Bangalore IT money is not going to go into VC funds, it's going to go into houses and infrastructure improvements. Necessary prerequisites for the emergence of a native Indian IT market, I grant you.
True, but you make it sounds like all these IT workers are living in mud huts. The assumption that you're making is that all this money that's being invested and created there will solely go into creating a countrywide infrastructure (houses, cities, municipalities) across India. This will probably not happen. Look at America: even when we had a tech boom we still have millions starving everyday. We are the richest planet on this country too.
The truth is that the cities that hold much of this IT business already have all that infrastructure. You should read some articles on the tech boom there and how everyones already driving nice cars, buys tech toys and go clubbing while working hard. I think you've got the wrong picture of what it's like over there.
We're already sending away chip fab, customer service and software engineering. Don't think it can happen? Look at steel. Look at consumer electronics. Look at automobiles. All of these industries have either fallen into a sleepy trailing position, or are in serious trouble.
I have no illusions on foreign competition but I don't think isolating those business here will help us more than it helps them. Here's why:
1) Our costs become high. Today's world is a global world. You have to stop thinking domestically. Companies like IBM serve companies around the world. So imagine that IBM and SAP have an identical product (SAP being german). Let's say we restrict moving jobs overseas but SAP doesn't? Now SAP can sell superior software at half the price. Guess what's going to happen to IBM? Guess what's going to happen when SAP sells their software in America for 75% of the price? More business AND a bigger profit margin. The US needs to embrace this in order to compete.
2) Their competition. You're assuming that if we restrict business here we'll improve our own economy. I think that's far from the truth. The reason is because even if we restrictied business here, the rest of the world can do business without us. India can create her own SAP, her own IBM (etc) and do business with wealthy oil companies in the middle east, construction companies in the rest of the world, and the economies in Europe.
So I sincerely feel that fighting this will only make us lose (faster). It's a fool's dream to think that if we restricted the work to Americans that our economy would suddenly get better. It won't.
After you shake them, give them a couple bitch-slaps for me too.
Yes, I don't see how they cannot see that there's no loyalty because they aren't loyal to their workers. Competition works for employers but it also works for employees too.
I see your point and I used to feel as strongly about it the way you used to but the truth is everyone has a right to live their own lives the way they wanted to.
I used to despise all the people in our classes who did CS simply because they thought it would find them a job after school. I despised them because they just wanted to get paid. I think I was more idealistic back then.
The truth is that there's nothing wrong with going into a field of work because you think there is stable or good pay. People need to eat, feed their families, etc. I understand your rennaissance-era view of knowledge, sharing of knowledge, etc. but there's nothing wrong with being a bit practical about things.
On top of this, can someone please explain how sending good paying jobs out of this company is good for the economy?
Well, think of it this way. How much did it cost to buy a computer 10-20 years ago? A good 5 grand? Today you can get a dell for $300. How do you think this was possible? Magic?
Imagine that in 10 years from now computers costing $50 or iPods costing $50. Imagine DVD players costing $30..oh wait that's how much they cost now. Remember when they were $500? This is all the result of outsourcing.
Let's face it. There are advantages reaped by sending jobs overseas, it just sux when you're unemployed because it was your job taht was sent overseas (I know because I'm one of them). BUt for a bunch of people who are middle/lower class who are not in IT, they can now buy tvs. They can now buy DVD players and still have money left over for a computer. This was not possible 10 years ago.
HP makes tech toys.
Tech workers buy tech toys.
HP makes money
HP makes tech toys with outsourced forieng local workers.
US Techies get fired. Indian techies get hired.
Indian techies start buying HP tech toys.
US Techies re-invent themself, re-train, re-educate and find a job in new area. They become US Retrained.
US Retrained buy TEch toys (which are now 50% of the price they were before because they were made abroad).
HP makes even MORE money.
Everyone wins (in the long run.. short term it hurts.)
I know what you mean about Carly making a shitload of money. While that's true, I think you can't just concentrate on her but on HP.
There is some truth to the fact that those companies today need to outsource to survive. You might think that's a laugh in light on the yachts/cars/whatever Carly owns, but in terms of the company if they can't cut costs like every other competitive US company is doing then they will not only lose profit margins but go out of business altogether. That's economics for you.
For many of these tech companies employee salaries are their #1 cost. Now imagine the advantage companies would get if they outsourced and HP didn't.
Not that I like Carly, but her responsibility as CEO to her company and shareholders is to lead the business "well". Yes, that is pretty subjective but if you dont' adopt measures to survive and outdo your competitors than you're dead as fish in a barrel (both in the sense that your company (HP) would tank and you'd be fired as CEO).
Yes, I completely agree. Let's not ban exporting, but we need to soften the blow. Perhaps a small tax on exported work or, like you put it, a tax credit for domestically hired employees (which I like better).
I've also been thinking that they should put more into retraining but wondered how it would help a white-collar worker (compared to the obvious way it can help blue collar workers). But vouchers used for tuition would be an awesome idea! That way if/when my ass gets unemployed because of an exported job I can go back to school and have part of it paid for by the govt. Yes!
