Geez, I'm surprised this isn't in the Your Rights Online section. I mean, God forbid airports make you actually take off your shoes when there are known plans for terrorists to put bombs in their shoes. That would violate your Constitutional right to fly in airplanes without taking off your shoes first, or something.
To be able to properly track individual chips in relation to particular players the range on the RFID would have to be very limited so your chips signal doesn't bleed over into the spot for the player next to you.
No it wouldn't. You could assume that all chips which arrive simultaneously are being carried by the same player. Also, you can give out chips in a manner such that they are grouped at the time they are given out. You could also use triangulation, either with three receivers per pit, or three per table. Combine in the tracking which is already being done via videocamera, and this could be extremely accurate.
Then to be able to match the identifier sent by the chip to the denomination would require a lookup to a central database which means all your blackjack tables need a network drop.
Or you could simply store the data for later processing.
You could suggest wireless, but as security conscious as casinos are, I would guess they would be reluctant to allow any kind of wireless access to the in-house systems.
You wouldn't want to connect this to the main computers, just into a separate network which only has one-way access anyway.
And even the computer supported tables like Let-It-Ride and Carribean Stud aren't connected to the network.
The cameras at those tables certainly are. No reason not to include RFID sensors.
Facial recognition and card tracking can be done remotely, all handled through the video cameras from the security center.
Same thing with RFID tracking.
And if they really wanted real-time chip tracking, they could do it the same way, remotely with the cameras.
Sure, but adding in RFIDs make this a whole lot easier. The cameras would have to get a face recognition of the person coming to the table, then make sure that s/he is recognized at every subsequent location. With RFIDs, you can simply watch the traffic as it comes and goes. It's not foolproof, but it's a lot more foolproof than trying to track all the chips through fixed cameras.
I don't think that they care how many chips you cash in at one time (from a tax perspective), but for some reason the number $10,000 sticks out in my mind.
Yep, if you transfer more than $10,000 in cash in one day you have to report the transfer to the government under the RICO statutes (it's supposed to make it harder to launder money).
Card counting isn't illegal but if the casino kicks you out for doing it, you have no recourse. You can't sue the casion for interfering with your right to card count.
Not true in Atlantic City. The casinos in Atlantic City are so highly regulated that they are considered to be acting as part of the government, and therefore are not allowed to discriminate against card counters. Of course, they can require you to flat-bet, and disallow players entering in the middle of a shoe, which pretty much defeats the purpose of card counting.
I think that installing the equipment at each betting spot on the table to read the different IDs, lookup the dollar value in a central database and do the math to figure out total bet would be a little much. It would take some serious hardware to do real-time tracking of every chip in play.
Considering that the big casinos already have facial recognition and limited card tracking software/hardware, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to add chip tracking.
Re:Ouch for card counters...
on
RFID Casino Chips
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Is it illegal for the casino to count cards?
No, it's called preferential shuffling, and it's perfectly legal. However, if they used RFIDs in the cards, at the very least they'd have to tell you, in which case no one would play blackjack at that casino. Well, actually, some people probably would, but not as many.
And this wouldn't be legal in Atlantic City, because all game rules in Atlantic City have to be approved by the government.
Re:Ouch for card counters...
on
RFID Casino Chips
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
In Atlantic City (as far as I remember -- its been awhile), they have to let you play. But they can instruct their dealers to do a lot of things to make your life as a counter quite miserable. Like only work very shallow into the shoe, for starters.
They can also force you to flat-bet (bet the same amount every hand during the shoe), which pretty much defeats the main purpose of card counting.
How do you manage to live off $10k? Where do you live? Do you live with your parents? Who pays rent?
At the moment I'm paying $675/month to live alone in an apartment in NJ, but for most of the past few years I've been paying only $230-400 a month to share an apartment or house with others.
If you ARE living off $10k, you will turn into a capitalist slave--if you aren't one already.
You'll have to explain that one. I would think to live off much more than $10k/year would require you to be a capitalist slave.
I don't consider $10k to be sufficient to live off of.
Well, it certainly is. It might not meet your standards of living, but it is quite sufficient to live off of.
Of course, I don't plan on living off this little forever. I will get a job, eventually. Probably soon. And like I said, longer term I'm probably going to teach. So that'll make me significantly more than $10K/year. And I won't even have to become a corporate slave.
