Well, the question is what field you want to do R&D for? Software is not in and of itself R&D (well, the D part). My company does almost all R, with a little D that sometimes involves software. If I were you, I'd talk up the non-programming skills that you have, especially if you have training or anything in either business or the sciences.
I don't- beyond algorithim theory. Software was at one time almost all R very little D- and the more R you can do in software the more R you can do.
Ouch. I feel really bad for you, because that's the group of people getting hit the hardest. It might be worth it to try to get on with a company that does some applied research, even if it's a lower-paying job than you'd like, if it helps you learn some non-coding jobs.
I tried- most of those companies now do all their coding overseas where the cost of living is much less. Even classics like Microsoft and Oracle are now removing all R&D from these shores.
That really sucks. Surely if housing has gone up there you have some equity, though?
Not enough to cover my prepayment penalties. Just remember- if anybody offers you a loan at a low rate, count your fingers, then your toes, then your relatives. Something will be missing somewhere.
Nah, the mid 90s was a bubble built on speculation and fake money.
All money is fake- it's a fiat currency owned by the government after all.
The first thing you have to realize is the 90's wasn't even real. It was fantasyland.
Of course it wasn't real- but neither is making products in the United States anymore. Free trade has done away with the need to produce stuff locally.
But there are good jobs out there - the problem is, there are fewer jobs for programmers now, and lots more programmers. That's a disaster. My advice to you is to distinguish yourself somehow from the horde of IT people. Get some training in business or science, either from a school or from a company where you work undervalued for a while as you pick it up.
And I do that how? Borrow more money from the usurious banking industry? That will just push me into bankruptcy faster.
And good luck. I lucked out a bit - I liked science and CS, majored in chemistry with a minor in CS, eventually wen to grad school and worked on projects dealing with algorithms to deal with sensor data. From that I got an R&D job...coding. I didn't know that was practically the ideal path at the time, but it's what Uninversities are highly recommending these days. Jobs want to see a different skillset these days compared to the mid 90s.
And a much lower standard of living in their workers. It just doesn't pay to do R&D here anymore.
Regardless of what makes marxism simpler, its still a failed concept.
Then why is Wal*Mart still using it?
At its base, marxism assumes that society is made up of two distinct, non-mixing classes (a la Owners vs Workers, proletariat vs bourgeoisie). This is a critical flaw, especially when applied to societies like the US, where many begin as one and end as another.
Name one- I can't. Every successfull "businessman" I've seen started out with an inheritance.
This is all aside from the fact that we have more than two classes.
True enough- but historically we haven't, and naturally we don't, and right now, there's a great attempt to push us back to two.
At very least, there are five in the US. The unemployed poor, the working poor, the middle, the middle upper, and the elite.
Three of which are directly and currently under attack: The unemployed poor (Welfare reform says either work or die); the middle (being pushed into poverty by the housing bubble and fake "interest only" loans that force defaults); and the upper middle (who are losing what investments they have to stock market con artists). Very soon, only Marx's natural two will be left- and that's the way the elites like it.
The dynamics between these classes are not so simply defined as Marx would prefer.
True- in reality one of them is attempting to concentrate the other 4 into a single slave class.
Simple put, Marx was a hack with a great ability to swing others to his views. His theories are base and elementary and they dont allow real societies to function. Hence the failing / transformations of most communist countries into functional socialism.
And yet the multinational corporations are succeeding in using those same theories to transform this capitalist country into a two-class system.
The top 1% of income earners pay 33% of all income taxes, the bottom 33% of income earners pay 1% of all income taxes. Sounds progressive to me.
In the 1950s when we had a truly progressive income- the top 1% payed 99% of the income taxes. And that was the greatest decade of economic growth and prosperity ever.
Did you notice that when Reagan cut the top tax bracket back from 70% that federal revenues actually went up?
Yes- and I noticed in the same time period my generation saw a major decrease in standard of living.
The purpose of the tax system is to fund the federal government, not to punish success.
Wrong. The purpose of the tax system, and the monetary system, is to provide for the general welfare and the common defense, as put forth in the Constitution. Businesses and corporations have no inherant right to exist at all.
Though given that you're a self-described Marxist, you probably think the reverse should be true.
I do- but it's because I'm a Jeffersonian, not a Marxist. Marx was about 80 years too late, and had some bad ideas as well (thus HACKER in my name- my hobby is hacking economic systems, much like my job is programming computer systems).
Marx was a fool and his ideas have killed tens of millions.
And Jefferson was also a fool- but his idea created the first middle class ever seen in history. Since then people like you have been trying to destroy it.
I'm not wealthy now, but one day I'll be living on my savings and those dividend tax cuts will come in quite handy, thank you!
What makes you think you'll be allowed to become wealthy at all?
By having the majority of their income from tax free dividends, they reduce their AGI to down near your level. In addition to that, there are a good many other tax shelters that are only available to those who are far richer than you are. I know- back in the day I used to take advantage of some of them.