But here's the problem: we are growing production capacity without growing the markets to support them. Everyone would be getting rich and improving their quality of life in this equation if there was a demand from within India for IT work. There isn't one to speak of.
2 issues:
1) Are you sure? The more money and tech that flows into India, the more likely you are going to see companies that are going to need IT. Right now they offer IT outsourcing but, just like in America, you're bound to see reinvestment in other sort of tech companies that support these companies who will most likely need IT. The next indian Dell is bound to come around.
2) Locally and short term, you are right, no "new" demand is created. However, according to my limited knowledge of economics, creating IT solutions in India means that it costs less to make them. If it costs less to make it then it increases supply (or vice versa). This actually increases demand (in the sense that more companies can afford expensive-ass IT products such as middle and smaller companies rather than just huge conglomerates). Overall, it makes for a more efficient system.
I agree that we need to think globally and increase the pie. I do understand the concept of spreading the wealth.
However, there is a couple things that still scare me and bother me.
1) While America IS only %5 of the world's population, I'm afraid that the wealth will spread too "quickly". What I mean is that America seems to be on this track where there is a growing division between the rich and the poor, the have and the have-nots. By allowing big corporations to get richer while destroying a lot of the middle class (who worked those white collar jobs) I fear that in America that division will increase ever more.
I think America, as the richest democratic nation, has a responsibility to help other nations (even economically since it seems to help us in the long run anyway). But what happens if we export so many jobs that we create a HUGE poor class while helping teh rich get richer? Perhaps this is FUD and I wish I knew more about the depression during the 30s. As far as I know, that's how the white collar worker was created. But if we ship white collar jobs overseas then what's left?
2) Tax evasion. I don't think we should necessarily set up protectionism but what about all those companies that evade huge amounts of taxes? These are tax dollars that could be used to reinvest in our educational and research institutions that would help keep America at the forefront of research.
Huh, I don't think that was his point. I think he was saying that instead of San Jose seeing a higher level of living you'll see a higher level of living in Hyderabad (or some other indian city).
I'm not an economics buff but what I do know is that much of it is based on efficiency. Creating a product most efficiently reduces cost. Efficiency, in this case, means that you find the cheapest people who are capable of doing your job (disregarding all other factors). If the indian worker can do my job for $5/hr then that is economically efficient.
Anyway this last response still looks at things on a local, not a global level. What does IBM do? One thing they do is sell business hardware, businss software and business services. If more and more indian companies are created due to the wealth created over there, then IBM will be creating more clients for itself. Locally, you might be right, but you need to look at things globally.
Your words are true but I think are already well-known. I think the issue that the article points out that is more important is the closing gap between American education and non-American education. Before we always had an upperhand because of the money we invested in our schools and research. As the articles says, we invest a shitload of money just into protecting our farms, a "19th century idea" while we under-invest in certain parts of new tech (i forget what the article says).
The thing is is that we have to take your words but think about why. Why do your technologies move abroad (or how)? Because India is probably re-investing a shitload of money into their tech schools to breed IT workers by the dozen. Yes, WE (America) can create The Next Big Thing (tm) but only if we are willing to spend money on research and education (America is falling far behind compared to the rest of the world). Our advantage can only last so long.
The economic theory goes like this: if you set up barriers (and therefore increase cost) you basically handicap the corporations of your country (America). So let's say we set up some protectionary measures and deter American companies from exporting work? Now let's say Europe does NOT. Then Europe will be able to build all these IT products for cheap, gain market share and, ultimately, gain an upper hand with those IT products.
Another way to look at it is that let's say SAP makes product X. Let's say it currently costs $2 Million (partially due to costs of American programmers). If they can make that same product for $1 Million then they can 1) increase their own profit margin and 2) lower the price and decrease IT costs for their customers. If they did not do this, other global competitors would. It's not difficult to imagine that an indian SAP would eventually be created.
And that's what they mean by protectionism crippling industries and leading to higher unemployment (as jobs would go to emerging companies overseas). It leads to lower economic growth because everything costs more (the reason why the middle-class lives better today is because shit at Walmart is so cheap. Why is it so cheap? Because it's all made in China.).
If you were refering to: " 2) I'm a Cal Alumn so, by nature, I must be against Stanford (esp. the CS dept since I was in the CS dept at Cal:))." you should know the following.
1) Cal == UC Berkeley not Cal Tech
2) I was saying I "must be against Stanford" because they are our school rival (in terms of sports). It seems like you didn't know that.
Education matters, degrees don't. Please don't confuse the two.
Sorry, but to me it looks liek you're just playing with semantics. I think having a degree implies having an education. I do agree, though, that you can educate yourself. But that's not the point. I think there's a difference between being taught methodologies, approaches to problems, working with smart lab partners, etc compared to taking just some technical classes are you local CC, using a "Learn ___ programming in 21 days", etc.