What's to stop literally all other jobs (except those that require physical presence) from being lost?
Competition? It's not like there are a limited number of jobs in the world. It's perfectly possible for everyone in the world to have a job.
In any case, what exactly is a low skilled job?
Isn't that kind of obvious? A low skilled job is one that requires little or no skills. If you want a specific cutoff, then it's a job which at last 80% of the population could perform with less than 5 days training.
Why would only low skilled jobs move?
Well, low skilled jobs wouldn't necessarily be the only ones which would move. But they are the only ones which would be affected by the minimum wage.
There is no reason why a teacher cannot be outsourced.
But there are lots of reasons why it doesn't make sense for them to be, and even more reasons why they won't.
However, it wouldn't surprise me if many classes are done through long-distance in the future.
It'll surprise me greatly if this happens during my lifetime.
Once schools are privatized, watch out.
Schools aren't going to be privatized. For one thing, the NTA and AFT has much too much power to allow that to happen.
(BTW, this is not to discourage you from becoming a teacher--just using an example).
I'm confident enough with myself that I'm sure I'll be able to adapt to wherever the market forces lead us. Even if teaching did become impossible, I'd just get a different job. Even if all jobs in the entire country ceased existing, I'd just move in with a friend or family member who already paid off their home, and farm the land for food. But that's not going to happen anyway.
I agree with you that programmers get paid too much. It is a view I have held for many years. I don't see why people get paid $50,000+ for routine maintenance, simple programming, etc. But that doesn't change my point.
What exactly is your point?
I don't see how you are going to carry that out given that all trade agreements place business interests above workers.
Trade agreements can be renegotiated.
You already have difficulty enforcing worker regulations within one country. Doing it internationally is more difficult..
Not really. As long as the company is located in the United States, it's just as easy to enforce injunctions and fines against it.
How do you expect someone living in any moderately sized contemporary American city to make rent on the wages paid an Indian call center employee without a return to the extreme slum like conditions that were prevelanet during the industrial revolution?
For those who can't afford to pay rent, there's always welfare or other programs available. But I doubt it would come to that.
The point being that, should the minimum wage law be repealed then call center employees state side, in theory, would have their wages reduced to that of Indian call center employees.
Doubtful. Having call centers in India costs a lot more than having them in the United States. Wages would probably be at least double here due to the cost savings.
Taking $300.00 a month as an example (cribbed from the rate a coder in Shanghai works for as posted above) and theorizing a double income family, $600.00 a month, or $7200.00 a year before taxes isn't going to get you very far in any contemporary American landscape.
$300/month will pay a mortgage on a $40,000 house, which is enough for a 3-bedroom home in Trenton, NJ. I've lived in such a house. It's not bad at all, certainly not "extreme slum like conditions that were prevelanet [sic] during the industrial revolution." You could definitely live on $600 a month. Add in the many programs available for low-income individuals, and you could live quite adequetely. Get a little training, and you can quickly move out of the no-skilled labor market anyway, and leave that to the college students and teenagers.
Besides, the real question is, would you rather be allowed to take a job making less than minimum wage, or would you rather that job move to another country. The unconsitutional federal minimum wage laws do nothing but take choice away from US citizens.
Now, it can be argued, that should the same wage decrease be economy wide, the cost of goods, housing, etc. would go down as well.
Good strawman, but I'm not going to bite.
Here in the U.S. I'd imagine we'd see some fairly impressive, if viewed from a distance, civil disorder.
No more than we already see. And that civil disorder would most likely be directed at the corporations, not the government. Sounds good to me.
The standard of living is far lower in many of those countries. But the thing is that employers don't care. They just look at base costs. The higher standard of living in USA (for example) accrues to YOU--not the corporation.
That's exactly my point. The majority of the difference in salary is due to Americans demanding a higher standard of living. It's not that stuff costs more here, it's that people want more here.
I actually managed to find actual wages in India. This should prove my point without any doubt.
Maybe it proves your point, but it says nothing about mine. Obviously average wages in India are lower than the USA. And certainly average IT wages in India are lower than the USA. That's why companies are hiring workers in India instead of here. But my point, which you can look at it you go up a few posts, is that this isn't due to a big difference in costs of living, it's due to Americans being used to better lifestyles than Indians. "The cost of living in the US is actually less than that of India (*). People in the US are just used to better lifestyles than those in India." (*) That part you dispute, and maybe I was incorrect, but I still don't think so. But as you saw it is a very small difference compared to the difference in salaries.