Huh? No R&D for what industry? As someone who got one of those nonexistent R&D jobs this year, I'm going to have to question that. R&D hiring has bounced back rather well in most science fields since 2000.
It's possible- I've been out of the job market for 2 years now. Do you know of any good software R&D jobs? I'd much rather be doing that than building back end objects in ancient computer languages to manage EEO information for the state.
Yeah, I'm in DC so no believe me, it's a lot worse here.
I can believe that- of course, at least you're paying taxes primarily to local governments, instead of bundling up tax money to send 3000 miles away to a bunch of people who don't care.
The number of languages you know isn't an indication of your value, if you spend time learning more than a handfull you're wasting your time and employers won't be impressed. What were your 10 yrs R&D spent doing?
Gaming industry, Measurement Industry, and Healthcare industry- I knew HIPPA inside and out when the crash came.
And when I said diversity of skills, I didn't mean the number of programming languages you know. What are you trained in other than programming?
Absolutely nothing- it was assumed when I was in college that general programming was enough. That was of course, a lie.
Are you trained in anything to which you might apply that programming skill?
Nope. And that's where the problem lies.
Well, yeah. Owning a house on sporadic contracting work isn't going to cut it. I'm completely guessing here, but if your work history started in 95 and got tough in the last 5 years, you might find that the world you knew 95-2000 isn't a realistic one. Your expectations might not match reality. I don't own a house, if you live in a big city that is quite a luxury.
True enough- that was a HUGE mistake, one that I cannot get out of easily.
Honestly - and I mean absolutely no offense - but I don't think I'd blame macroeconomics for your problems. There are quite likely things you can to to better your situation, and there are full time jobs that certainly can be had. And I don't mean to be condescending or judgemental if anything came off that way. But the mid 90's are never coming back, and it may take some pride swallowing to take a position that might not be ideal but gets you on the path you want.
Those days could come back- and more- but it would take courage that is not seen in this land anymore. I'm learning permaculture- I see that as the future since America can't be bothered to innovate anymore and the credit train is going to run out eventually.
You really think closing our borders to international trade would have prevented 9/11? Please. I dont believe terrorists are that logical in any sense. They need someone to hate. If we closed our borders and didnt use their oil, they would hate us for that. Or they would hate us for not sharing food. Terrorists are not logical people, dont give them such credit.
I didn't say it would keep them from being terrorists- I said it would have prevented 9/11. A truly closed border wouldn't let people come across- they wouldn't be able to get here.
The Meth invasion?? Dude, how would closing our borders prevent illegal drugs from being manufactured here?
Only 25% of the Meth used in the United States is manufactured in the United States. The rest is manufactured by the MS 13 drug gang in Mexico and smuggled across the border. By closing the Southern Border, and by actually putting troops on it and planting land mines, there would be no invasion. Or at least, no successfull invasion.
Just like during prohibition, a closing of the borders would just improve shady dealings more than they are even today. More thugs, more drug money, more incidental death.
Exactly- and especially that last one- more incidental death. That's what we need to deal with the rest of the world- because that's what the rest of the world wants for us.
Besdies, what do you care if some jackhole wants to kill himself with meth. I certainly dont, as long as I dont get caught in some crossfire of bullets between him and a rival.
It's more the burglary that gets to me- using meth and creating meth should carry the death penalty if we want our culture back.
Whatever that means, Im not sure. Regardless, the whole line about killing anyone arbitrarily just doesnt fly. Who decides? you? Great. Anarchy.
If you don't want anarchy- then work for justice instead of profit. Until then, I will protect my own from all enemies, domestic and foreign.
Certainly a lot of people decide, but its not any one individuals role to make such decisions quickly and without trial. Nice try, hitler.
Fine- then don't make economic decisions that hurt my family. Otherwise, you will pay, one way or another. Don't like it- well, it was your choice to be a traitor to America.
I agree. I'm not saying we are doing that great of a job currently. All I am arguing is that things would be worse given your set of parameters. Do you think all those "People with money" would just stick around and wait for the local isolated economy to tank?
No- but neither would they be allowed to sell here anymore, and we could confiscate their property as they left.
Fuck no. They would take their money to Geneva and then the US would be a country full of people without enough money to re-jumpstart it.
Not if we don't allow them to take their money with them- closing the borders means closing all the borders- INCLUDING the international wire transfer funds and the ways out of the country. Let them leave- but they take NOTHING with them. They can leave all they want- but the money belongs to the government (that's why past president's pictures are on it).
Businesses, of any time, require two things: Human Capital and Financial Capital. If the financial capital goes away, you are stuck.
True- but the government controls the financial capital in all respects- and thus has the right to confiscate it.
No. Thats not how it works. This isnt china. I have had numerous small businesses, and no one came to break my kneecaps. Unless you deal in drugs, guns, gambling, or prostitution, I really cant see your situation happening to average business people. It just doesnt happen anymore.