Does it? Are you SURE about that? If you are, perhaps you'd like to explain the number of people I've met who've passed through the masters program, without even an idea on how to code Pong, much less an operating system? Companies have put a great deal of pressure on Universities to put out programmers that could "code in the popular languages". The Universities have been bowing to this pressure and dumbing down their ciriculum.
True. Very true. This is what separates the good CS schools from the bad ones. Where did those ppl get their masters/phd from? I've met several engineers with masters/phd from schools that traditionally don't have strong CS programs and it's like you said: they were taught today's technology so they would be relevant and it made me question how much theory they knew.
Secondly, with regard to smart people who program bad, it's like i said in my other post. I think it's pretty well-known that PhDs (the smart ones) make bad programmers. I think it's because they use programming more as a tool than a trade as other career programmers do. It doesn't make me doubt their intelligence, but I'd certainly hire someone else as the software architect/programmer.
I'm sorry but in my experience the non-technical (non-CS) degree programmers tend to be bad programmers. I'm sure there are a few gems out there but very, very far and few between. Yes, there are bad programmers with degrees but if we were playing a percentage game I bet you the % of good programmers holding CS degrees compared to those that don't wouldn't even be close.
Another thing one should note is the difference between knowing concepts and knowing programming. Take any CS PhD out there and you're likely to find a bad programmer. But the rub is that they are highly educated in concepts. This is usually because programmers who spend all their time programming have a better chance of honing their skills as opposed to those who keep their nose in books.
BUT, with that said, theoretical knowledge should not be discounted. Just because some dude knows how to start a thread doens't mean he knows the difference between a process and a thread and when threads should be used and when processes should be used. Nor does it mean that they have any idea what shared memory, stacks or heaps are. Unless you're doing some straightforward programming, or re-programming something, conceptual knowledge is very important.
But a point I might agree on is that desire to learn concepts is more important than a degree earned. I work with a bunch of programmers with degrees and I'm quite surprised and how poor programmers they are CONCEPTUALLY and in practice.
Oh yeah, on a final note, I think people like you who say that education doesn't matter are full of it. THe truth is if you want to survive CS programs are GOOD CS schools you either have to 1) know your stuff and be smart or 2) cheat. So a degree does, to some level, guarantee some degree of expertise.
You would've been better off having not written that last paragraph period. At best it makes you sound ignorant and somewhat racist. I know that wasn't the intention and I'm actually aware (and might agree) of what you were saying.
At Berkeley, they've devised a program that will study the compiled structure of a program and identify plagiarism to some level of accuracy (so even if you change variable names it won't mean shit). I wouldn't be surprised if Stanford turned their heads since 1) didn't they do away with the F grade and the lowest a person can get is a D, 2) I'm a Cal Alumn so, by nature, I must be against Stanford (esp. the CS dept since I was in the CS dept at Cal:)).
Lastly, I wouldn't doubt the skills of IIT CS grads and their ability. My guess is that many of the lower-level cheapo programmers are less trained, though, as IIT is supposed to be ultra-competitive right?
Ok. Let's be fair. How can you call me confused when you point out 3 examples out of the hundreds of thousands of tech workers that exist in the Sillicon Valley? I don't doubt that there were many more like you described but you're experiences with a handful of people do not qualify as:
"At its height, Silicon Valley/San Fran contained thousands of individuals hoping to get rich quick by pretending to be techies. "
Perhaps you can recognize that deduction from your experiences with a handful of people to the theory that thousands of individuals simply did it to get rich quick is quite a leap. If not, then whatever.
That said, your reference to race is odd at best. I don't see the point and, if anything, just indicates that you have issues with race. (Anyway..)
The fact is I don't doubt your experience are real. I currently work with a bunch of people who are supposed to have 2x (at least) more experience one of them even having a PhD. Most of the time I feel like I work with a bunch of idiots for legitime, intellectual and technical reasons. I am not confused.
But MY POINT was that many of us were doing tech because we loved it (whether we were underqualified or overqualified). You paint the picture that we were bunch of money-hungry bastards and I, personally, reject that notion. I'm sure there were plenty of people (not just techies but business types too) that DID do it for the wealth. Stock options were appealing but that's now why I chose to do CS or technology.
Anyway, your remarks about the quality of programmers of SV compared to Chicago is dubious at best. I'm sure there are a bunch of shitty-ass programmer out here (I know, I work with many of them) but many of the engineers out here are UC Berkeley or Stanford graduates. Companies like Google, Yahoo, E-bay, and biotech companies didn't just sprout out of nowhere. Perhaps you can tell me what sort of technology that is in Chicago that is cutting edge and requires some actual brain power.
True, they do have those features. I guess I'm talking about the "more advanced features" (something along the lines of progressive scanning.. in truth I haven't really done a side-by-side comparison).
My 2 year-old, barely-used Apex DVD player is beginning to break down. I think it's dust on the laser but, anyway, I'm getting packet loss from DVDs. Sux. I bet a sony wouldn't do that in 5 years.
