Most Americans don't understand the idea of a world economy. They fail to see that their nice and relatively cheap Dell laptops and Nike sneakers are a product of that same world economy.
Exactly. The average American doesn't understand that their future is being sold to provide millions of dollars to American CEOs who are exploiting foreign workers and firing American workers.
Well, guess what, repetitive and less creative white-collar jobs are going the way of manufacturing jobs, it's inevitable, and the US won't descend into misery because of that -- Americans have always found a way to adapt.
It is not the "less creative" jobs that are leaving, it is all jobs that can be done remotely. Adaptation is a means to survival - it doesn't mean things necessarily get better. Soylent Green is an adaptation.
Nice keywords: ''patriotism'', ''danger'', ''enlightened'', ''nationalism''. I fail to grasp why Americans (no, I'm not an American) appeal so frequently to emotional arguments in rational discussions. Outsourcing is all about economic rationalism. What has patriotism to do with it?
To repeat myself, outsourcing is a management decision done to enhance management's compensation - nothing more. Anyone in any nation (not just the U.S.) should be interested in being independent of other countries for basic needs. A patriot of any nation should be concerned about depending on other nations for basic things. China doesn't want to be dependent on MS for software, and I applaud them for that, and so would any Chinese patriot. Please explain your rant.
Is an American who buys a Japanese car less patriotic that one that buys an American one? If The US is ''exporting jobs'' at an alarming rate, how come than the US has actually a far lower unemployment rate than that of the ''more patriotic'' countries, like Italy and France, that are resisting the urge to outsource for ''nationalistic'' reasons?
An American who buy a Japanese brand car is likely buying a car made in America while one who buys an "American" brand car may be buying an import. The U.S. has a low unemployment rate because workers who run out of benefits are no longer counted. Programmers who get a job as a security guard while looking for programmning work are not counted. Statistics are just that and nothing more.
Take a look at the oil industry. The US is already dependent on oil from not-so-friendly countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela.
The U.S. maintains an oil reserve and under-utilized national production facilities as a hedge. There is no stockpile of programmers, steel-workers, or electronic fabs in case of problems. Even if there were such a hedge, it would be outdated in a few years.
Will any of those countries risk heavy economic retaliation if they cut their oil supply to the US? No, they won't, because they will suffer at least as much as the US if they were to do so. The world is becoming increasingly inter-dependent -- no single important country can start a trade war without suffering itself a lot.
Those who haven't studied history are doomed to repeat it.
That probably made sense in Hamilton's time. I fail to see it as wise advice for the 21st century. The notion of ''true patriotism'' has evolved since 1776.
Hamilton was writing about national survival, i.e., nationalism and the welfare of the nation, not patriotism. Those who haven't studied history are doomed to repeat it.
Invade them using troops using uniforms made in ?, who are using vehicles armored with steel produced in ?, using computerized warfare systems manufactured in ? So how long do you wait for all the imports to arrive before you start the invasion?
Oh gosh, no, that'd be terrible. If they did that, we'd actually have to do something about global warming, or lessen our dependence on foreign oil!
The Kyoto Accord doesn't have anything to do with lessening our dependence on foreign oil or with global warming. It's about penalizing the U.S. for pollution occurring in China and third-world contries. It's hardly fair if you read the somewhat legible parts.
That said, it is interesting that some business institutions can survive under enormous stress.
London during the Blitz provided a few examples.
Finally, a comment about the article! I think both the London and Israel examples don't apply to the situation in the U.S. In both examples, the managers and workers were/are working toward a common goal. In the U.S., the workers are trying to succeed despite managers who are basically unaware of what the workers do, while the management sees the workers as commodity widgets that can be replaced on a spreadsheet-whim without affecting the business. Unlike the examples, American programmers and managers are adversaries without a common goal even though both believe they are working for the best interests of the company.
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...
on
Business Under Fire
·
· Score: 1
Please US citizens, open your eyes. Grab the hints we are giving you. Look at this slashdot page and see what posts are way rated up.