So you need to take a 70% to 90% pay cut I would say. Can you do that?
Sure. I've been living off no salary. I could do it. Would I want to? No. I'd just get a better job. Probably become a teacher, which I'm looking into anyway. Why should code monkies make more than teachers?
As far as I'm concerned, there is NO WAY you can take a pay cut. You would have to SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASE your standard of living*.
Did you even read my previous post? I've been living off less than $10K a year for years now. And I don't even have a family to share expenses with. Also, you have to realize that expenses wouldn't really drop all the way down. There's a lot of overhead costs which could be saved. Salaries for code monkies in the US would probably be closer to $20-30K.
I think ALL jobs in wealthy countries will be threatened under capitalism.
No, only low skilled jobs which are easily portable to other countries. Code monkey is one of the best examples. There's zero language barrier, and product transfer is virtually free over the internet. Plus code is especially hard to tax, due to its non-physical nature.
There are some things we can do, though. Require OSHA to be followed with foreign workers. Require the same benefits to be offered. Make sure companies are forced to pay unemployment benefits to the workers they lay off, until those workers are able to get a new job. I think you'll see the salaries start to come into line. But $75,000/year for being a code monkey? Sorry, those days are numbered.
I sincerely hope something is done about this... maybe outsourcing to various degrees is inevitable, but where will it end?
It's not so much a problem with US companies hiring non-US workers, either. Obviously that is going to happen, and it's quite commonly a good thing for the US economy. But when a US company lays off US workers to replace them with foreign workers, there's a problem. And frankly, in most cases minimum wage laws aren't it. Indian programmers aren't making less than minimum wage in most of these situations. Maybe that was the case with Dell. I don't know.
In any case, having US companies move jobs to other countries when there are people here in the US who want those jobs, at that pay, is unacceptable. The United States government needs to find a way to stop that, or at least reduce it to temporary situations due to relocation issues.
You wouldn't, but my point is that those unconstrained companies are likely to beat the ones laboring under your proposed rules in the world market, making them lose (say) 2/3 of their sales.
They won't even be competing with our US companies, for the most part. But like I said, "I'm not suggesting that we ban all US companies from hiring foreigners, I'm just suggesting that we level the playing field." Surely the United States has enough power in the world trade arena to at least keep all Americans employed in decent jobs. I'm not saying we have to hoard everything. I'm just saying we should have fair trade. Tariff's and regulations is how you enforce this.
But a big company could move the bulk of it's corporate head quarters to another nation, or liquidate its assets and transfer them to another company setup somewhere.
Yeah, and as long as they sell products to people in the US or maintain an offic in the US, they'll still be subject to US laws.
All right, let me be the first/.er ever to admit to knowing very little about business laws and regulations. But if there's a way to do so, I'm sure it would happen.
If they're a US company, then you can regulate what they do directly. If not, then you can tax their imports.
The dot-com boom showed that employees aren't loyal, and will bail for more money instantly if they have a better deal.
Not all employees were like that. But like I said, it's pretty much where the country has headed anyway.
Look at it this way - if the company is expected to pay employees more than they're worth, and this is called loyalty, how do employees show their loyalty?
No. I didn't say that at all. There's a difference between paying someone more than they're worth and not firing them so you can outsource their job. At the very least, the company should give the employee enough time to get another job before dumping them.
Should they stay with a company when the company does poorly for less money?
To some extent, yes, they should. Obviously if things get really bad this isn't going to be possible, but employees shouldn't jump ship over a small temporary opportunity. At the very least, the employee should give the employer enough time to hire a replacement before jumping ship.
Because this doesn't really occur.
It sure does. In fact, while I was working at Hewlett Packard we were asked to take mandatory vacation time or to take a pay cut. No one that I know of quit due to that incident. It wasn't until Fiorina took the helm that I quit. But even the Lew Platt days were not shining examples of The HP Way.
Major mulitnational companies like HP get most of their revenue from sales outside the US.