Maybe you were just never successfull enough to threaten a Fortune 500 company.
Perhaps its time for some personal responsibility. Isnt it at least remotely possible that the reason you are
Marxism becomes a lot simpler when you have a net exporting country instead of a net importing country. America hasn't been net exporting since the 1960s. The FIRST rule of having a local economy is that it must be locally self-sustaining. America as a whole isn't self-sustaining anymore. Pat Buchanan is RIGHT on this issue. Perhaps for the wrong reasons- but he's got the right conclusion.
I'm not really buying that chain of events. Downsizing and outsourcing are happening for a number of reasons, but tracing them back to tax cuts (for individuals) through a convoluted link structure isn't all that believable.
Fine with me. All I know is that in the 1990s, businesses were willing to spend money on R&D- and now they aren't. At all.
4) Are you trying to support a family on your salary in a high cost of living market? Because that can be tough in any event.
Portland wasn't a high cost of living market to begin with- and it's still about 50% what it is in other cities- but it's most certainly on the rise and has been for the last 5 years. At the same time, personal income in general has been going down the tubes around here- but it's still better than Bangalore.
In any event, if your problem is that you're having trouble finding a job in IT, good luck (and I don't mean that sarcastically). If your problem is that you feel you're underpaid...thank a growing mass of IT workers here and worldwide driving down salaries through supply and demand. These days a diverse skillset is absolutely necessary to compete in the market.
And even then. I have 42 languages and 10 years of R&D on my resume- and the best I can do is contracting for the state at a rather low rate- far too low to support my lifestyle apparently.
Seriously, what are you trying to do?
Seriously? Just stay in my house without getting kicked out by the bank or being forced into bankruptcy. I've downgraded my dreams seriously.
That logic doesn't fly either. The second-run houses are, in effect, subsidized by the first-run houses. Without the first tier to pay for the bulk of the costs of the movie, the second tiers would no dobut need to charge more.
You're forgetting volume costs. Do it right- digital remastering so that you're not paying huge film development costs, actually using the technology instead of old techniques- and as one person mentioned, Primer only cost $7000 to produce. Get 7000 people to see it, and you've made back your "costs" even at only $2 a ticket.
You seam to me that you are just like all those other software engineers that thought they were worth so much, but soon found out that they werent. I have dozens of friends in various areas of the computer industry, some that have had career problems and some that have not. And the one thing that is true about 100% of the people I know who have had career problems is that they simply were not worth what their ego told them they were.
Or for that matter, anything at all. Yes, I totally agree with that- but if we're not worth anything, then neither are the CEOs or polticians.
If you are still working in the computer industry then lets hope you are at least making 25k a year right now. That means that if you took a 75% pay cut then you were making a 6-digit salary. I am sorry but if you were honestly worth that much money then you wouldnt have trouble finding a job in any economy. You may have had to take a cut to 50k or so in a bad economy, but would never have spent 26 months unemployed.
Actually, I'm earning 20k net now after all the deductions- was earning 80k net before. But I completely agree- nobody is worth that much.
People in the computer industry were being overpayed for so long that they got an inflated self image about what they were worth. If you are good at what you do and are worth what you are being payed then you WILL keep your job in ANY economy. Of course there are exceptions, but they are very few and far between.
Actually, what I learned is that attitude is completely false- if there's somebody who can do your job for $2.50/hr, they will get the job. Period. No matter how "good" you are at what you do.
It is said that 20% of the workforce does 80% of the work. Only the other 80% of the workers ever have to worry about losing their jobs because of a sagging economy. And those 80% only have other people to thank that they had those jobs in the first place. They shouldnt turn around a bitch that they arent getting a free ride anymore.
Quite possible- but I know a whole lot of people who were out longer than I was, who didn't take the pay cut, because they thought they were good to. They had a false sense of security- just like you do.
Do you have any idea what the implications would be had bush, or any other president, taken your advice?
Yes, in fact I have a pretty good idea.
What you are advocating is isolation, or at best highly restricted free trade. All it does is piss off other countries when you "insured that Americans would have other jobs by closing the borders to imports". Can you think of what they would have done? Closed us off.
Thus preventing 9-11. Thus preventing the nuke-and-meth invasion. The rest of the world has nothing we need. They've got stuff we want, but we could make it all here if we wanted to.
Guess what, America lives or dies by its exports. Its exports of services, of entertainment, of culture, of business. It does NOT live or die by its programmers or software development industry.
Maybe it should. Maybe we should start killing the free traitors.
The choice was made, and it was correct, and its unpleasant that you were on the losing end, but all in all, the country is better for not being isolationist like you seem to prefer.
Better off how? All I see is MORE poverty, fewer middle class individuals, and a group of rich people who are so scared of protecting their weath that they spend 200 days a year in the Bahammas to avoid US Taxes. That's not better off in my book.
All you are is mimicing the pissed off "They took our jobs" line that every other self righteous, and subsequently unemployed person uses. Next time, stop bitching, and start working to change your career or start your own business. You had savings, as you said -- you just werent willing to risk them to do your own thing.