Absolutely. I constantly change my life-long refined views and opinions based on Slashdot mods and the drug de jour. All that time I spent in school, reading, and just plain living was totally wasted.
Why is it that the US is all gungho about a world economy and taking over every 3rd world country out there, but then when it starts to happen and our job market spreads out, they cry foul and pump up the patriotism?
First, it is not the U.S., only some neocons in charge that are gungho about a world economy. Most people don't like the idea. Second, patriotism might have something to do with objecting to exporting jobs (for those who understand the danger), but it's more likely nationalism and enlightened self-interest, which is not a bad thing if you happen to like your country. What happens to the U.S. when we are dependent on other countries, many not friendly, for basic things like IT, steel, textiles, electronics, etc.? What if they decide okay, you won't sign the Kyoto Accord then we'll institute sanctions?
IIRC, it was Alexander Hamilton who wrote that a nation should keep all industries necessary to its well-being within its borders. That's something a real patriot should be able to understand.
Well, actually George H. W. Bush instituted payroll taxes for poor people and capped payroll taxes for those above 65,000 a year.
The working "poor" were paying payroll taxes long before Bush Sr. Go troll elsewhere.
That's what's known as a regressive tax system.
As long as you have a graduated system with higher rates for those with more income and lower rates for those with lower income, it's called a progressive tax system. A flat tax would be regressive.
Incidently, when income tax was instituted, a lot of the wealthy paying did so proudly, in support of their country during the Great War.
Wonderful. The point was that the lower and middle classes weren't even subject to the original income tax. Congress refused to adjust the income threshold despite inflation because it gave the federal government more money and power.
the top tax brackets were as high as 70-90% on all income for much of the mid 20th century. THen the rich started paying off our politicians to cut their top tax rates, and started shifting the burden back onto the bottom of the taxpayers, the working people.
I'm no apologist for the "rich", but I'd guess the politicians were happy to encompass everyone in the income tax without any help or persuasion. My comment was about your rant about the word "rich". Battles over semantics don't usually get anywhere. The Congress thinks we're all rich for tax purposes. The rest of the world thinks all Americans are rich.
I propose shifting the burden back onto the rich. The working poor should pay tax of no sort. Interest and investment income should be heavily taxed, and the proceeds should be used to pay for healthcare for all.
Why should conservatively invested income from interest be taxed when the original income was taxed? That would decrease the available money in the banking system and hurt the little people who are retired and living off CDs. If Social Security actually worked and provided a sustenance income, I could agree with most of that, but it doesn't. By all means, shift more of the tax burden on those with the highest incomes. Let me know when it happens.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of virgins.
Trying to incite Slashdotters to rebellion, eh? Good luck. The March of the Keyboard Brigade. I can almost hear the stirring stanzas, or maybe that's the TV in the other room.:)
I think there should be a test for a "voting license", testing knowledge of the countries political system, current events, and various politcal POVs. Ideally, though human nature is against this, you should be forced to back up your vote, intelligently. Like have a "reason" area after every ballot item.
While that has some appeal, you can't put limits on suffrage that aren't inherent, e.g., citizenship. Nor can you grade a vote or a person's POV. Most of the uniformed voters could be eliminated by getting rid of things like motor-voter and other programs that push people into voting when they aren't really interested. Then only people with the basic competence and motivation to register would be able to vote. Driving is a privilege (so you can be tested), voting is a right. I doubt you'd really like to live in a society where voting is a privilege, especially if you weren't one of the favored minority.
You do know that the word "rich" by definition, by DEFINTION applies only to a small percentage of the population. If that percentage were not small, then they cannot be "rich".
Tell that to the IRS and Congress. Originally, the U.S. income tax applied only to a small percentage of "rich" people. By never adjusting the income brackets for inflation, we all became "rich" and qualified to pay income taxes.
