I wholeheartedly agree. A job should be evaluated on two accounts: its importance for the society and the 'difficulty' of the job.
To test this theorem, which group do you think gets paid more: teachers, policemen, firemen, garbage men, farmers, soldiers and nurses -OR- programmers, professional athletes, lawyers, insurance company managers, politicians and movie stars?
Unfortunately, the compensation system in modern societies is entirely the wrong way around, so some concessions have to be made in order to ensure livable conditions for everyone.
If you want to look at how this works, look at the self-serve gas station. The gas stations used to employ lots of pump jockets. However, the minimum wage laws forced the companies to get rid of almost all of these jobs.
Let's say someone gets paid $3/hour, 40 hours a week, that's $480 a month. Let's say no taxes are taken out. The average rent is probably about $300, but let's say $250, that leaves $230. Food, for one person, costs, say, $3 per day, $90 per month, leaving $140. Utility bills, heat, water, electric, phone...probably at least $100 altogether. Then add transportation costs, clothes, etc. No chance of homeownership, even carownership. Education? And this is if there's no-one else to support.
There are some instances where the minimum wage should not be necessary. By and large if the job isn't the person's primary income (housewifes, dependent minors and students, people with multiple jobs etc.)
No, the reason Bush won is onefold: 2001.09.11. Many minds had a hard time coping with such an unfathomable occurrence and Bush was conveniently there to provide some strong associative bonds. It's all Psych 404.
If you want to dig in deeper, everyone was going on and on about the 'record turnout'. Like 65% or something. Quick math says about 35 million people didn't bother voting. There's your margin.
That being said, Bush won. Any problems should be fixed, and the best place to go is your election officials -and in large cases, the media. But there's no point trying to assert some sort of conspiracy.
Me, I'm just hoping they'll have someone like McCain or Arnold running in 2008 because there's no way Democrats will win.
But if we take your question and apply it to the US - if all software development and manufacturing operations were pulled out of the US right away will not its impact be similar to what would have happened in India?
No. Highly simplified*, if all IT was withdrawn from the US and India, the results would be different in that the US would fall back on its other high-level economic sectors such as banking, healthcare etc. India, on the other hand, would drop directly to the pre-dotcom underdeveloped economy: it simply wouldn't have anything to place the artificially created sector's workforce in (let alone be able to correct the revenue losses).
[*]India, of course, isn't the best example as it has already been fairly 'westernized' for years, economically, compared to its neighbours. But consider, for example, a country like the Philippines or Indonesia, if all foreign manufacturing was removed.
Well, a simplistic answer is that the economy is structured as a service: there has to be a demand and usually the decisions/design is done elsewhere. This will be catastrophic--in the short term at least--when (not if) the commissioner companies withdraw from the market. Consider, for example, if all phone center operations were pulled out of India right away?
The longer answer is more of a psychoeconomical effect: an economy can be thought of as an evolving organism. If its process is artificially sped up--or worse, entire phases are skipped over--it will suffer from underdeveloped 'physical' parts -certain industries. Additionally, the 'psychological' aspect comes into play in many forms: the society is not 'ready' for certain aspects of economy and certain prevalent societal thought patterns are skewed or missing.
In short, when all participating economies are not naturally developed and healthy, globalisation is equatable to slavery. Sure, the slaves get some perks and are probably a bit better off than in the jungle, but it's still not a good thing.
This is FUD, plain and simple. Outsourcing has happened and will continue to happen. Proper precautions must be taken in any business decision, but it is naive and sophmoric to eliminate outsourcing as an option based on the fears presented by the autor.
Outsourcing is a part of a natural, healthy global capitalist economy.
The problem is that we do not have a natural, healthy global capitalist economy. We have a divided economy with a few rich and many poor countries with underdeveloped economies.
Aside from the problems for the rich countries (social division), a major consequence of imposed globalism now is that those underdeveloped economies will never be properly structured as they can't develop on their own.
I personally think he's more socially moderate than what the campaign made him seem (need the base, after all).