Right, so for revenue earned from sales outside the US, for workers outside the US, and management outside the US, and owned by people outside the US (you can tax capital gains and dividends too), then you can't touch them. But why in the world would I think I could?
Okay. "Both" means yes to both questions, so you did, in fact, say that Sony has a responsibility to the American worker to provide them with jobs. Stop trying to back-pedal.
I'm not backpedelling. I do believe that Sony has a responsibility to the American worker to provide them with jobs.
I hate to say it but the conclusion is that everything is inconclusive right now. On average it seems New Delhi (which is NOT the IT capital) is around 7% to 27% cheaper than New York (not exactly known for IT). That 7% figure is unreliable IMO. So on average it seems to be around 20% cheaper.
Yeah, but what about the quality of life? How is the police service is New Delhi compared to NYC? How about the fire service? What about the public hospitals, etc. You're still comparing apples and oranges.
Anyway, I guess the question is: would you be willing to take a 25% pay cut?
I don't have a job.
OR are you ok with the US government subsidizing IT workers by 25%?
No, I'm not OK with that. Not at all. I'd say let the IT workers take a 25% pay cut. Hell, then maybe I could get a job.
This wont work either... they will simply create another company and contract the business out to the other company... there is no law you can pass that says a company can't do business with a foriegn company.
What you said was that if a company is making money selling to a nation, they should be expected to employ people there.
No I didn't. You asked "Is it also [Sony's] responsibility to support [Americans] with jobs? Or is their only responsibility, in fact, to their shareholders? I answered "Both. Their responsibility is to both."
When I offered Sony (a company that's not even based in the US) as an example of reducto ad absurdum, you actually stood by the position in that case as well.
Oh, I see, you are attributing someone else's statements to me.
Is a company obligated to employ people in a nation where they are making profits, or is it not?
Not necessarily. They could fulfill their responsibility to those people in other ways.
Slashdot Mirror
If the law says it's OK to spam, then how are 997/1000 spams in violation of it?
Geez, I'm surprised this isn't in the Your Rights Online section. I mean, God forbid airports make you actually take off your shoes when there are known plans for terrorists to put bombs in their shoes. That would violate your Constitutional right to fly in airplanes without taking off your shoes first, or something.
Do you actually gamble? You can't count on chips "arriving at the same time".
Not when they're in someone's pokcet!
To be able to properly track individual chips in relation to particular players the range on the RFID would have to be very limited so your chips signal doesn't bleed over into the spot for the player next to you.
No it wouldn't. You could assume that all chips which arrive simultaneously are being carried by the same player. Also, you can give out chips in a manner such that they are grouped at the time they are given out. You could also use triangulation, either with three receivers per pit, or three per table. Combine in the tracking which is already being done via videocamera, and this could be extremely accurate.
Then to be able to match the identifier sent by the chip to the denomination would require a lookup to a central database which means all your blackjack tables need a network drop.
Or you could simply store the data for later processing.
You could suggest wireless, but as security conscious as casinos are, I would guess they would be reluctant to allow any kind of wireless access to the in-house systems.
You wouldn't want to connect this to the main computers, just into a separate network which only has one-way access anyway.
And even the computer supported tables like Let-It-Ride and Carribean Stud aren't connected to the network.
The cameras at those tables certainly are. No reason not to include RFID sensors.
Facial recognition and card tracking can be done remotely, all handled through the video cameras from the security center.
Same thing with RFID tracking.
And if they really wanted real-time chip tracking, they could do it the same way, remotely with the cameras.
Sure, but adding in RFIDs make this a whole lot easier. The cameras would have to get a face recognition of the person coming to the table, then make sure that s/he is recognized at every subsequent location. With RFIDs, you can simply watch the traffic as it comes and goes. It's not foolproof, but it's a lot more foolproof than trying to track all the chips through fixed cameras.
RFID is not the right answer for chip tracking.
It's not a full solution, but it helps.
I don't think that they care how many chips you cash in at one time (from a tax perspective), but for some reason the number $10,000 sticks out in my mind.
Yep, if you transfer more than $10,000 in cash in one day you have to report the transfer to the government under the RICO statutes (it's supposed to make it harder to launder money).
Card counting isn't illegal but if the casino kicks you out for doing it, you have no recourse. You can't sue the casion for interfering with your right to card count.