Like what the other guys were saying, in essence, is that you're only right in the cases of luxury products (Ferrari cars, gucci clothing, prada bags). There's no such equivalent in software/IT/tech operations.
That being the case, the glut of supply (from entrepeneurial US and Indian companies) will most definitely bring the price down. You were right in saying price is determing by demand/supply.
I really liked your analogy especially when you point out: "..If you want a Mozilla or a Real Player that doesn't crash...". But perhaps you're analogy could be improved.
In all fairness, I think it's wrong to compare an engineering project as complex as the Big Dig to a relatively small (and relatively unimportant) piece of software like Real Player. Perhaps you can compare the Big Dig to the software that runs the recently landed Mars explorer Spirit. They put several hundreds of million dollars into that thing and they probably followed it with a more comparable level of quality control.
Perhaps the proper analogy would be comparing a Sony Laptop/Wega TV to an Apex or other lesser brand name company. With Sony you're pretty much guaranteed a solid product that works well and has all the advanced features. With the Apex you'll get a product that works decent with a few bugs and few advanced features. In this analogy Sony represents companies that have strict QC measures and pride themselves on quality whereas Apex represents your cheap software, slap-it-together shops.
This is just one opinion, but I wholeheartedly despite this sort of attitude. Sure, it holds some truth, but many of US were doing (or do) technology because we love technology. When I started studying CS nearly 8 years ago I did it because I thought computers were interesting. I stayed in CS because I liked computers and technology. Yes, the job market was a good motivator, but what kept me in the program was the love of bits, compilers, cpus and algorithms.
Did I get a job that paid a shitload of money when I graduated? Of course. It wasn't like I was selling out (as in selling my blood or my soul or cheating people out of millions). I worked at a job that had a bunch of friends at a company where the baseline CS degree came from Berkeley so I got to work with a bunch of smart people. I learned much and got paid well doing it.
So while there were some who just went into it for the money, many of us were there because we loved technology. Don't fault us for liking what we do because that's sheer stupidity and pure evil imo.
The prospects of getting rich were there and definitely were desirable but don't mistake effect with cause.
I'm no "knee-jerk liberarian" and I don't know your full opinion on the matter but I get the impression you're advocating protectionism or at least a pro-USA attitude. The problem I have with that is..well THAT: the attitude is national instead of global.
I'm a victim of jobs displaced to India, but doensn't it follow the principles of efficient economics? It sucks for workers in America who lose jobs but it's great for workers in India; in the broader picture it's better for everyone in the world as labor is moved to where it can be performed most efficiently (less costly). No?
If an indian or eastern european can perform my job for much less at the same quality and efficiency, wouldn't it make sense to have them do it? It's sad, but I must admit that in the broader picture this is true.
The fact is is that in the long run this is better for everyone globally but there will be victims (such as myself). Just like textiles, manufacturing and now IT there will be people "displaced". It sucks and retraining for white-collar jobs isn't as simple as it is for traditional blue-collar jobs that have been exported. It's not that I'm unsympathetic (trust me, i've lived off of plenty government cheese because of lost jobs) but I dont' think we can turn a blind eye to the rest of the world either. After all Americans only represent 5% of the world's population.
In addition to the other poster's response, is a response I gave last time an article on Google was on/.. It was also referenced in the article.
The point being that on on hand an IPO would be great because it would make a ton of people rich. But the latter third of the article talks about their competition. Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL etc. I think the numbers said they currently have 2 billion in cash but could generate around 20 billion with an IPO. The article is clearly saying that the money generated by an IPO would allow Google to 1) spend more on technology or 2) pursue acquisitions that would help it compete not just today but 5 years from now which any competent chief officer and investor should be thinking about.
When it gets down to it, money is power. And companies like Microsoft have realized the potential of good search (which is not a new concept and has been around since the beginning of programming) and now they've decided to throw some real money at it. Google would be foolish to think that their current version of search will beat all newer innovations to come. That's the same mistake all the other search engines made pre-Google.
Because, I suspect that as technology for storage increases so will the technology it is used for. For instance, before 8-tracks and tapes were useful for low-fidelity (well, i guess they called it hifi) music. But while CDs could hold more information it was because we needed to code more information. The same goes for video when DVDs could give more information for better quality video.
I suspect that in several years when a thumb drive can hold 40 Gigs, image resolution will have multiplied by a similar amount.
1 Gigapixel digital cameras anyone?
MPX compressed audio will have built int 10 point surround sound, with greater frequency range, greater sampling, etc.
And let's not talk about the home movie experience. At the point scene will probably be encoded in 4096 x 3072 essentially requiring a new video format and 4.2 Gigs wont' be enough to hold home videos.
Slashdot Mirror
Bangalore IT money is not going to go into VC funds, it's going to go into houses and infrastructure improvements. Necessary prerequisites for the emergence of a native Indian IT market, I grant you.