Actually I did. They're gone now- the risk happened to be 100% just like it is with any small business. If you actually do have success, that's when the men come to break your kneecaps and threaten your family.
Actually, there's the good point in other threads that the same movie that cost $1 million back then could be made for $10,000 today- by using technology (which makes me wonder how much Tim Burton's latest claymation cost- done with a relatively cheap digital camera). So you'd actually expect to see DEFLATION on this.
To me- when I was single $10, or $20 with a girlfriend, was NOTHING for a date. Add a kid into the mix and we simply don't go anymore- because you KNOW the kid will want popcorn at least and probably also all the movie sized candy they can see, and that overpriced pop. It's possible in a second-or-third run theater- or renting a DVD- but I've got to see a $3/person price point to actually do it.
Which is just so much hogwash. When you adjust for inflation, movie tickets are actually kind of cheap [go.com] especially when compared to 1971-ish prices, where they were 50& MORE expensive than today!
True enough- but it costs LESS to produce good films today than it did in 1971, thanks to a huge increase in technology and automation.
Defenders of movie ticket price increases point out that while prices have increased in recent years -- to an average of $5.66 in 2001, according to the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theater Owners -- they long lagged behind inflation.
$5.66- where the hell are they going to see first run at that price?
Since the economics of the local theatre only allows for blockbusters, they have to compete more heavily against material more directly suited for my own tastes.
True enough- but my point was, make it cheap and nobody will bother to pirate anything.
The point being that if it's in the second run theater for a buck, it probably would have made back the initial investment and then some if it had been a buck all along. So why worry about piracy, and spend $30 million on a fancy-schmancy anti-piracy lab, when you can just cut the cost of the tickets?
Don't have very many universities near by, and what is near by is being bought up by Regal and Century and being turned into first-run megaplexes. But yes- I agree, they do still exist, and the very fact they exist proves that theaters don't really have to charge so much that they encourage piracy- more people would see the film and thus they'd make it up on volume.
Primer cost $10,000 USD, and it was the best film I've seen all year. The point is that you don't need a million-dollar budget to produce a quality film, and with a lower budget comes lower ticket and DVD prices. Even so, I paid over $30 CAD for the DVD of Primer when I could find it (for comparison, most DVDs cost $20-25 CAD when they're released, and usually drop by $5 after six months). The moral of the story is that people are willing to pay for quality; I know I'll be buying The Constant Gardener for full-price when it's released to DVD, but won't pick up The Brothers Grimm even at $10.
True enough- actual production costs are indeed going through the floor thanks to new technology; that's a factor of about 30% off what I've seen for successfull films before. But my point is the same I've made for the oil industry as well- I don't see any reason why we can't return to cost+ pricing instead of gouge-the-customer-for-whatever-they'll-pay pricing, except for of course that the rich are afraid of deflationary prices.
How, exactly, did the tax cuts push you to paycheck to paycheck? Because your statement implies that prior to the tax cuts, you weren't. Just interested is all. I might guess that you were making a shitload more money in the dotcom boom, but so were a lot of people who aren't now but that's not really an excuse and it certainly isn't Bush's fault. He came in on the bust and the start of a recession.
Which he could have done something about. He could have gotten us out of the WTO, and stopped the rush to India. Or at least insured that Americans would have other jobs by closing the borders to imports. OR given the tax cuts for R&D and Payroll instead of Dividends, thus encouraging businesses to actually hire and innovate instead of busting. There were things that could have been done to avoid the bust and the recession- but he refused to do them, instead did something that made the recession WORSE.
I can't help the fact that before October 2001, I had made all the right choices: I was slowly getting raises, I had my degree in software engineering, I was studying.NET and Java Enterprise, and the worst decision I had to make was whether to cook at home or go to a restaurant. I also had a savings account. Then 26 months of unemployment followed by a 75% reduction in pay changed all that- and yes, I most certainly do blame the idiots-in-power.
Um, how did the tax cuts reduce your standard of living? They may be contributing to the deficit/debt, but I'm having a hard time seeing how the tax cuts have you in the poor house.
Simply put- the majority of the tax cuts were to people who live on dividends. Because people are encouraged to live on dividends, this puts downward pressure on payroll (after all, businesses only have so much profit to go around- and if the stockholders are forcing the majority out in dividends, it has to come from somewhere, and the easiest place to cut is payroll). There are two ways this happens: In the software engineering industry, it happened through layoffs and outsourcing. In other industries, it's layoffs and hiring illegal aliens instead (who, thanks to another Supreme Court Decision in the last few years, are exempt from Davis-Bacon Act and Federal Minimum Wage laws). But inflation didn't stop- after all, those living on dividends have plenty of money to buy. So the rest of us have to slowly subsidise more and more of our lifestyle with debt. I've hit the wall on that- but many others will soon.
Do you have the $30,000 or so that even an independant film costs to produce these days lying around?