Not true in Atlantic City. The casinos in Atlantic City are so highly regulated that they are considered to be acting as part of the government, and therefore are not allowed to discriminate against card counters. Of course, they can require you to flat-bet, and disallow players entering in the middle of a shoe, which pretty much defeats the purpose of card counting.
I think that installing the equipment at each betting spot on the table to read the different IDs, lookup the dollar value in a central database and do the math to figure out total bet would be a little much. It would take some serious hardware to do real-time tracking of every chip in play.
Considering that the big casinos already have facial recognition and limited card tracking software/hardware, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to add chip tracking.
Is it illegal for the casino to count cards?
No, it's called preferential shuffling, and it's perfectly legal. However, if they used RFIDs in the cards, at the very least they'd have to tell you, in which case no one would play blackjack at that casino. Well, actually, some people probably would, but not as many.
And this wouldn't be legal in Atlantic City, because all game rules in Atlantic City have to be approved by the government.
In Atlantic City (as far as I remember -- its been awhile), they have to let you play. But they can instruct their dealers to do a lot of things to make your life as a counter quite miserable. Like only work very shallow into the shoe, for starters.
They can also force you to flat-bet (bet the same amount every hand during the shoe), which pretty much defeats the main purpose of card counting.
How do you manage to live off $10k? Where do you live? Do you live with your parents? Who pays rent?
At the moment I'm paying $675/month to live alone in an apartment in NJ, but for most of the past few years I've been paying only $230-400 a month to share an apartment or house with others.
If you ARE living off $10k, you will turn into a capitalist slave--if you aren't one already.
You'll have to explain that one. I would think to live off much more than $10k/year would require you to be a capitalist slave.
I don't consider $10k to be sufficient to live off of.
Well, it certainly is. It might not meet your standards of living, but it is quite sufficient to live off of.
Of course, I don't plan on living off this little forever. I will get a job, eventually. Probably soon. And like I said, longer term I'm probably going to teach. So that'll make me significantly more than $10K/year. And I won't even have to become a corporate slave.
What's to stop literally all other jobs (except those that require physical presence) from being lost?
Competition? It's not like there are a limited number of jobs in the world. It's perfectly possible for everyone in the world to have a job.
In any case, what exactly is a low skilled job?
Isn't that kind of obvious? A low skilled job is one that requires little or no skills. If you want a specific cutoff, then it's a job which at last 80% of the population could perform with less than 5 days training.
Why would only low skilled jobs move?
Well, low skilled jobs wouldn't necessarily be the only ones which would move. But they are the only ones which would be affected by the minimum wage.
There is no reason why a teacher cannot be outsourced.
But there are lots of reasons why it doesn't make sense for them to be, and even more reasons why they won't.
However, it wouldn't surprise me if many classes are done through long-distance in the future.
It'll surprise me greatly if this happens during my lifetime.
Once schools are privatized, watch out.
Schools aren't going to be privatized. For one thing, the NTA and AFT has much too much power to allow that to happen.
(BTW, this is not to discourage you from becoming a teacher--just using an example).
I'm confident enough with myself that I'm sure I'll be able to adapt to wherever the market forces lead us. Even if teaching did become impossible, I'd just get a different job. Even if all jobs in the entire country ceased existing, I'd just move in with a friend or family member who already paid off their home, and farm the land for food. But that's not going to happen anyway.
I agree with you that programmers get paid too much. It is a view I have held for many years. I don't see why people get paid $50,000+ for routine maintenance, simple programming, etc. But that doesn't change my point.
What exactly is your point?
I don't see how you are going to carry that out given that all trade agreements place business interests above workers.
Trade agreements can be renegotiated.
You already have difficulty enforcing worker regulations within one country. Doing it internationally is more difficult..
Not really. As long as the company is located in the United States, it's just as easy to enforce injunctions and fines against it.
How do you expect someone living in any moderately sized contemporary American city to make rent on the wages paid an Indian call center employee without a return to the extreme slum like conditions that were prevelanet during the industrial revolution?
For those who can't afford to pay rent, there's always welfare or other programs available. But I doubt it would come to that.
The point being that, should the minimum wage law be repealed then call center employees state side, in theory, would have their wages reduced to that of Indian call center employees.