True, but you make it sounds like all these IT workers are living in mud huts. The assumption that you're making is that all this money that's being invested and created there will solely go into creating a countrywide infrastructure (houses, cities, municipalities) across India. This will probably not happen. Look at America: even when we had a tech boom we still have millions starving everyday. We are the richest planet on this country too.
The truth is that the cities that hold much of this IT business already have all that infrastructure. You should read some articles on the tech boom there and how everyones already driving nice cars, buys tech toys and go clubbing while working hard. I think you've got the wrong picture of what it's like over there.
We're already sending away chip fab, customer service and software engineering. Don't think it can happen? Look at steel. Look at consumer electronics. Look at automobiles. All of these industries have either fallen into a sleepy trailing position, or are in serious trouble.
I have no illusions on foreign competition but I don't think isolating those business here will help us more than it helps them. Here's why:
1) Our costs become high. Today's world is a global world. You have to stop thinking domestically. Companies like IBM serve companies around the world. So imagine that IBM and SAP have an identical product (SAP being german). Let's say we restrict moving jobs overseas but SAP doesn't? Now SAP can sell superior software at half the price. Guess what's going to happen to IBM? Guess what's going to happen when SAP sells their software in America for 75% of the price? More business AND a bigger profit margin. The US needs to embrace this in order to compete.
2) Their competition. You're assuming that if we restrict business here we'll improve our own economy. I think that's far from the truth. The reason is because even if we restrictied business here, the rest of the world can do business without us. India can create her own SAP, her own IBM (etc) and do business with wealthy oil companies in the middle east, construction companies in the rest of the world, and the economies in Europe.
So I sincerely feel that fighting this will only make us lose (faster). It's a fool's dream to think that if we restricted the work to Americans that our economy would suddenly get better. It won't.
After you shake them, give them a couple bitch-slaps for me too.
Yes, I don't see how they cannot see that there's no loyalty because they aren't loyal to their workers. Competition works for employers but it also works for employees too.
I see your point and I used to feel as strongly about it the way you used to but the truth is everyone has a right to live their own lives the way they wanted to.
I used to despise all the people in our classes who did CS simply because they thought it would find them a job after school. I despised them because they just wanted to get paid. I think I was more idealistic back then.
The truth is that there's nothing wrong with going into a field of work because you think there is stable or good pay. People need to eat, feed their families, etc. I understand your rennaissance-era view of knowledge, sharing of knowledge, etc. but there's nothing wrong with being a bit practical about things.
On top of this, can someone please explain how sending good paying jobs out of this company is good for the economy?
..oh wait that's how much they cost now. Remember when they were $500? This is all the result of outsourcing.
Well, think of it this way. How much did it cost to buy a computer 10-20 years ago? A good 5 grand? Today you can get a dell for $300. How do you think this was possible? Magic?
Imagine that in 10 years from now computers costing $50 or iPods costing $50. Imagine DVD players costing $30
Let's face it. There are advantages reaped by sending jobs overseas, it just sux when you're unemployed because it was your job taht was sent overseas (I know because I'm one of them). BUt for a bunch of people who are middle/lower class who are not in IT, they can now buy tvs. They can now buy DVD players and still have money left over for a computer. This was not possible 10 years ago.
I think the economic theory goes like this:
HP makes tech toys.
Tech workers buy tech toys.
HP makes money
HP makes tech toys with outsourced forieng local workers.
US Techies get fired. Indian techies get hired.
Indian techies start buying HP tech toys.
US Techies re-invent themself, re-train, re-educate and find a job in new area. They become US Retrained.
US Retrained buy TEch toys (which are now 50% of the price they were before because they were made abroad).
HP makes even MORE money.
Everyone wins (in the long run.. short term it hurts.)
I know what you mean about Carly making a shitload of money. While that's true, I think you can't just concentrate on her but on HP.
There is some truth to the fact that those companies today need to outsource to survive. You might think that's a laugh in light on the yachts/cars/whatever Carly owns, but in terms of the company if they can't cut costs like every other competitive US company is doing then they will not only lose profit margins but go out of business altogether. That's economics for you.
For many of these tech companies employee salaries are their #1 cost. Now imagine the advantage companies would get if they outsourced and HP didn't.
Not that I like Carly, but her responsibility as CEO to her company and shareholders is to lead the business "well". Yes, that is pretty subjective but if you dont' adopt measures to survive and outdo your competitors than you're dead as fish in a barrel (both in the sense that your company (HP) would tank and you'd be fired as CEO).
Here here! Finally someone with some wisdom.
Yes, I completely agree. Let's not ban exporting, but we need to soften the blow. Perhaps a small tax on exported work or, like you put it, a tax credit for domestically hired employees (which I like better).
I've also been thinking that they should put more into retraining but wondered how it would help a white-collar worker (compared to the obvious way it can help blue collar workers). But vouchers used for tuition would be an awesome idea! That way if/when my ass gets unemployed because of an exported job I can go back to school and have part of it paid for by the govt. Yes!