The social structure of the country is the biggest problem I see, the growing division between the rich and the poor. Social security is another concern. If they start the privatization, there's nothing that can be done to stop it afterwards.
Bush has already lost the world. Unless he can stop the Palestine-Israel conflict, perhaps -and I think that's where he will try to make his mark in history. I'm not very hopeful, though.
The assertion that the U.S. is absolutely true. The U.S. was recently at risk of losing its vote in the General Assembly if a payment wasn't made. The total debt was up to over one billion dollars, with the last 13 payments late or incomplete.
If you want to argue that the U.S. shouldn't have to pay the U.N., that's fine, but currently it has obligations it hasn't fulfilled.
PE offers no proof of such behaviour. The PE is a logical description but it can be explained by the fundamental nature of things: inertia until a sufficient force is built, then rapid actions, reactions and side-effects until things settle down to build up power again.
I suppose I'm trying to say you can look at it two ways: deterministically and nondeterministically. I'm just making a case that there's nothing about evolution that would require determinism.
The problem is that the next nutjob you don't elect but gets into the office again might decide that e.g. Britain harbours terrorists (Iraq->Iran->IRA) and go 'liberate' them.
Also on FOX: "Nokia, Motorola And SonyEricsson Using Microwave Devices To Turn Patriotic Americans Into Kerry-Voting Zombies. Our Online Poll: Can A Company Be Terrorist?"
Slate is filled with idiots. Eight thousand is a logically impossible number for a conflict this long. The 'official' death count which goes by reported names (and only lists those who died violently and were taken to the hospital/morgue) is up to 15,000. The 100,000 is a possible number, unfortunately, but more likely we're talking about somewhere around 50,000.
Slashdot Mirror
How do we determine the 'free market value'? Currently that's not possible due to rooted economic functions, but imagine this:
If both groups went on strike, which would you pay more to go back to work.
That's 'free market value' for you.
I wholeheartedly agree. A job should be evaluated on two accounts: its importance for the society and the 'difficulty' of the job.
To test this theorem, which group do you think gets paid more: teachers, policemen, firemen, garbage men, farmers, soldiers and nurses
-OR-
programmers, professional athletes, lawyers, insurance company managers, politicians and movie stars?
Unfortunately, the compensation system in modern societies is entirely the wrong way around, so some concessions have to be made in order to ensure livable conditions for everyone.
Let's say someone gets paid $3/hour, 40 hours a week, that's $480 a month. Let's say no taxes are taken out. The average rent is probably about $300, but let's say $250, that leaves $230. Food, for one person, costs, say, $3 per day, $90 per month, leaving $140. Utility bills, heat, water, electric, phone...probably at least $100 altogether. Then add transportation costs, clothes, etc. No chance of homeownership, even carownership. Education? And this is if there's no-one else to support.
There are some instances where the minimum wage should not be necessary. By and large if the job isn't the person's primary income (housewifes, dependent minors and students, people with multiple jobs etc.)
Hey, it was raining. What do you want? I, like, totally hate you.
No, the reason Bush won is onefold: 2001.09.11. Many minds had a hard time coping with such an unfathomable occurrence and Bush was conveniently there to provide some strong associative bonds. It's all Psych 404.
If you want to dig in deeper, everyone was going on and on about the 'record turnout'. Like 65% or something. Quick math says about 35 million people didn't bother voting. There's your margin.
That being said, Bush won. Any problems should be fixed, and the best place to go is your election officials -and in large cases, the media. But there's no point trying to assert some sort of conspiracy.
Me, I'm just hoping they'll have someone like McCain or Arnold running in 2008 because there's no way Democrats will win.
No. Highly simplified*, if all IT was withdrawn from the US and India, the results would be different in that the US would fall back on its other high-level economic sectors such as banking, healthcare etc. India, on the other hand, would drop directly to the pre-dotcom underdeveloped economy: it simply wouldn't have anything to place the artificially created sector's workforce in (let alone be able to correct the revenue losses).
