but what I do know is IT workers, training their Indian and Asian replacements in the US WOULD NOT BE HAPPENING if unions where present. One of the biggest reasons its cheaper for companies to move to a new country has everything to do with willing Tech idiots training these people who will do their current job for LESS.
If unions prevent outsourcing, why does so much manufacturing happen in China? Obviously the unions didn't keep the jobs in the West.
And for all those that blame GMs' problems on the unions, wake up - GM makes crap cars nobody wants - THAT is the problem with GM.
If no-one wants them, why do they sell more cars than anyone else?
If nurses and bus drivers can have unions, why not IT workers?
Do you want the same wages as a bus driver? Do you want to need permission from the union leaders before you can get a pay rise, or to have your pay limited to your inferior colleagues?
don't see Toyota and Honda going under here (albeit, they are not doing so hot right now, but who is?), and they pay the same wages, if not higher, and offer the same benefits to their US assembly workers that are offered to the UAW workers. Huh, how could this be?
If you think wages are the only obstacle the UAW put in the way of the big three then you're deluded. In fact your example of Toyota just shows that the wages aren't the problem, it's the UAW specifically. Does Toyota have a union that tells them what models they can make? That blocks and delays all innovation and efficiency improvements? That forces them to pay partial salaries to all the workers made redundant or retired, for decades after hiring them?
Oh yeah, Toyota and Honda have been making QUALITY automobiles for the US markets for 30+ years while the Big 3 continue to make SHIT
If they're so shit, why do so many people buy them? GM sold more cars than Toyota last year. But then Toyota isn't paying someone to sleep for $50 an hour because the union won't let them fire him.
The failures of the "Big 3" have almost nothing to do with the UAW since the kinds of decisions that were made, or not made, as the case may be, were all made by non-union employees who were all taking home a whole lot more pay than any of the union workers.
If the management make a decision, and the union doesn't allow it, whose fault is it?
many IT shops treat their It people badly. They get paid less than the building maintenance people and are expected to perform tasks that are an order of magnitude more complex.
In many places, the IT guy is just a computer janitor. If he wasn't, he'd be able to command higher wages at another employer.
These same shops charge Customers $90-$120.00 an hour for IT work, and then pay the IT guy $19.00 an hour POCKETING The huge profits.
Then maybe he should set himself up as a contractor and charge $50 an hour.
If someone who's supposedly highly skilled performing complex tasks can only make $19 an hour, then they either suck at finding jobs, or aren't as good as they think they are.
If the people want someone to stay in power, who are you to disagree? It's called 'democracy'. I'd imagine that in a lot of cases, the candidate keeps winning elections because he's in a safe seat, in which he'd just be replaced by a party lapdog.
OK then, but that precludes you from enjoying magazines, newspapers, subscription television, sporting events, travelling on a bus, driving past billboards, going to the cinema, going to a pub, or buying anything from the Internet.
In fact, if you do a single one of these things, ever, then you're a hypocrite. Looks like you're going to have a very limited existence.
I tend to avoid the console ports and the "same but with better graphics" games
That's basically all of them then? Maybe a PC might have been worth it in the era when games like elite and civilisation were coming out, now it's ten million FPSes and ten million MMOs that are all exactly the same. Or of course shitty console ports, which make up 90% of modern PC gaming.
Then you've got the problem of limited multiplayer, no standard controller, viruses, adware, ten million icons in the system tray popping up messages when you're trying to play, drivers, direct X, plus computer monitors make everything look shit compared to a TV.
Each to their own, but I'd much rather have a proper machine for playing proper games on.
Of course, if someone has died, the best way to go about things is to tell someone about it whilst they're driving at 70mph, so they can lose their concentration and crash, causing another death. Two birds with one stone eh?
What does this have to do with the government anyway? You really are an ignorant fucker.
They have no problem curbing the elderly? You're full of shit, and every wreck with them getting confused and barreling through a farmer's market proves it. Every time AARP shoots down a law requiring not revocation on age, but TESTING after a certain age to ensure safety proves you wrong.
If the elderly are such bad drivers, why do they get such low insurance rates? I'm pretty sure all those actuaries know what they're doing.
You were lucky you already had a PC with a PCI-E slot, otherwise it would have meant upgrading your entire PC. You're also lucky you had wireless and bluetooth controllers, or they would be extra expenses.
You charge the controller with the cable included with the console. Headphones cost the same for a PC. Hard disks are not that expensive, and you don't need a memory card. Seriously, you've just included a load of arbitrary overpriced shit to make the console look bad.
Every TV over $300 can take VGA or DVI video output from a PC.
Not when my PC's in another room. Then you've got the sound to worry about, controllers, keyboard, mouse etc. Maybe you have miles of cabling running around your house, I don't want that. Plus gaming on a PC means if someone is using the computer for work, no-one can play any games.
And why do things like World of Warcraft still run reasonably well on an older PC?
Because Blizzard is the only remaining developer who actually makes PC games worth playing. Seriously, if there were more World of Warcrafts, and fewer endless FPS clones that do nothing but increase hardware requirements, then PC gaming wouldn't be in the rut it's in now.