But here's the problem: we are growing production capacity without growing the markets to support them. Everyone would be getting rich and improving their quality of life in this equation if there was a demand from within India for IT work. There isn't one to speak of.
2 issues:
1) Are you sure? The more money and tech that flows into India, the more likely you are going to see companies that are going to need IT. Right now they offer IT outsourcing but, just like in America, you're bound to see reinvestment in other sort of tech companies that support these companies who will most likely need IT. The next indian Dell is bound to come around.
2) Locally and short term, you are right, no "new" demand is created. However, according to my limited knowledge of economics, creating IT solutions in India means that it costs less to make them. If it costs less to make it then it increases supply (or vice versa). This actually increases demand (in the sense that more companies can afford expensive-ass IT products such as middle and smaller companies rather than just huge conglomerates). Overall, it makes for a more efficient system.
I agree that we need to think globally and increase the pie. I do understand the concept of spreading the wealth.
However, there is a couple things that still scare me and bother me.
1) While America IS only %5 of the world's population, I'm afraid that the wealth will spread too "quickly". What I mean is that America seems to be on this track where there is a growing division between the rich and the poor, the have and the have-nots. By allowing big corporations to get richer while destroying a lot of the middle class (who worked those white collar jobs) I fear that in America that division will increase ever more.
I think America, as the richest democratic nation, has a responsibility to help other nations (even economically since it seems to help us in the long run anyway). But what happens if we export so many jobs that we create a HUGE poor class while helping teh rich get richer? Perhaps this is FUD and I wish I knew more about the depression during the 30s. As far as I know, that's how the white collar worker was created. But if we ship white collar jobs overseas then what's left?
2) Tax evasion. I don't think we should necessarily set up protectionism but what about all those companies that evade huge amounts of taxes? These are tax dollars that could be used to reinvest in our educational and research institutions that would help keep America at the forefront of research.
The market for high tech products is largely high tech workers - thus having them unemployed means they cannot buy extravagent new high tech toys.
Yeah, but you forget that in india there has been a boom of high tech workers who use their money to buy things (such as high tech toys).
Huh, I don't think that was his point. I think he was saying that instead of San Jose seeing a higher level of living you'll see a higher level of living in Hyderabad (or some other indian city).
I'm not an economics buff but what I do know is that much of it is based on efficiency. Creating a product most efficiently reduces cost. Efficiency, in this case, means that you find the cheapest people who are capable of doing your job (disregarding all other factors). If the indian worker can do my job for $5/hr then that is economically efficient.
Anyway this last response still looks at things on a local, not a global level. What does IBM do? One thing they do is sell business hardware, businss software and business services. If more and more indian companies are created due to the wealth created over there, then IBM will be creating more clients for itself. Locally, you might be right, but you need to look at things globally.
Your words are true but I think are already well-known. I think the issue that the article points out that is more important is the closing gap between American education and non-American education. Before we always had an upperhand because of the money we invested in our schools and research. As the articles says, we invest a shitload of money just into protecting our farms, a "19th century idea" while we under-invest in certain parts of new tech (i forget what the article says).
The thing is is that we have to take your words but think about why. Why do your technologies move abroad (or how)? Because India is probably re-investing a shitload of money into their tech schools to breed IT workers by the dozen. Yes, WE (America) can create The Next Big Thing (tm) but only if we are willing to spend money on research and education (America is falling far behind compared to the rest of the world). Our advantage can only last so long.
The economic theory goes like this: if you set up barriers (and therefore increase cost) you basically handicap the corporations of your country (America). So let's say we set up some protectionary measures and deter American companies from exporting work? Now let's say Europe does NOT. Then Europe will be able to build all these IT products for cheap, gain market share and, ultimately, gain an upper hand with those IT products.
Another way to look at it is that let's say SAP makes product X. Let's say it currently costs $2 Million (partially due to costs of American programmers). If they can make that same product for $1 Million then they can 1) increase their own profit margin and 2) lower the price and decrease IT costs for their customers. If they did not do this, other global competitors would. It's not difficult to imagine that an indian SAP would eventually be created.
And that's what they mean by protectionism crippling industries and leading to higher unemployment (as jobs would go to emerging companies overseas). It leads to lower economic growth because everything costs more (the reason why the middle-class lives better today is because shit at Walmart is so cheap. Why is it so cheap? Because it's all made in China.).
Uh ok.
:))." you should know the following.
If you were refering to: " 2) I'm a Cal Alumn so, by nature, I must be against Stanford (esp. the CS dept since I was in the CS dept at Cal
1) Cal == UC Berkeley not Cal Tech
2) I was saying I "must be against Stanford" because they are our school rival (in terms of sports). It seems like you didn't know that.
Education matters, degrees don't. Please don't confuse the two.
Sorry, but to me it looks liek you're just playing with semantics. I think having a degree implies having an education. I do agree, though, that you can educate yourself. But that's not the point. I think there's a difference between being taught methodologies, approaches to problems, working with smart lab partners, etc compared to taking just some technical classes are you local CC, using a "Learn ___ programming in 21 days", etc.