Doubtful. Having call centers in India costs a lot more than having them in the United States. Wages would probably be at least double here due to the cost savings.
Taking $300.00 a month as an example (cribbed from the rate a coder in Shanghai works for as posted above) and theorizing a double income family, $600.00 a month, or $7200.00 a year before taxes isn't going to get you very far in any contemporary American landscape.
$300/month will pay a mortgage on a $40,000 house, which is enough for a 3-bedroom home in Trenton, NJ. I've lived in such a house. It's not bad at all, certainly not "extreme slum like conditions that were prevelanet [sic] during the industrial revolution." You could definitely live on $600 a month. Add in the many programs available for low-income individuals, and you could live quite adequetely. Get a little training, and you can quickly move out of the no-skilled labor market anyway, and leave that to the college students and teenagers.
Besides, the real question is, would you rather be allowed to take a job making less than minimum wage, or would you rather that job move to another country. The unconsitutional federal minimum wage laws do nothing but take choice away from US citizens.
Now, it can be argued, that should the same wage decrease be economy wide, the cost of goods, housing, etc. would go down as well.
Good strawman, but I'm not going to bite.
Here in the U.S. I'd imagine we'd see some fairly impressive, if viewed from a distance, civil disorder.
No more than we already see. And that civil disorder would most likely be directed at the corporations, not the government. Sounds good to me.
The standard of living is far lower in many of those countries. But the thing is that employers don't care. They just look at base costs. The higher standard of living in USA (for example) accrues to YOU--not the corporation.
That's exactly my point. The majority of the difference in salary is due to Americans demanding a higher standard of living. It's not that stuff costs more here, it's that people want more here.
I actually managed to find actual wages in India. This should prove my point without any doubt.
Maybe it proves your point, but it says nothing about mine. Obviously average wages in India are lower than the USA. And certainly average IT wages in India are lower than the USA. That's why companies are hiring workers in India instead of here. But my point, which you can look at it you go up a few posts, is that this isn't due to a big difference in costs of living, it's due to Americans being used to better lifestyles than Indians. "The cost of living in the US is actually less than that of India (*). People in the US are just used to better lifestyles than those in India." (*) That part you dispute, and maybe I was incorrect, but I still don't think so. But as you saw it is a very small difference compared to the difference in salaries.
So you need to take a 70% to 90% pay cut I would say. Can you do that?
Sure. I've been living off no salary. I could do it. Would I want to? No. I'd just get a better job. Probably become a teacher, which I'm looking into anyway. Why should code monkies make more than teachers?
As far as I'm concerned, there is NO WAY you can take a pay cut. You would have to SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASE your standard of living*.
Did you even read my previous post? I've been living off less than $10K a year for years now. And I don't even have a family to share expenses with. Also, you have to realize that expenses wouldn't really drop all the way down. There's a lot of overhead costs which could be saved. Salaries for code monkies in the US would probably be closer to $20-30K.
I think ALL jobs in wealthy countries will be threatened under capitalism.
No, only low skilled jobs which are easily portable to other countries. Code monkey is one of the best examples. There's zero language barrier, and product transfer is virtually free over the internet. Plus code is especially hard to tax, due to its non-physical nature.
There are some things we can do, though. Require OSHA to be followed with foreign workers. Require the same benefits to be offered. Make sure companies are forced to pay unemployment benefits to the workers they lay off, until those workers are able to get a new job. I think you'll see the salaries start to come into line. But $75,000/year for being a code monkey? Sorry, those days are numbered.
I sincerely hope something is done about this... maybe outsourcing to various degrees is inevitable, but where will it end?
It's not so much a problem with US companies hiring non-US workers, either. Obviously that is going to happen, and it's quite commonly a good thing for the US economy. But when a US company lays off US workers to replace them with foreign workers, there's a problem. And frankly, in most cases minimum wage laws aren't it. Indian programmers aren't making less than minimum wage in most of these situations. Maybe that was the case with Dell. I don't know.
In any case, having US companies move jobs to other countries when there are people here in the US who want those jobs, at that pay, is unacceptable. The United States government needs to find a way to stop that, or at least reduce it to temporary situations due to relocation issues.
Yeah, cause 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water makes so much more sense.
And it should be plural. 5789 kelvins.