I wouldn't laugh at her at all. Instead, laugh at the arrogant marketers at Microsoft that think they can take a noun with a very specific meaning and repurpose it (and probably trademark it too). Micorosoft products like "Word" "Windows" etc. are pretty poorly named IMHO, because Microsoft wants to avoid the expense of coming up with a real name.
If you are a company bent on world domination, what better vehicle than *branding* generic, commonly used words? Then the language becomes a self-reinforcing sales tool. With the cooperation of a friendly DOJ and USPTO, how could corporate life get any better?
Breaking news: The DOJ announced today that it is cracking down on cab companies for violating Microsoft's rights. First, the "cab" format is a proprietary vehicle for transferring program files, not passengers. Second, the cab drivers' use of the phrase, "Where do you want to go?" violates Microsoft's eternal copyrights. A spokesman for the DOJ said, "We're taking no prisoners on this one. We're taking it to the street, and the cabbies are going down."
Microsoft was way to presumptuous thinking that consumers would allow theirselves to be stuck with another microsoft product. Sure most people use windows but that's because they're forced to.
I think we just lucked out on this one. MOST people would happily embrace the blue butterfly when they know it stops little Johnny's web search for the Bikini Islands. It still amazes me that a software company would use a bug as a logo and be proud of it.
I'll go you one better. I remember reading about the registry when Windows 95 was being made. Apparently there was consideration at Microsoft that they wouldn't even let you edit the thing. If that was so, at least they came to their senses, because even then I knew that the first thing to do when running a new Windows 3 program was to edit the INI file and change all the stupid defaults.
I'll go you one better: the hard-coded 64K limit on the size of the Win95 registry. Typical MS foresight. It grows to 64K because everything including Visual Basic is writing to it, and things just stop working until you reinstall the OS.
I'm inclined not to take this at face value. While they are morally lacking and put out some pretty poor (in comparison with the alternatives) software, Microsoft have historically been excellent business people.
I might quibble with the term "excellent", but MS is doing what it has always done when challenged. They are claiming that their next version (of whatever) has all the features of the competition and more, so wait for it! They've pulled this same ploy for decades, and it works because people are gullible, and MS isn't above selling vaporware.
There are a lot of ethnic dishes for which people loudly declare their revulsion -- haggis and menudo come to mind -- ignoring that fact that people wouldn't eat the stuff at all if it were uniformly terrible.
Menudo! Ackkk. Add me to that list of people. If you can choke down a wad of tripe, more power to you. It's even worse than fried cow's brains (with ketchup - shudder). Excuse me, I have to go hurl.
Yes, the tale of Juan Kleck, the programmer son of a Mexican pop singer mother and German industrialist father is widely known. The way he was ripped off by Amazon is the main reason Bezos is so reviled on Slashdot. (C'mon, somebody get the butterfly net while I keep him occupied . ..)
Given the disparity in wages between here and (say) a Chinese prison workshop, that means that the Australian companies who make shirts overseas are making an obscene profit on the backs of exploited labour.
Yup, it's amazing how the price of a product never actually goes down no matter how much a company cuts costs. And profit, like cream, rises to the top.
What company pays negative tax rates? Do you have a link for that (that isn't mother jones or IWW or some other nonsense)?
If this isn't good enough for you, you can try the original at Forbes.
All told, 82 companies paid zero or negative taxes in at least one of the last three years and 28, including Boeing (nyse:BA), paid negative taxes for the entire period.
If you fix senior management's compensation and do not tie it to the financial performance of the company in some way, what type of management do you think you'll get? A style that is focused on increasing shareholder value?
It's tied to performance because a five-year fixed contract gives time to show real, healthy, long-term growth and does not give CEOs an incentive to cause wild, short-term stock price swings which coincide with options awards and exercise times. Good long-term performance leads to a renewed contract. The current compensation model is actually a freak caused by the federal government trying help us all by tinkering with corporate tax rules, and it isn't working. Think it through.
Finding somebody who wants to be a senior VP isn't difficult, finding somebody who is good at is, that's why the salaries for those positions are so inflated.