I certainly don't- I'm living paycheck to paycheck thanks to the Bush "soak the middle class" so-called tax cuts. I don't pirate- but I don't see movies before I can rent them for $3 at Hollywood Video either.
$8 discount, $15 regular showing. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about a comparison between different cultures. I'm talking about basic pricing philosophy. Back when I was growing up, we had a third-run theater that continually waited until the end of the blockbuster weekends before they'd get copies of movies. They'd charge $2.50/ticket- and kept doing that well into the 1990s. $10 for a family of 4 to see some third-run film; and you can bet we didn't have people with camcorders sneaking in. (Last I heard, they went up to $3.50 but started throwing in the popcorn for free). Not to mention the old drive-ins that would charge by the carload instead of individually.
The point is that the MPAA wants to make all of their investment and profits up front- where if they'd go for volume pricing instead, and roll prices back a few years, they'd have NO problem with piracy at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the question is what field you want to do R&D for? Software is not in and of itself R&D (well, the D part). My company does almost all R, with a little D that sometimes involves software. If I were you, I'd talk up the non-programming skills that you have, especially if you have training or anything in either business or the sciences.
I don't- beyond algorithim theory. Software was at one time almost all R very little D- and the more R you can do in software the more R you can do.
Ouch. I feel really bad for you, because that's the group of people getting hit the hardest. It might be worth it to try to get on with a company that does some applied research, even if it's a lower-paying job than you'd like, if it helps you learn some non-coding jobs.
I tried- most of those companies now do all their coding overseas where the cost of living is much less. Even classics like Microsoft and Oracle are now removing all R&D from these shores.
That really sucks. Surely if housing has gone up there you have some equity, though?
Not enough to cover my prepayment penalties. Just remember- if anybody offers you a loan at a low rate, count your fingers, then your toes, then your relatives. Something will be missing somewhere.
Nah, the mid 90s was a bubble built on speculation and fake money.
All money is fake- it's a fiat currency owned by the government after all.
The first thing you have to realize is the 90's wasn't even real. It was fantasyland.
Of course it wasn't real- but neither is making products in the United States anymore. Free trade has done away with the need to produce stuff locally.
But there are good jobs out there - the problem is, there are fewer jobs for programmers now, and lots more programmers. That's a disaster. My advice to you is to distinguish yourself somehow from the horde of IT people. Get some training in business or science, either from a school or from a company where you work undervalued for a while as you pick it up.
And I do that how? Borrow more money from the usurious banking industry? That will just push me into bankruptcy faster.
And good luck. I lucked out a bit - I liked science and CS, majored in chemistry with a minor in CS, eventually wen to grad school and worked on projects dealing with algorithms to deal with sensor data. From that I got an R&D job...coding. I didn't know that was practically the ideal path at the time, but it's what Uninversities are highly recommending these days. Jobs want to see a different skillset these days compared to the mid 90s.
And a much lower standard of living in their workers. It just doesn't pay to do R&D here anymore.
Regardless of what makes marxism simpler, its still a failed concept.
Then why is Wal*Mart still using it?
At its base, marxism assumes that society is made up of two distinct, non-mixing classes (a la Owners vs Workers, proletariat vs bourgeoisie). This is a critical flaw, especially when applied to societies like the US, where many begin as one and end as another.
Name one- I can't. Every successfull "businessman" I've seen started out with an inheritance.
This is all aside from the fact that we have more than two classes.
True enough- but historically we haven't, and naturally we don't, and right now, there's a great attempt to push us back to two.
At very least, there are five in the US. The unemployed poor, the working poor, the middle, the middle upper, and the elite.
Three of which are directly and currently under attack: The unemployed poor (Welfare reform says either work or die); the middle (being pushed into poverty by the housing bubble and fake "interest only" loans that force defaults); and the upper middle (who are losing what investments they have to stock market con artists). Very soon, only Marx's natural two will be left- and that's the way the elites like it.
The dynamics between these classes are not so simply defined as Marx would prefer.
True- in reality one of them is attempting to concentrate the other 4 into a single slave class.
Simple put, Marx was a hack with a great ability to swing others to his views. His theories are base and elementary and they dont allow real societies to function. Hence the failing / transformations of most communist countries into functional socialism.
And yet the multinational corporations are succeeding in using those same theories to transform this capitalist country into a two-class system.
The top 1% of income earners pay 33% of all income taxes, the bottom 33% of income earners pay 1% of all income taxes. Sounds progressive to me.
In the 1950s when we had a truly progressive income- the top 1% payed 99% of the income taxes. And that was the greatest decade of economic growth and prosperity ever.
Did you notice that when Reagan cut the top tax bracket back from 70% that federal revenues actually went up?
Yes- and I noticed in the same time period my generation saw a major decrease in standard of living.
The purpose of the tax system is to fund the federal government, not to punish success.