Does it? Are you SURE about that? If you are, perhaps you'd like to explain the number of people I've met who've passed through the masters program, without even an idea on how to code Pong, much less an operating system? Companies have put a great deal of pressure on Universities to put out programmers that could "code in the popular languages". The Universities have been bowing to this pressure and dumbing down their ciriculum.
True. Very true. This is what separates the good CS schools from the bad ones. Where did those ppl get their masters/phd from? I've met several engineers with masters/phd from schools that traditionally don't have strong CS programs and it's like you said: they were taught today's technology so they would be relevant and it made me question how much theory they knew.
Secondly, with regard to smart people who program bad, it's like i said in my other post. I think it's pretty well-known that PhDs (the smart ones) make bad programmers. I think it's because they use programming more as a tool than a trade as other career programmers do. It doesn't make me doubt their intelligence, but I'd certainly hire someone else as the software architect/programmer.
I'm sorry but in my experience the non-technical (non-CS) degree programmers tend to be bad programmers. I'm sure there are a few gems out there but very, very far and few between. Yes, there are bad programmers with degrees but if we were playing a percentage game I bet you the % of good programmers holding CS degrees compared to those that don't wouldn't even be close.
Another thing one should note is the difference between knowing concepts and knowing programming. Take any CS PhD out there and you're likely to find a bad programmer. But the rub is that they are highly educated in concepts. This is usually because programmers who spend all their time programming have a better chance of honing their skills as opposed to those who keep their nose in books.
BUT, with that said, theoretical knowledge should not be discounted. Just because some dude knows how to start a thread doens't mean he knows the difference between a process and a thread and when threads should be used and when processes should be used. Nor does it mean that they have any idea what shared memory, stacks or heaps are. Unless you're doing some straightforward programming, or re-programming something, conceptual knowledge is very important.
But a point I might agree on is that desire to learn concepts is more important than a degree earned. I work with a bunch of programmers with degrees and I'm quite surprised and how poor programmers they are CONCEPTUALLY and in practice.
Oh yeah, on a final note, I think people like you who say that education doesn't matter are full of it. THe truth is if you want to survive CS programs are GOOD CS schools you either have to 1) know your stuff and be smart or 2) cheat. So a degree does, to some level, guarantee some degree of expertise.
Did I PCify that enough for everyone's tastes?
:)).
No.
You would've been better off having not written that last paragraph period. At best it makes you sound ignorant and somewhat racist. I know that wasn't the intention and I'm actually aware (and might agree) of what you were saying.
At Berkeley, they've devised a program that will study the compiled structure of a program and identify plagiarism to some level of accuracy (so even if you change variable names it won't mean shit). I wouldn't be surprised if Stanford turned their heads since 1) didn't they do away with the F grade and the lowest a person can get is a D, 2) I'm a Cal Alumn so, by nature, I must be against Stanford (esp. the CS dept since I was in the CS dept at Cal
Lastly, I wouldn't doubt the skills of IIT CS grads and their ability. My guess is that many of the lower-level cheapo programmers are less trained, though, as IIT is supposed to be ultra-competitive right?
Ok. Let's be fair. How can you call me confused when you point out 3 examples out of the hundreds of thousands of tech workers that exist in the Sillicon Valley? I don't doubt that there were many more like you described but you're experiences with a handful of people do not qualify as:
"At its height, Silicon Valley/San Fran contained thousands of individuals hoping to get rich quick by pretending to be techies. "
Perhaps you can recognize that deduction from your experiences with a handful of people to the theory that thousands of individuals simply did it to get rich quick is quite a leap. If not, then whatever.
That said, your reference to race is odd at best. I don't see the point and, if anything, just indicates that you have issues with race. (Anyway..)
The fact is I don't doubt your experience are real. I currently work with a bunch of people who are supposed to have 2x (at least) more experience one of them even having a PhD. Most of the time I feel like I work with a bunch of idiots for legitime, intellectual and technical reasons. I am not confused.
But MY POINT was that many of us were doing tech because we loved it (whether we were underqualified or overqualified). You paint the picture that we were bunch of money-hungry bastards and I, personally, reject that notion. I'm sure there were plenty of people (not just techies but business types too) that DID do it for the wealth. Stock options were appealing but that's now why I chose to do CS or technology.
Anyway, your remarks about the quality of programmers of SV compared to Chicago is dubious at best. I'm sure there are a bunch of shitty-ass programmer out here (I know, I work with many of them) but many of the engineers out here are UC Berkeley or Stanford graduates. Companies like Google, Yahoo, E-bay, and biotech companies didn't just sprout out of nowhere. Perhaps you can tell me what sort of technology that is in Chicago that is cutting edge and requires some actual brain power.
True, they do have those features. I guess I'm talking about the "more advanced features" (something along the lines of progressive scanning.. in truth I haven't really done a side-by-side comparison).