I have a PC and a console, but play the console 99% of the time because there's nothing worth playing on the PC these days.
Assuming you buy games rather than renting them, you'll still save $10 a game by not getting them on the console. Also, I don't know about Wii games, they might be cheaper.
The prices on consoles might be higher when the game first comes out, but they usually come down. And I'm sure you can't rent PC games, and renting is brilliant for games you just want to take a look at.
For a PC, I've got to spend a maximum of around $1000 (in reality, less than that. That gets me everything I need to run Crysis at highest settings. Speakers, monitor, keyboard, everything.
That link doesn't include Blu-ray, wireless or bluetooth. And that link gives the Vista price as $140 to $240, not the $95 quoted. I know I paid much more for those things.
For a console, you've got the initial investment of the console, plus all those weird controllers that $random_game requires.
Sorry, I forgot the PC comes with free controllers. The PS3 comes with a blue-tooth dual-analogue controller. Can you even get a Wii-style controller for the PC? Or an equivalent of Xbox-live?
It's not even as if the quality of consoles has been great - it's only the latest generation that actually begins to approach pC quality graphics/resolution
Rubbish. Consoles were way ahead in the era when PCs struggled to show coloured text, never mind graphics.
but in the last couple of months I read about bottom-end cards that out-spec consoles and are available cheaply
Not too cheap when you throw in the rest of the cost of the PC needed to run them. Even then, that bottom-end card will be outdated in a couple of years when Crysis 3 or whatever comes out, being exactly the same game as before but with sharper graphics, which is all PC gaming is about these days.
I know I paid less than 600 for an Intel Quad Core, a Gigabyte mainboard, 2 gigs of RAM, said ATI Radeon 4850 and a new PSU a few months ago. Sure, I had the hard drives, DVD drive, case, keyboard and mouse from my old box already, but those aren't expensive either.
They add up even if they're not expensive. Assume that your new motherboard doesn't recognise your old ATA hard disks and DVD drives, then add in the controllers, and Windows Vista. Then a wireless card as many motherboards don't have them built in.
If it uses integrated graphics, then it was a poor choice for gaming from the beginning and a new laptop with a decent (Geforce 8600/9600), dedicated GPU should only run about $800-900. Considering that a PS3 costs about $500, it still makes more sense to just fork out the extra money for a machine that can do vastly more than a game console.
What would I get for that extra $400, that I can't already do on my current computer? That's right, nothing. I already have a PC that does everything I want it to, buying one for gaming means the entire cost would just be for gaming.
You can't just add a graphics card in, it'll be PCI-E so require a new motherboard, which then requires new RAM, a new processor, and new SATA drives. Maybe a new power supply too. Then you need controllers (does the PC have decent bluetooth controllers?). And what happens when your computer isn't in the same room as your TV, how do you hook them up?
And at the end of the day, what PC games are worth playing these days other than World of Warcraft and a few FPSes?
There hasn't been a decent RTS out this decade, it's basically a dead genre, no-one plays them outside of Korea. FPSes sell more on consoles, and PCs just get half-baked ports six months later. MMOs are what's left, and there's only one of those that's actually playable.
So to sum up, World of Warcraft is the only PC game that anyone wants to play these days. I'd say that unless they come up with something new, it's a dead platform.
That's not a competitive advantage, just a time advantage. It means you can get to the same place in 20 hours of killing goblins rather than 30, giving you an extra ten hours to do something actually entertaining.
What's 'authentic' about killing a million rats to level up a character? It's no more valid than flipping a million burgers and using your pay cheque to buy a character that's killed a million rats. Similarly, what's the difference between buying an item, and winning it in a lucky roll?
Slashdot Mirror
If unions prevent outsourcing, why does so much manufacturing happen in China? Obviously the unions didn't keep the jobs in the West.
Dickens is a Marxist now? Maybe workhouses are the capitalist dream.
If no-one wants them, why do they sell more cars than anyone else?
Do you want the same wages as a bus driver? Do you want to need permission from the union leaders before you can get a pay rise, or to have your pay limited to your inferior colleagues?
If you think wages are the only obstacle the UAW put in the way of the big three then you're deluded. In fact your example of Toyota just shows that the wages aren't the problem, it's the UAW specifically. Does Toyota have a union that tells them what models they can make? That blocks and delays all innovation and efficiency improvements? That forces them to pay partial salaries to all the workers made redundant or retired, for decades after hiring them?
If they're so shit, why do so many people buy them? GM sold more cars than Toyota last year. But then Toyota isn't paying someone to sleep for $50 an hour because the union won't let them fire him.
If the management make a decision, and the union doesn't allow it, whose fault is it?
In many places, the IT guy is just a computer janitor. If he wasn't, he'd be able to command higher wages at another employer.
Then maybe he should set himself up as a contractor and charge $50 an hour.
If someone who's supposedly highly skilled performing complex tasks can only make $19 an hour, then they either suck at finding jobs, or aren't as good as they think they are.