Wrong. The purpose of the tax system, and the monetary system, is to provide for the general welfare and the common defense, as put forth in the Constitution. Businesses and corporations have no inherant right to exist at all.
Though given that you're a self-described Marxist, you probably think the reverse should be true.
I do- but it's because I'm a Jeffersonian, not a Marxist. Marx was about 80 years too late, and had some bad ideas as well (thus HACKER in my name- my hobby is hacking economic systems, much like my job is programming computer systems).
Marx was a fool and his ideas have killed tens of millions.
And Jefferson was also a fool- but his idea created the first middle class ever seen in history. Since then people like you have been trying to destroy it.
I'm not wealthy now, but one day I'll be living on my savings and those dividend tax cuts will come in quite handy, thank you!
What makes you think you'll be allowed to become wealthy at all?
By having the majority of their income from tax free dividends, they reduce their AGI to down near your level. In addition to that, there are a good many other tax shelters that are only available to those who are far richer than you are. I know- back in the day I used to take advantage of some of them.
Huh? No R&D for what industry? As someone who got one of those nonexistent R&D jobs this year, I'm going to have to question that. R&D hiring has bounced back rather well in most science fields since 2000.
It's possible- I've been out of the job market for 2 years now. Do you know of any good software R&D jobs? I'd much rather be doing that than building back end objects in ancient computer languages to manage EEO information for the state.
Yeah, I'm in DC so no believe me, it's a lot worse here.
I can believe that- of course, at least you're paying taxes primarily to local governments, instead of bundling up tax money to send 3000 miles away to a bunch of people who don't care.
The number of languages you know isn't an indication of your value, if you spend time learning more than a handfull you're wasting your time and employers won't be impressed. What were your 10 yrs R&D spent doing?
Gaming industry, Measurement Industry, and Healthcare industry- I knew HIPPA inside and out when the crash came.
And when I said diversity of skills, I didn't mean the number of programming languages you know. What are you trained in other than programming?
Absolutely nothing- it was assumed when I was in college that general programming was enough. That was of course, a lie.
Are you trained in anything to which you might apply that programming skill?
Nope. And that's where the problem lies.
Well, yeah. Owning a house on sporadic contracting work isn't going to cut it. I'm completely guessing here, but if your work history started in 95 and got tough in the last 5 years, you might find that the world you knew 95-2000 isn't a realistic one. Your expectations might not match reality. I don't own a house, if you live in a big city that is quite a luxury.
True enough- that was a HUGE mistake, one that I cannot get out of easily.
Honestly - and I mean absolutely no offense - but I don't think I'd blame macroeconomics for your problems. There are quite likely things you can to to better your situation, and there are full time jobs that certainly can be had. And I don't mean to be condescending or judgemental if anything came off that way. But the mid 90's are never coming back, and it may take some pride swallowing to take a position that might not be ideal but gets you on the path you want.
Those days could come back- and more- but it would take courage that is not seen in this land anymore. I'm learning permaculture- I see that as the future since America can't be bothered to innovate anymore and the credit train is going to run out eventually.
You really think closing our borders to international trade would have prevented 9/11? Please. I dont believe terrorists are that logical in any sense. They need someone to hate. If we closed our borders and didnt use their oil, they would hate us for that. Or they would hate us for not sharing food. Terrorists are not logical people, dont give them such credit.
I didn't say it would keep them from being terrorists- I said it would have prevented 9/11. A truly closed border wouldn't let people come across- they wouldn't be able to get here.
The Meth invasion?? Dude, how would closing our borders prevent illegal drugs from being manufactured here?
Only 25% of the Meth used in the United States is manufactured in the United States. The rest is manufactured by the MS 13 drug gang in Mexico and smuggled across the border. By closing the Southern Border, and by actually putting troops on it and planting land mines, there would be no invasion. Or at least, no successfull invasion.
Just like during prohibition, a closing of the borders would just improve shady dealings more than they are even today. More thugs, more drug money, more incidental death.
Exactly- and especially that last one- more incidental death. That's what we need to deal with the rest of the world- because that's what the rest of the world wants for us.
Besdies, what do you care if some jackhole wants to kill himself with meth. I certainly dont, as long as I dont get caught in some crossfire of bullets between him and a rival.
It's more the burglary that gets to me- using meth and creating meth should carry the death penalty if we want our culture back.
Whatever that means, Im not sure. Regardless, the whole line about killing anyone arbitrarily just doesnt fly. Who decides? you? Great. Anarchy.
If you don't want anarchy- then work for justice instead of profit. Until then, I will protect my own from all enemies, domestic and foreign.
Certainly a lot of people decide, but its not any one individuals role to make such decisions quickly and without trial. Nice try, hitler.
Fine- then don't make economic decisions that hurt my family. Otherwise, you will pay, one way or another. Don't like it- well, it was your choice to be a traitor to America.
I agree. I'm not saying we are doing that great of a job currently. All I am arguing is that things would be worse given your set of parameters. Do you think all those "People with money" would just stick around and wait for the local isolated economy to tank?