My 2 year-old, barely-used Apex DVD player is beginning to break down. I think it's dust on the laser but, anyway, I'm getting packet loss from DVDs. Sux. I bet a sony wouldn't do that in 5 years.
Like what the other guys were saying, in essence, is that you're only right in the cases of luxury products (Ferrari cars, gucci clothing, prada bags). There's no such equivalent in software/IT/tech operations.
That being the case, the glut of supply (from entrepeneurial US and Indian companies) will most definitely bring the price down. You were right in saying price is determing by demand/supply.
I really liked your analogy especially when you point out: "..If you want a Mozilla or a Real Player that doesn't crash...". But perhaps you're analogy could be improved.
In all fairness, I think it's wrong to compare an engineering project as complex as the Big Dig to a relatively small (and relatively unimportant) piece of software like Real Player. Perhaps you can compare the Big Dig to the software that runs the recently landed Mars explorer Spirit. They put several hundreds of million dollars into that thing and they probably followed it with a more comparable level of quality control.
Perhaps the proper analogy would be comparing a Sony Laptop/Wega TV to an Apex or other lesser brand name company. With Sony you're pretty much guaranteed a solid product that works well and has all the advanced features. With the Apex you'll get a product that works decent with a few bugs and few advanced features. In this analogy Sony represents companies that have strict QC measures and pride themselves on quality whereas Apex represents your cheap software, slap-it-together shops.
This is just one opinion, but I wholeheartedly despite this sort of attitude. Sure, it holds some truth, but many of US were doing (or do) technology because we love technology. When I started studying CS nearly 8 years ago I did it because I thought computers were interesting. I stayed in CS because I liked computers and technology. Yes, the job market was a good motivator, but what kept me in the program was the love of bits, compilers, cpus and algorithms. Did I get a job that paid a shitload of money when I graduated? Of course. It wasn't like I was selling out (as in selling my blood or my soul or cheating people out of millions). I worked at a job that had a bunch of friends at a company where the baseline CS degree came from Berkeley so I got to work with a bunch of smart people. I learned much and got paid well doing it. So while there were some who just went into it for the money, many of us were there because we loved technology. Don't fault us for liking what we do because that's sheer stupidity and pure evil imo. The prospects of getting rich were there and definitely were desirable but don't mistake effect with cause.
I'm no "knee-jerk liberarian" and I don't know your full opinion on the matter but I get the impression you're advocating protectionism or at least a pro-USA attitude. The problem I have with that is..well THAT: the attitude is national instead of global.
I'm a victim of jobs displaced to India, but doensn't it follow the principles of efficient economics? It sucks for workers in America who lose jobs but it's great for workers in India; in the broader picture it's better for everyone in the world as labor is moved to where it can be performed most efficiently (less costly). No?
If an indian or eastern european can perform my job for much less at the same quality and efficiency, wouldn't it make sense to have them do it? It's sad, but I must admit that in the broader picture this is true.
The fact is is that in the long run this is better for everyone globally but there will be victims (such as myself). Just like textiles, manufacturing and now IT there will be people "displaced". It sucks and retraining for white-collar jobs isn't as simple as it is for traditional blue-collar jobs that have been exported. It's not that I'm unsympathetic (trust me, i've lived off of plenty government cheese because of lost jobs) but I dont' think we can turn a blind eye to the rest of the world either. After all Americans only represent 5% of the world's population.
In addition to the other poster's response, is a response I gave last time an article on Google was on /.. It was also referenced in the article.
The point being that on on hand an IPO would be great because it would make a ton of people rich. But the latter third of the article talks about their competition. Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL etc. I think the numbers said they currently have 2 billion in cash but could generate around 20 billion with an IPO. The article is clearly saying that the money generated by an IPO would allow Google to 1) spend more on technology or 2) pursue acquisitions that would help it compete not just today but 5 years from now which any competent chief officer and investor should be thinking about.
When it gets down to it, money is power. And companies like Microsoft have realized the potential of good search (which is not a new concept and has been around since the beginning of programming) and now they've decided to throw some real money at it. Google would be foolish to think that their current version of search will beat all newer innovations to come. That's the same mistake all the other search engines made pre-Google.
Never underestimate innovation.
It'll never happen. Why?
Because, I suspect that as technology for storage increases so will the technology it is used for. For instance, before 8-tracks and tapes were useful for low-fidelity (well, i guess they called it hifi) music. But while CDs could hold more information it was because we needed to code more information. The same goes for video when DVDs could give more information for better quality video.
I suspect that in several years when a thumb drive can hold 40 Gigs, image resolution will have multiplied by a similar amount.
1 Gigapixel digital cameras anyone?
MPX compressed audio will have built int 10 point surround sound, with greater frequency range, greater sampling, etc.
And let's not talk about the home movie experience. At the point scene will probably be encoded in 4096 x 3072 essentially requiring a new video format and 4.2 Gigs wont' be enough to hold home videos.