I'm really talking about CxO positions where the insane compensation (and looting) happens. The reason why those salaries are so inflated is because the directors of most major companies are CEOs of other companies. It's called a good old boys network, and it has nothing to do with being good at the job.
Then the company will show up on fuckedcompany.com sooner or later.
True. That's where HP (for one) is headed, and it's a cryin' shame.
Find a company run by a CEO that knows what the heck he's doing
The problem is that the CEOs know what they are doing, and that is to boost short-term profits and their compensation no matter what. If you mean I should find a company with an honest CEO who is looking out for the good of the company, that would require finding a company whose board of directors is not composed of other CEOs and professional leeches.
Or start one.
A lot of people have spent most of their working lives helping build companies into an enterprise only to have the company and their retirement plans looted and their jobs exported by some amoral MBA. Your advice to just go start a company is certainly helpful and addresses the injustice completely. Thanks.
In general it all started with telephone tech support, but more recently it has encompassed programming as well. I'm starting to think the only Tech jobs that'll be safe over here are those that require a physical presence.
It started long before tech support. It started with minor manufacturing, electronics, and textiles. At one time you could actually buy a camera or TV or shirt made in America. The shirt wasn't made of Egyptian cotton which has stickers in it; it was always the same size if you purchased more than one; it was colorfast; the buttons did not fall off after two washings; if it said perma-pressed, it really was.
Then the steel-making was offshored. I did a stint just out of high school with a company making computer cabinets (NCR, Bouroughs, etc.) which switched to a Japanese supplier for sheet stock. We were suddenly welding stuff that foamed and blew up in our (masked) faces because of the impurities. So it was structurally unsound and cosmetically patched, but it went out the door. I heard about the grand unveiling of a new computer where the first product (6-foot tall box was one of our Japanese-steel cabinets) was rolled off the plane, and one of the welded casters separated from the frame. Crash, bang, bad company karma, but the owners still sold out for big bucks.
Stockholders love offshoring because of the temporary boost it gives them, but doesn't it just really alienate the customer base eventually?
Not as long as the wheels don't fall off and the management can convince the customers that they're saving money by getting a more inexpensive product. Where are your shirts made?
someone else will. that's why you don't see too many diamonds lying around.
Try telling that to all the really good, well-educated, highly-experienced, unemployed and underemployed programmers out there. All that fine polishing and those many facets going to waste to bolster a CEO's bonus. And HR departments that specialize in can't-find laundry lists. The satisfying irony is that with so many jobs being outsourced, the HR jobs are starting move offshore too. Don't give credit where credit isn't due.
You joke, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to find a job that doesn't require knowledge. Manufacturing jobs have left this country at a staggering rate.
Whoa, that's a bit elitist, isn't it? Manufacturing jobs require not only knowledge but skill and practice. Try precision sheet metal fabrication, printing, or machining sometime, and see how far you get. I'm sure the same holds true for many other manufacturing jobs. This current wave of outsourcing is only noticed because of the collar color. People who thought it was a problem only for the blue-collar, so-called lower-class are now losing their jobs.
The obvious solution is: less taxes on companies and workers, as well as lower salary expectations of unqualified or unexperienced labour.
Many of the largest companies in the U.S. pay no (U.S.) taxes. Some have reached corporate Nirvana with negative tax rates (corporate welfare). Please explain how lowering corporate taxes is going to help. Given the failure of constantly lowered corporate taxes to help, perhaps the solution is higher taxes? Personally, I think the solution is to make CxO compensation fixed and give management a reason to pursue long-term success rather than short-term. If some don't like it, a thousand others will step forward to take those positions.
Going to school for four years doesn't automatically qualify you a salary of $100K a year.
Having the right parents and an MBA from an east-coast school shouldn't automatically qualify you for millions of dollars per year in *compensation* while you destroy companies and the workers who built those companies - but it does.