[*]India, of course, isn't the best example as it has already been fairly 'westernized' for years, economically, compared to its neighbours. But consider, for example, a country like the Philippines or Indonesia, if all foreign manufacturing was removed.
So what happens when the computer gets hot?
Well, a simplistic answer is that the economy is structured as a service: there has to be a demand and usually the decisions/design is done elsewhere. This will be catastrophic--in the short term at least--when (not if) the commissioner companies withdraw from the market. Consider, for example, if all phone center operations were pulled out of India right away?
The longer answer is more of a psychoeconomical effect: an economy can be thought of as an evolving organism. If its process is artificially sped up--or worse, entire phases are skipped over--it will suffer from underdeveloped 'physical' parts -certain industries. Additionally, the 'psychological' aspect comes into play in many forms: the society is not 'ready' for certain aspects of economy and certain prevalent societal thought patterns are skewed or missing.
In short, when all participating economies are not naturally developed and healthy, globalisation is equatable to slavery. Sure, the slaves get some perks and are probably a bit better off than in the jungle, but it's still not a good thing.
Outsourcing is a part of a natural, healthy global capitalist economy.
The problem is that we do not have a natural, healthy global capitalist economy. We have a divided economy with a few rich and many poor countries with underdeveloped economies.
Aside from the problems for the rich countries (social division), a major consequence of imposed globalism now is that those underdeveloped economies will never be properly structured as they can't develop on their own.
Er, BushBasher != ClintonFan.
Uhh, I fail to see your point? Lenin wasn't a nice guy -albeit better than Stalin.
That's the question.
I personally think he's more socially moderate than what the campaign made him seem (need the base, after all).
The social structure of the country is the biggest problem I see, the growing division between the rich and the poor. Social security is another concern. If they start the privatization, there's nothing that can be done to stop it afterwards.
Bush has already lost the world. Unless he can stop the Palestine-Israel conflict, perhaps -and I think that's where he will try to make his mark in history. I'm not very hopeful, though.
That sure worked well with Hitler, Napoleon, Lenin, Stahlin [sic], etc.
The assertion that the U.S. is absolutely true. The U.S. was recently at risk of losing its vote in the General Assembly if a payment wasn't made. The total debt was up to over one billion dollars, with the last 13 payments late or incomplete.
If you want to argue that the U.S. shouldn't have to pay the U.N., that's fine, but currently it has obligations it hasn't fulfilled.
PE offers no proof of such behaviour. The PE is a logical description but it can be explained by the fundamental nature of things: inertia until a sufficient force is built, then rapid actions, reactions and side-effects until things settle down to build up power again.
I suppose I'm trying to say you can look at it two ways: deterministically and nondeterministically. I'm just making a case that there's nothing about evolution that would require determinism.
What will that accomplish? It's not like the U.S. listens to the U.N. or pays its dues as it is.
I've composed a national anthem for the First Christiofascist Empire. Let me know when you'll be needing it.
its e e cummings
The problem is that the next nutjob you don't elect but gets into the office again might decide that e.g. Britain harbours terrorists (Iraq->Iran->IRA) and go 'liberate' them.
Also on FOX: "Nokia, Motorola And SonyEricsson Using Microwave Devices To Turn Patriotic Americans Into Kerry-Voting Zombies. Our Online Poll: Can A Company Be Terrorist?"
PE doesn't really have anything to do with the 'reasons' for evolution, it merely describes the process.
Does anyone here read Slashdot?
This nuance is very important.
Evolution* isn't trying anything. It simply happens.
End of message.
[*] Evolution is a prevalent, beneficial mutation. Specifically, a mutation simply happens.
Slate is filled with idiots. Eight thousand is a logically impossible number for a conflict this long. The 'official' death count which goes by reported names (and only lists those who died violently and were taken to the hospital/morgue) is up to 15,000. The 100,000 is a possible number, unfortunately, but more likely we're talking about somewhere around 50,000.