You wouldn't, but my point is that those unconstrained companies are likely to beat the ones laboring under your proposed rules in the world market, making them lose (say) 2/3 of their sales.
They won't even be competing with our US companies, for the most part. But like I said, "I'm not suggesting that we ban all US companies from hiring foreigners, I'm just suggesting that we level the playing field." Surely the United States has enough power in the world trade arena to at least keep all Americans employed in decent jobs. I'm not saying we have to hoard everything. I'm just saying we should have fair trade. Tariff's and regulations is how you enforce this.
But a big company could move the bulk of it's corporate head quarters to another nation, or liquidate its assets and transfer them to another company setup somewhere.
Yeah, and as long as they sell products to people in the US or maintain an offic in the US, they'll still be subject to US laws.
All right, let me be the first /.er ever to admit to knowing very little about business laws and regulations. But if there's a way to do so, I'm sure it would happen.
If they're a US company, then you can regulate what they do directly. If not, then you can tax their imports.
The dot-com boom showed that employees aren't loyal, and will bail for more money instantly if they have a better deal.
Not all employees were like that. But like I said, it's pretty much where the country has headed anyway.
Look at it this way - if the company is expected to pay employees more than they're worth, and this is called loyalty, how do employees show their loyalty?
No. I didn't say that at all. There's a difference between paying someone more than they're worth and not firing them so you can outsource their job. At the very least, the company should give the employee enough time to get another job before dumping them.
Should they stay with a company when the company does poorly for less money?
To some extent, yes, they should. Obviously if things get really bad this isn't going to be possible, but employees shouldn't jump ship over a small temporary opportunity. At the very least, the employee should give the employer enough time to hire a replacement before jumping ship.
Because this doesn't really occur.
It sure does. In fact, while I was working at Hewlett Packard we were asked to take mandatory vacation time or to take a pay cut. No one that I know of quit due to that incident. It wasn't until Fiorina took the helm that I quit. But even the Lew Platt days were not shining examples of The HP Way.
Without CRL checking, Verisign certificates have no inherit integrity advantage over self-signed certificates.
Nonsense. This would only affect the integrity of certificates which were stolen.
But I think the result would be a lot of the big companies moving their operations to Canada, Europe, Bahamas, anywhere without similar restrictions.
You're saying the big companies would sever all ties with the US? I doubt it. What big company do you think would do this?
Major mulitnational companies like HP get most of their revenue from sales outside the US.
Right, so for revenue earned from sales outside the US, for workers outside the US, and management outside the US, and owned by people outside the US (you can tax capital gains and dividends too), then you can't touch them. But why in the world would I think I could?
Okay. "Both" means yes to both questions, so you did, in fact, say that Sony has a responsibility to the American worker to provide them with jobs. Stop trying to back-pedal.
I'm not backpedelling. I do believe that Sony has a responsibility to the American worker to provide them with jobs.
I hate to say it but the conclusion is that everything is inconclusive right now. On average it seems New Delhi (which is NOT the IT capital) is around 7% to 27% cheaper than New York (not exactly known for IT). That 7% figure is unreliable IMO. So on average it seems to be around 20% cheaper.
Yeah, but what about the quality of life? How is the police service is New Delhi compared to NYC? How about the fire service? What about the public hospitals, etc. You're still comparing apples and oranges.
Anyway, I guess the question is: would you be willing to take a 25% pay cut?
I don't have a job.
OR are you ok with the US government subsidizing IT workers by 25%?
No, I'm not OK with that. Not at all. I'd say let the IT workers take a 25% pay cut. Hell, then maybe I could get a job.
This wont work either... they will simply create another company and contract the business out to the other company... there is no law you can pass that says a company can't do business with a foriegn company.
However, you can tax imports.
What you said was that if a company is making money selling to a nation, they should be expected to employ people there.
No I didn't. You asked "Is it also [Sony's] responsibility to support [Americans] with jobs? Or is their only responsibility, in fact, to their shareholders? I answered "Both. Their responsibility is to both."
When I offered Sony (a company that's not even based in the US) as an example of reducto ad absurdum, you actually stood by the position in that case as well.
Oh, I see, you are attributing someone else's statements to me.
Is a company obligated to employ people in a nation where they are making profits, or is it not?
Not necessarily. They could fulfill their responsibility to those people in other ways.