Slashdot Mirror
Most Americans don't understand the idea of a world economy. They fail to see that their nice and relatively cheap Dell laptops and Nike sneakers are a product of that same world economy.
Exactly. The average American doesn't understand that their future is being sold to provide millions of dollars to American CEOs who are exploiting foreign workers and firing American workers.
Well, guess what, repetitive and less creative white-collar jobs are going the way of manufacturing jobs, it's inevitable, and the US won't descend into misery because of that -- Americans have always found a way to adapt.
It is not the "less creative" jobs that are leaving, it is all jobs that can be done remotely. Adaptation is a means to survival - it doesn't mean things necessarily get better. Soylent Green is an adaptation.
Nice keywords: ''patriotism'', ''danger'', ''enlightened'', ''nationalism''. I fail to grasp why Americans (no, I'm not an American) appeal so frequently to emotional arguments in rational discussions. Outsourcing is all about economic rationalism. What has patriotism to do with it?
To repeat myself, outsourcing is a management decision done to enhance management's compensation - nothing more. Anyone in any nation (not just the U.S.) should be interested in being independent of other countries for basic needs. A patriot of any nation should be concerned about depending on other nations for basic things. China doesn't want to be dependent on MS for software, and I applaud them for that, and so would any Chinese patriot. Please explain your rant.
Is an American who buys a Japanese car less patriotic that one that buys an American one? If The US is ''exporting jobs'' at an alarming rate, how come than the US has actually a far lower unemployment rate than that of the ''more patriotic'' countries, like Italy and France, that are resisting the urge to outsource for ''nationalistic'' reasons?
An American who buy a Japanese brand car is likely buying a car made in America while one who buys an "American" brand car may be buying an import. The U.S. has a low unemployment rate because workers who run out of benefits are no longer counted. Programmers who get a job as a security guard while looking for programmning work are not counted. Statistics are just that and nothing more.
Take a look at the oil industry. The US is already dependent on oil from not-so-friendly countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela.
The U.S. maintains an oil reserve and under-utilized national production facilities as a hedge. There is no stockpile of programmers, steel-workers, or electronic fabs in case of problems. Even if there were such a hedge, it would be outdated in a few years.
Will any of those countries risk heavy economic retaliation if they cut their oil supply to the US? No, they won't, because they will suffer at least as much as the US if they were to do so. The world is becoming increasingly inter-dependent -- no single important country can start a trade war without suffering itself a lot.
Those who haven't studied history are doomed to repeat it.
That probably made sense in Hamilton's time. I fail to see it as wise advice for the 21st century. The notion of ''true patriotism'' has evolved since 1776.
Hamilton was writing about national survival, i.e., nationalism and the welfare of the nation, not patriotism. Those who haven't studied history are doomed to repeat it.
You invade them.
Invade them using troops using uniforms made in ?, who are using vehicles armored with steel produced in ?, using computerized warfare systems manufactured in ? So how long do you wait for all the imports to arrive before you start the invasion?
Oh gosh, no, that'd be terrible. If they did that, we'd actually have to do something about global warming, or lessen our dependence on foreign oil!
The Kyoto Accord doesn't have anything to do with lessening our dependence on foreign oil or with global warming. It's about penalizing the U.S. for pollution occurring in China and third-world contries. It's hardly fair if you read the somewhat legible parts.
That said, it is interesting that some business institutions can survive under enormous stress. London during the Blitz provided a few examples.
Finally, a comment about the article! I think both the London and Israel examples don't apply to the situation in the U.S. In both examples, the managers and workers were/are working toward a common goal. In the U.S., the workers are trying to succeed despite managers who are basically unaware of what the workers do, while the management sees the workers as commodity widgets that can be replaced on a spreadsheet-whim without affecting the business. Unlike the examples, American programmers and managers are adversaries without a common goal even though both believe they are working for the best interests of the company.
Please US citizens, open your eyes. Grab the hints we are giving you. Look at this slashdot page and see what posts are way rated up.
