
With as much unemployed as there are out there for US citizens, I'd wager a lot of them would assist. Not only would they be able to pay the bills, they would also be able to help go against someone that tried to send their job overseas.
Finally, not every company could afford to go overseas or be able to move in time. The smaller ones would be easy to track while the larger ones would have issues with things they cannot move easily - if at all.
If your own citizens are inept, uneducated and incapable of doing the work required, companies have to fill the skilled positions somehow
Then you train said people to correct for such deficiencies - should they really exist. Invoking the words global, competition and skilled are just code words for expressing contempt towards US citizens.
Having a "made in the US" label on every employee might sound cool to America in times of high unemployment but it would kill businesses or force them overseas. And that means losing even more jobs, not to mention both corporate and income revenue for the government.
Yet you underestimate the power of the US Government and its ability to make an overseas move unprofitably painful. Or if they wish to prevent an overseas arm from trying to make a transplant.
Do you really love this country, or do you have some wish to have the US bow before the world?
On the other hand, there's every reason to have Chinese and Indians and Iranians and Nigerians, etc come to this country to learn. Because they raise the average.
Only as a additive complement to, not as a replacement for US citizens.
National borders are artificial. Cultural borders are not. There may not be a reason to see research and development as some grand competition, or the moral equivalent of war, but there is every reason to start spending a lot more money, public money, on R&D. Not because we have to "beat" the Chinese, but because we have to beat a whole lot of problems right here at home, and over-come the increasing anti-intellectualism of many Americans. Of course, I don't think that's going to be an applause line at the South Carolina Republican debate tonight.
By denying US citizens such education, you only reinforce the anti-intellectualism that you complain about.
I'm not from the US, so I don't really know, but I always understood that a "slot" at a university in the US is reserved for the person that pays. If the citizens can't pay it, than the universities will just fill these slots by foreigners who can, no?
There are other criteria for admissions than just cash. That, and it makes no sense in denying citizens education for lack of available slots.
In light of what I said above, you might want to consider Ferengi acquisition rule N 177: "Know your enemies... but do business with them always."
This particular variety incurs a cost that is greater than their added value - thus generating a loss. I'm sure that generating a net loss is a concept frowned upon in about any form of capitalism.
If that's the case, US citizens should be able to be given preference based on minority status - a statistical one - while the Asians would be stripped it.
If it is indeed so, get rid of any means to facilitate it - offshoring being the primary offender. No different than stopping blood from a wound versus allowing someone to bleed to death.
This is one of the better cases for why we should train our own instead of everyone else. If there's any spare room after the least capable citizen has been trained, only then should the US consider friendly internationals - for which are not generally found in Asia.
Slashdot Mirror
...instead of coming up with something nobody would pay.
Instead of $499, you'd get something more like $519-529.
Instead of $699, you'd get something more like $729-749.
The US is more than capable of the volume, just that business has to be given no alternative.
A surprise, onsite inspection would be far better. Otherwise you just get a Potemkin Village demonstration that things are cleaner than they actually are.
The only skill that the US doesn't have that these workers have is being overly pliant. Businesses hate freedom unless it is solely in the hands of business.
But ultimately, Apple executives say curing unemployment is not Apple's job. 'We don't have an obligation to solve America's problems. Our only obligation is making the best product possible.'"
If Apple had no other option, they would still be able to make high-quality products with large-scale US labor. A tariff based on worker freedom that punishes the practices of China et al while it rewards the practices of the US and EU with tax deals would go a long way.
The only good thing to do is to make it not only Apple's obligation, but everyone's obligation that sells in the US.
The only reason they dislike the US so much is that workers have too much freedom versus the slave-labor countries that Apple uses.
If Apple really wanted to invest in the US, and not have contempt for worker freedoms, it would find that there would be no shortage or issue with getting the job done.
Give business no option to go offshore, reward them with tax incentives for staying onshore, and then deeper incentives for retaining people on a directly hired, FTE basis.
I'm sure there'd be plenty of room if the government didnt have to administer a guest worker program, much less worry about the obvious fraud and waste in it.
You get a dog that can meow and has a lot of fur.
If you can afford to lose the data, it's fine to have it in the cloud.
If you can't, you are SOL if you don't have a backup - one that is not in the cloud.
You cannot train people to correct for such deficiencies if (a) the universities aren't there and (b) the workers aren't interested. The original article states both problems exist, ergo training is not possible.
The universities are there, and the workers are interested. It is business that is at fault.
A more practical goal is to see at the very least the US, or SOME nation in the world, adopt the philosophy of doing best by their citizenry and have the citizenry respond by becoming as highly educated, as mentally flexible and as dextrous in work environments as possible. This would still be incredibly hard to achieve. Your own post shows why - you're not interested in being at the top of the heap by being the best. "you underestimate the power of the US Government and its ability to make an overseas move unprofitably painful" is another way of saying you're only interested in being at the top of the heap by impairing others.
It's national defense, something the US does quite well at. If someone wishes to fundamentally destroy the US through some sort of departure - it should be thwarted.