If the people want someone to stay in power, who are you to disagree? It's called 'democracy'. I'd imagine that in a lot of cases, the candidate keeps winning elections because he's in a safe seat, in which he'd just be replaced by a party lapdog.
What degrees or chartered qualifications do you need to get a job as a factory line worker?
Or there's the fourth, American kind: the highly paid, unskilled factory worker.
OK then, but that precludes you from enjoying magazines, newspapers, subscription television, sporting events, travelling on a bus, driving past billboards, going to the cinema, going to a pub, or buying anything from the Internet.
In fact, if you do a single one of these things, ever, then you're a hypocrite. Looks like you're going to have a very limited existence.
That's basically all of them then? Maybe a PC might have been worth it in the era when games like elite and civilisation were coming out, now it's ten million FPSes and ten million MMOs that are all exactly the same. Or of course shitty console ports, which make up 90% of modern PC gaming.
Then you've got the problem of limited multiplayer, no standard controller, viruses, adware, ten million icons in the system tray popping up messages when you're trying to play, drivers, direct X, plus computer monitors make everything look shit compared to a TV.
Console it is then.
Of course, if someone has died, the best way to go about things is to tell someone about it whilst they're driving at 70mph, so they can lose their concentration and crash, causing another death. Two birds with one stone eh?
What does this have to do with the government anyway? You really are an ignorant fucker.
If the elderly are such bad drivers, why do they get such low insurance rates? I'm pretty sure all those actuaries know what they're doing.
Yeah but all those MMOs are terrible EQ clones. WoW is the only MMO that's actually playable and full, not full of bugs and problems.
Yet the game sold infinitely more copies on the console.
Ten year old games, what's the relevance?
You were lucky you already had a PC with a PCI-E slot, otherwise it would have meant upgrading your entire PC. You're also lucky you had wireless and bluetooth controllers, or they would be extra expenses.
You charge the controller with the cable included with the console. Headphones cost the same for a PC. Hard disks are not that expensive, and you don't need a memory card. Seriously, you've just included a load of arbitrary overpriced shit to make the console look bad.
Not when my PC's in another room. Then you've got the sound to worry about, controllers, keyboard, mouse etc. Maybe you have miles of cabling running around your house, I don't want that. Plus gaming on a PC means if someone is using the computer for work, no-one can play any games.
Because Blizzard is the only remaining developer who actually makes PC games worth playing. Seriously, if there were more World of Warcrafts, and fewer endless FPS clones that do nothing but increase hardware requirements, then PC gaming wouldn't be in the rut it's in now.
I have a PC and a console, but play the console 99% of the time because there's nothing worth playing on the PC these days.
The prices on consoles might be higher when the game first comes out, but they usually come down. And I'm sure you can't rent PC games, and renting is brilliant for games you just want to take a look at.
That link doesn't include Blu-ray, wireless or bluetooth. And that link gives the Vista price as $140 to $240, not the $95 quoted. I know I paid much more for those things.
Sorry, I forgot the PC comes with free controllers. The PS3 comes with a blue-tooth dual-analogue controller. Can you even get a Wii-style controller for the PC? Or an equivalent of Xbox-live?
Rubbish. Consoles were way ahead in the era when PCs struggled to show coloured text, never mind graphics.
Not too cheap when you throw in the rest of the cost of the PC needed to run them. Even then, that bottom-end card will be outdated in a couple of years when Crysis 3 or whatever comes out, being exactly the same game as before but with sharper graphics, which is all PC gaming is about these days.
They add up even if they're not expensive. Assume that your new motherboard doesn't recognise your old ATA hard disks and DVD drives, then add in the controllers, and Windows Vista. Then a wireless card as many motherboards don't have them built in.
What would I get for that extra $400, that I can't already do on my current computer? That's right, nothing. I already have a PC that does everything I want it to, buying one for gaming means the entire cost would just be for gaming.
You can't just add a graphics card in, it'll be PCI-E so require a new motherboard, which then requires new RAM, a new processor, and new SATA drives. Maybe a new power supply too. Then you need controllers (does the PC have decent bluetooth controllers?). And what happens when your computer isn't in the same room as your TV, how do you hook them up?
And at the end of the day, what PC games are worth playing these days other than World of Warcraft and a few FPSes?
There hasn't been a decent RTS out this decade, it's basically a dead genre, no-one plays them outside of Korea. FPSes sell more on consoles, and PCs just get half-baked ports six months later. MMOs are what's left, and there's only one of those that's actually playable.
So to sum up, World of Warcraft is the only PC game that anyone wants to play these days. I'd say that unless they come up with something new, it's a dead platform.
But there's only one MMO that's actually any good. Can PCs survive on a single four year old game?
That's not a competitive advantage, just a time advantage. It means you can get to the same place in 20 hours of killing goblins rather than 30, giving you an extra ten hours to do something actually entertaining.
What's 'authentic' about killing a million rats to level up a character? It's no more valid than flipping a million burgers and using your pay cheque to buy a character that's killed a million rats. Similarly, what's the difference between buying an item, and winning it in a lucky roll?