Absolutely. I constantly change my life-long refined views and opinions based on Slashdot mods and the drug de jour. All that time I spent in school, reading, and just plain living was totally wasted.
Why is it that the US is all gungho about a world economy and taking over every 3rd world country out there, but then when it starts to happen and our job market spreads out, they cry foul and pump up the patriotism?
First, it is not the U.S., only some neocons in charge that are gungho about a world economy. Most people don't like the idea. Second, patriotism might have something to do with objecting to exporting jobs (for those who understand the danger), but it's more likely nationalism and enlightened self-interest, which is not a bad thing if you happen to like your country. What happens to the U.S. when we are dependent on other countries, many not friendly, for basic things like IT, steel, textiles, electronics, etc.? What if they decide okay, you won't sign the Kyoto Accord then we'll institute sanctions?
IIRC, it was Alexander Hamilton who wrote that a nation should keep all industries necessary to its well-being within its borders. That's something a real patriot should be able to understand.
Well, actually George H. W. Bush instituted payroll taxes for poor people and capped payroll taxes for those above 65,000 a year.
The working "poor" were paying payroll taxes long before Bush Sr. Go troll elsewhere.
That's what's known as a regressive tax system.
As long as you have a graduated system with higher rates for those with more income and lower rates for those with lower income, it's called a progressive tax system. A flat tax would be regressive.
Incidently, when income tax was instituted, a lot of the wealthy paying did so proudly, in support of their country during the Great War.
Wonderful. The point was that the lower and middle classes weren't even subject to the original income tax. Congress refused to adjust the income threshold despite inflation because it gave the federal government more money and power.
the top tax brackets were as high as 70-90% on all income for much of the mid 20th century. THen the rich started paying off our politicians to cut their top tax rates, and started shifting the burden back onto the bottom of the taxpayers, the working people.
I'm no apologist for the "rich", but I'd guess the politicians were happy to encompass everyone in the income tax without any help or persuasion. My comment was about your rant about the word "rich". Battles over semantics don't usually get anywhere. The Congress thinks we're all rich for tax purposes. The rest of the world thinks all Americans are rich.
I propose shifting the burden back onto the rich. The working poor should pay tax of no sort. Interest and investment income should be heavily taxed, and the proceeds should be used to pay for healthcare for all.
Why should conservatively invested income from interest be taxed when the original income was taxed? That would decrease the available money in the banking system and hurt the little people who are retired and living off CDs. If Social Security actually worked and provided a sustenance income, I could agree with most of that, but it doesn't. By all means, shift more of the tax burden on those with the highest incomes. Let me know when it happens.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of virgins.
Trying to incite Slashdotters to rebellion, eh? Good luck. The March of the Keyboard Brigade. I can almost hear the stirring stanzas, or maybe that's the TV in the other room. :)
HERE HERE!
That woud be "Hear hear," as in _listen to that_.
I think there should be a test for a "voting license", testing knowledge of the countries political system, current events, and various politcal POVs. Ideally, though human nature is against this, you should be forced to back up your vote, intelligently. Like have a "reason" area after every ballot item.
While that has some appeal, you can't put limits on suffrage that aren't inherent, e.g., citizenship. Nor can you grade a vote or a person's POV. Most of the uniformed voters could be eliminated by getting rid of things like motor-voter and other programs that push people into voting when they aren't really interested. Then only people with the basic competence and motivation to register would be able to vote. Driving is a privilege (so you can be tested), voting is a right. I doubt you'd really like to live in a society where voting is a privilege, especially if you weren't one of the favored minority.
You do know that the word "rich" by definition, by DEFINTION applies only to a small percentage of the population. If that percentage were not small, then they cannot be "rich".
Tell that to the IRS and Congress. Originally, the U.S. income tax applied only to a small percentage of "rich" people. By never adjusting the income brackets for inflation, we all became "rich" and qualified to pay income taxes.