No- but neither would they be allowed to sell here anymore, and we could confiscate their property as they left.
Fuck no. They would take their money to Geneva and then the US would be a country full of people without enough money to re-jumpstart it.
Not if we don't allow them to take their money with them- closing the borders means closing all the borders- INCLUDING the international wire transfer funds and the ways out of the country. Let them leave- but they take NOTHING with them. They can leave all they want- but the money belongs to the government (that's why past president's pictures are on it).
Businesses, of any time, require two things: Human Capital and Financial Capital. If the financial capital goes away, you are stuck.
True- but the government controls the financial capital in all respects- and thus has the right to confiscate it.
No. Thats not how it works. This isnt china. I have had numerous small businesses, and no one came to break my kneecaps. Unless you deal in drugs, guns, gambling, or prostitution, I really cant see your situation happening to average business people. It just doesnt happen anymore.
Maybe you were just never successfull enough to threaten a Fortune 500 company.
Perhaps its time for some personal responsibility. Isnt it at least remotely possible that the reason you are
Are the studios behind the indies in the use of technology? Tim Burton's latest film took a while- but it was made with clay and digital cameras.
Marxist hacker? You sound more like Pat Buchanan.
Marxism becomes a lot simpler when you have a net exporting country instead of a net importing country. America hasn't been net exporting since the 1960s. The FIRST rule of having a local economy is that it must be locally self-sustaining. America as a whole isn't self-sustaining anymore. Pat Buchanan is RIGHT on this issue. Perhaps for the wrong reasons- but he's got the right conclusion.
I am dead center middle class total family size of 5, and I got what would end up being a HUGE tax cut, relative to income.
How did you do that? Do you have a lot of investment income?
We already disproportionally tax the rich with the graduated income tax.
No place close- the average person earning over $100,000 a year pays a mere 11% of their income in taxes- back in the 1950s it would have been 92%.
outside of housing in certain markets.
I happen to be in one of those markets.
I'm not really buying that chain of events. Downsizing and outsourcing are happening for a number of reasons, but tracing them back to tax cuts (for individuals) through a convoluted link structure isn't all that believable.
Fine with me. All I know is that in the 1990s, businesses were willing to spend money on R&D- and now they aren't. At all.
4) Are you trying to support a family on your salary in a high cost of living market? Because that can be tough in any event.
Portland wasn't a high cost of living market to begin with- and it's still about 50% what it is in other cities- but it's most certainly on the rise and has been for the last 5 years. At the same time, personal income in general has been going down the tubes around here- but it's still better than Bangalore.
In any event, if your problem is that you're having trouble finding a job in IT, good luck (and I don't mean that sarcastically). If your problem is that you feel you're underpaid...thank a growing mass of IT workers here and worldwide driving down salaries through supply and demand. These days a diverse skillset is absolutely necessary to compete in the market.
And even then. I have 42 languages and 10 years of R&D on my resume- and the best I can do is contracting for the state at a rather low rate- far too low to support my lifestyle apparently.
Seriously, what are you trying to do?
Seriously? Just stay in my house without getting kicked out by the bank or being forced into bankruptcy. I've downgraded my dreams seriously.
That logic doesn't fly either. The second-run houses are, in effect, subsidized by the first-run houses. Without the first tier to pay for the bulk of the costs of the movie, the second tiers would no dobut need to charge more.
You're forgetting volume costs. Do it right- digital remastering so that you're not paying huge film development costs, actually using the technology instead of old techniques- and as one person mentioned, Primer only cost $7000 to produce. Get 7000 people to see it, and you've made back your "costs" even at only $2 a ticket.
You seam to me that you are just like all those other software engineers that thought they were worth so much, but soon found out that they werent. I have dozens of friends in various areas of the computer industry, some that have had career problems and some that have not. And the one thing that is true about 100% of the people I know who have had career problems is that they simply were not worth what their ego told them they were.
Or for that matter, anything at all. Yes, I totally agree with that- but if we're not worth anything, then neither are the CEOs or polticians.
If you are still working in the computer industry then lets hope you are at least making 25k a year right now. That means that if you took a 75% pay cut then you were making a 6-digit salary. I am sorry but if you were honestly worth that much money then you wouldnt have trouble finding a job in any economy. You may have had to take a cut to 50k or so in a bad economy, but would never have spent 26 months unemployed.
Actually, I'm earning 20k net now after all the deductions- was earning 80k net before. But I completely agree- nobody is worth that much.
People in the computer industry were being overpayed for so long that they got an inflated self image about what they were worth. If you are good at what you do and are worth what you are being payed then you WILL keep your job in ANY economy. Of course there are exceptions, but they are very few and far between.
Actually, what I learned is that attitude is completely false- if there's somebody who can do your job for $2.50/hr, they will get the job. Period. No matter how "good" you are at what you do.