Merit is nice, but it's always good to have a backup when it fails or is structured to fail. Whether you consider that a negative or positive, is your opinion.
I, therefore, am not the one in contempt of US citizens. You are. You are the one who is holding that it is only at knife-point that the US can achieve a damn thing, that it cannot succeed by competency alone. I am the one who is saying that it CAN achieve everything through competency alone. That isn't contempt for Americans, that's admiration for their sheer potential intelligence, their potential guts and their potential determination. The only contempt is for why it's potential and not realized, and therefore contempt for your notion of superiority by force.
When businesses refuse to realize it in the US or cultivate it, they are at fault. I do not have the contempt for Americans in general, reserving it for those that hold back work or use the excuses of skill and competition to not build citizens up.
Mine's dead, so I'd be kind of worried about any kind of spontaneous transforms.
Be the one that causes those deaths, preferably of those who send work offshore.
Not really - global competition is a reality. American companies need skilled employees, but can't get them in the USA because of the above. The establishment helps companies (via mechanisms like elimination of trade barriers) access skilled employees outside the country, where they won't vote in the US elections.
Only if national policy resigns to it. Once the US is willing, it can override the "global competition" herpderp.
There needs to be a willingness to combat those that won't train US citizens for actual deficiencies (as opposed to those claimed by business).
While it might sound altruistic, it isn't.
So the cat gets transformed even faster.
(apologies to XKCD)
I'm proud to be a US citizen, and that statement can't be wrong.
There's a difference between "there's a problem, fix it" and just saying that the US citizen can't do right.
At least I'm willing to put a name to my words, and stand behind them. However bad some coward thinks they may be.
Thankfully mine aren't on China's side.
Sen. Sherrod Brown(D) - who has been quite the firebrand when it comes to things like China and trade
Rep. Mike Turner(R) - his focus being national defense, as well as making sure Wright-Patterson AFB (as well as the associated contractor work) exists.
Is it a wonder that there is a growing contempt for China and its actions?
I believe we've gone way past the "three times is enemy action" for incidents like these.
The ways that the US are being criticized are not constructive. They imply that the job is done when the US is finished off.
What defects are alleged to exist with US citizens are not as deep or as wide to cast them aside.
Then the US would be waiting with a tariff for what it couldn't seize within the US's borders. You don't play by the rules in good faith, your goods don't enter the US.
With as much unemployed as there are out there for US citizens, I'd wager a lot of them would assist. Not only would they be able to pay the bills, they would also be able to help go against someone that tried to send their job overseas.
Finally, not every company could afford to go overseas or be able to move in time. The smaller ones would be easy to track while the larger ones would have issues with things they cannot move easily - if at all.
If these companies want to be a thorn in the side of the US and its citizens, the US Government can make a case to not flee.
If your own citizens are inept, uneducated and incapable of doing the work required, companies have to fill the skilled positions somehow
Then you train said people to correct for such deficiencies - should they really exist. Invoking the words global, competition and skilled are just code words for expressing contempt towards US citizens.
Having a "made in the US" label on every employee might sound cool to America in times of high unemployment but it would kill businesses or force them overseas. And that means losing even more jobs, not to mention both corporate and income revenue for the government.
Yet you underestimate the power of the US Government and its ability to make an overseas move unprofitably painful. Or if they wish to prevent an overseas arm from trying to make a transplant.
Do you really love this country, or do you have some wish to have the US bow before the world?
On the other hand, there's every reason to have Chinese and Indians and Iranians and Nigerians, etc come to this country to learn. Because they raise the average.
Only as a additive complement to, not as a replacement for US citizens.
National borders are artificial. Cultural borders are not. There may not be a reason to see research and development as some grand competition, or the moral equivalent of war, but there is every reason to start spending a lot more money, public money, on R&D. Not because we have to "beat" the Chinese, but because we have to beat a whole lot of problems right here at home, and over-come the increasing anti-intellectualism of many Americans. Of course, I don't think that's going to be an applause line at the South Carolina Republican debate tonight.
By denying US citizens such education, you only reinforce the anti-intellectualism that you complain about.
I'm not from the US, so I don't really know, but I always understood that a "slot" at a university in the US is reserved for the person that pays. If the citizens can't pay it, than the universities will just fill these slots by foreigners who can, no?
There are other criteria for admissions than just cash. That, and it makes no sense in denying citizens education for lack of available slots.
In light of what I said above, you might want to consider Ferengi acquisition rule N 177: "Know your enemies ... but do business with them always."
This particular variety incurs a cost that is greater than their added value - thus generating a loss. I'm sure that generating a net loss is a concept frowned upon in about any form of capitalism.
If that's the case, US citizens should be able to be given preference based on minority status - a statistical one - while the Asians would be stripped it.
If it is indeed so, get rid of any means to facilitate it - offshoring being the primary offender. No different than stopping blood from a wound versus allowing someone to bleed to death.
This is one of the better cases for why we should train our own instead of everyone else. If there's any spare room after the least capable citizen has been trained, only then should the US consider friendly internationals - for which are not generally found in Asia.