I wouldn't laugh at her at all. Instead, laugh at the arrogant marketers at Microsoft that think they can take a noun with a very specific meaning and repurpose it (and probably trademark it too). Micorosoft products like "Word" "Windows" etc. are pretty poorly named IMHO, because Microsoft wants to avoid the expense of coming up with a real name.
If you are a company bent on world domination, what better vehicle than *branding* generic, commonly used words? Then the language becomes a self-reinforcing sales tool. With the cooperation of a friendly DOJ and USPTO, how could corporate life get any better?
Breaking news: The DOJ announced today that it is cracking down on cab companies for violating Microsoft's rights. First, the "cab" format is a proprietary vehicle for transferring program files, not passengers. Second, the cab drivers' use of the phrase, "Where do you want to go?" violates Microsoft's eternal copyrights. A spokesman for the DOJ said, "We're taking no prisoners on this one. We're taking it to the street, and the cabbies are going down."
Microsoft was way to presumptuous thinking that consumers would allow theirselves to be stuck with another microsoft product. Sure most people use windows but that's because they're forced to.
I think we just lucked out on this one. MOST people would happily embrace the blue butterfly when they know it stops little Johnny's web search for the Bikini Islands. It still amazes me that a software company would use a bug as a logo and be proud of it.
I'll go you one better. I remember reading about the registry when Windows 95 was being made. Apparently there was consideration at Microsoft that they wouldn't even let you edit the thing. If that was so, at least they came to their senses, because even then I knew that the first thing to do when running a new Windows 3 program was to edit the INI file and change all the stupid defaults.
I'll go you one better: the hard-coded 64K limit on the size of the Win95 registry. Typical MS foresight. It grows to 64K because everything including Visual Basic is writing to it, and things just stop working until you reinstall the OS.
I'm inclined not to take this at face value. While they are morally lacking and put out some pretty poor (in comparison with the alternatives) software, Microsoft have historically been excellent business people.
I might quibble with the term "excellent", but MS is doing what it has always done when challenged. They are claiming that their next version (of whatever) has all the features of the competition and more, so wait for it! They've pulled this same ploy for decades, and it works because people are gullible, and MS isn't above selling vaporware.
There are a lot of ethnic dishes for which people loudly declare their revulsion -- haggis and menudo come to mind -- ignoring that fact that people wouldn't eat the stuff at all if it were uniformly terrible.
Menudo! Ackkk. Add me to that list of people. If you can choke down a wad of tripe, more power to you. It's even worse than fried cow's brains (with ketchup - shudder). Excuse me, I have to go hurl.
So you think the guy actually exists ?
Yes, the tale of Juan Kleck, the programmer son of a Mexican pop singer mother and German industrialist father is widely known. The way he was ripped off by Amazon is the main reason Bezos is so reviled on Slashdot. (C'mon, somebody get the butterfly net while I keep him occupied . . .)
Given the disparity in wages between here and (say) a Chinese prison workshop, that means that the Australian companies who make shirts overseas are making an obscene profit on the backs of exploited labour.
Yup, it's amazing how the price of a product never actually goes down no matter how much a company cuts costs. And profit, like cream, rises to the top.
What makes you think these jobs are difficult?
What make you think these jobs aren't? Ever tried them?
Also, what makes you think that these jobs aren't being outsourced now?
I never said they weren't. Pay attention. No wonder you decided to post AC.
What company pays negative tax rates? Do you have a link for that (that isn't mother jones or IWW or some other nonsense)?
If this isn't good enough for you, you can try the original at Forbes.
If you fix senior management's compensation and do not tie it to the financial performance of the company in some way, what type of management do you think you'll get? A style that is focused on increasing shareholder value?
It's tied to performance because a five-year fixed contract gives time to show real, healthy, long-term growth and does not give CEOs an incentive to cause wild, short-term stock price swings which coincide with options awards and exercise times. Good long-term performance leads to a renewed contract. The current compensation model is actually a freak caused by the federal government trying help us all by tinkering with corporate tax rules, and it isn't working. Think it through.
Finding somebody who wants to be a senior VP isn't difficult, finding somebody who is good at is, that's why the salaries for those positions are so inflated.
I'm really talking about CxO positions where the insane compensation (and looting) happens. The reason why those salaries are so inflated is because the directors of most major companies are CEOs of other companies. It's called a good old boys network, and it has nothing to do with being good at the job.
Then the company will show up on fuckedcompany.com sooner or later.
True. That's where HP (for one) is headed, and it's a cryin' shame.
Find a company run by a CEO that knows what the heck he's doing
The problem is that the CEOs know what they are doing, and that is to boost short-term profits and their compensation no matter what. If you mean I should find a company with an honest CEO who is looking out for the good of the company, that would require finding a company whose board of directors is not composed of other CEOs and professional leeches.
Or start one.
A lot of people have spent most of their working lives helping build companies into an enterprise only to have the company and their retirement plans looted and their jobs exported by some amoral MBA. Your advice to just go start a company is certainly helpful and addresses the injustice completely. Thanks.
In general it all started with telephone tech support, but more recently it has encompassed programming as well. I'm starting to think the only Tech jobs that'll be safe over here are those that require a physical presence.
It started long before tech support. It started with minor manufacturing, electronics, and textiles. At one time you could actually buy a camera or TV or shirt made in America. The shirt wasn't made of Egyptian cotton which has stickers in it; it was always the same size if you purchased more than one; it was colorfast; the buttons did not fall off after two washings; if it said perma-pressed, it really was.
Then the steel-making was offshored. I did a stint just out of high school with a company making computer cabinets (NCR, Bouroughs, etc.) which switched to a Japanese supplier for sheet stock. We were suddenly welding stuff that foamed and blew up in our (masked) faces because of the impurities. So it was structurally unsound and cosmetically patched, but it went out the door. I heard about the grand unveiling of a new computer where the first product (6-foot tall box was one of our Japanese-steel cabinets) was rolled off the plane, and one of the welded casters separated from the frame. Crash, bang, bad company karma, but the owners still sold out for big bucks.
Stockholders love offshoring because of the temporary boost it gives them, but doesn't it just really alienate the customer base eventually?
Not as long as the wheels don't fall off and the management can convince the customers that they're saving money by getting a more inexpensive product. Where are your shirts made?
someone else will. that's why you don't see too many diamonds lying around.
Try telling that to all the really good, well-educated, highly-experienced, unemployed and underemployed programmers out there. All that fine polishing and those many facets going to waste to bolster a CEO's bonus. And HR departments that specialize in can't-find laundry lists. The satisfying irony is that with so many jobs being outsourced, the HR jobs are starting move offshore too. Don't give credit where credit isn't due.
You joke, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to find a job that doesn't require knowledge. Manufacturing jobs have left this country at a staggering rate.
Whoa, that's a bit elitist, isn't it? Manufacturing jobs require not only knowledge but skill and practice. Try precision sheet metal fabrication, printing, or machining sometime, and see how far you get. I'm sure the same holds true for many other manufacturing jobs. This current wave of outsourcing is only noticed because of the collar color. People who thought it was a problem only for the blue-collar, so-called lower-class are now losing their jobs.
The obvious solution is: less taxes on companies and workers, as well as lower salary expectations of unqualified or unexperienced labour.
Many of the largest companies in the U.S. pay no (U.S.) taxes. Some have reached corporate Nirvana with negative tax rates (corporate welfare). Please explain how lowering corporate taxes is going to help. Given the failure of constantly lowered corporate taxes to help, perhaps the solution is higher taxes? Personally, I think the solution is to make CxO compensation fixed and give management a reason to pursue long-term success rather than short-term. If some don't like it, a thousand others will step forward to take those positions.
Going to school for four years doesn't automatically qualify you a salary of $100K a year.
Having the right parents and an MBA from an east-coast school shouldn't automatically qualify you for millions of dollars per year in *compensation* while you destroy companies and the workers who built those companies - but it does.