It is said that 20% of the workforce does 80% of the work. Only the other 80% of the workers ever have to worry about losing their jobs because of a sagging economy. And those 80% only have other people to thank that they had those jobs in the first place. They shouldnt turn around a bitch that they arent getting a free ride anymore.
Quite possible- but I know a whole lot of people who were out longer than I was, who didn't take the pay cut, because they thought they were good to. They had a false sense of security- just like you do.
Do you have any idea what the implications would be had bush, or any other president, taken your advice?
Yes, in fact I have a pretty good idea.
What you are advocating is isolation, or at best highly restricted free trade. All it does is piss off other countries when you "insured that Americans would have other jobs by closing the borders to imports". Can you think of what they would have done? Closed us off.
Thus preventing 9-11. Thus preventing the nuke-and-meth invasion. The rest of the world has nothing we need. They've got stuff we want, but we could make it all here if we wanted to.
Guess what, America lives or dies by its exports. Its exports of services, of entertainment, of culture, of business. It does NOT live or die by its programmers or software development industry.
Maybe it should. Maybe we should start killing the free traitors.
The choice was made, and it was correct, and its unpleasant that you were on the losing end, but all in all, the country is better for not being isolationist like you seem to prefer.
Better off how? All I see is MORE poverty, fewer middle class individuals, and a group of rich people who are so scared of protecting their weath that they spend 200 days a year in the Bahammas to avoid US Taxes. That's not better off in my book.
All you are is mimicing the pissed off "They took our jobs" line that every other self righteous, and subsequently unemployed person uses. Next time, stop bitching, and start working to change your career or start your own business. You had savings, as you said -- you just werent willing to risk them to do your own thing.
Actually I did. They're gone now- the risk happened to be 100% just like it is with any small business. If you actually do have success, that's when the men come to break your kneecaps and threaten your family.
Actually, there's the good point in other threads that the same movie that cost $1 million back then could be made for $10,000 today- by using technology (which makes me wonder how much Tim Burton's latest claymation cost- done with a relatively cheap digital camera). So you'd actually expect to see DEFLATION on this.
To me- when I was single $10, or $20 with a girlfriend, was NOTHING for a date. Add a kid into the mix and we simply don't go anymore- because you KNOW the kid will want popcorn at least and probably also all the movie sized candy they can see, and that overpriced pop. It's possible in a second-or-third run theater- or renting a DVD- but I've got to see a $3/person price point to actually do it.
Which is just so much hogwash. When you adjust for inflation, movie tickets are actually kind of cheap [go.com] especially when compared to 1971-ish prices, where they were 50& MORE expensive than today!
True enough- but it costs LESS to produce good films today than it did in 1971, thanks to a huge increase in technology and automation.
Defenders of movie ticket price increases point out that while prices have increased in recent years -- to an average of $5.66 in 2001, according to the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theater Owners -- they long lagged behind inflation.
$5.66- where the hell are they going to see first run at that price?
Since the economics of the local theatre only allows for blockbusters, they have to compete more heavily against material more directly suited for my own tastes.
True enough- but my point was, make it cheap and nobody will bother to pirate anything.
The point being that if it's in the second run theater for a buck, it probably would have made back the initial investment and then some if it had been a buck all along. So why worry about piracy, and spend $30 million on a fancy-schmancy anti-piracy lab, when you can just cut the cost of the tickets?
Don't have very many universities near by, and what is near by is being bought up by Regal and Century and being turned into first-run megaplexes. But yes- I agree, they do still exist, and the very fact they exist proves that theaters don't really have to charge so much that they encourage piracy- more people would see the film and thus they'd make it up on volume.
Primer cost $10,000 USD, and it was the best film I've seen all year. The point is that you don't need a million-dollar budget to produce a quality film, and with a lower budget comes lower ticket and DVD prices. Even so, I paid over $30 CAD for the DVD of Primer when I could find it (for comparison, most DVDs cost $20-25 CAD when they're released, and usually drop by $5 after six months). The moral of the story is that people are willing to pay for quality; I know I'll be buying The Constant Gardener for full-price when it's released to DVD, but won't pick up The Brothers Grimm even at $10.
True enough- actual production costs are indeed going through the floor thanks to new technology; that's a factor of about 30% off what I've seen for successfull films before. But my point is the same I've made for the oil industry as well- I don't see any reason why we can't return to cost+ pricing instead of gouge-the-customer-for-whatever-they'll-pay pricing, except for of course that the rich are afraid of deflationary prices.
How, exactly, did the tax cuts push you to paycheck to paycheck? Because your statement implies that prior to the tax cuts, you weren't. Just interested is all. I might guess that you were making a shitload more money in the dotcom boom, but so were a lot of people who aren't now but that's not really an excuse and it certainly isn't Bush's fault. He came in on the bust and the start of a recession.
Which he could have done something about. He could have gotten us out of the WTO, and stopped the rush to India. Or at least insured that Americans would have other jobs by closing the borders to imports. OR given the tax cuts for R&D and Payroll instead of Dividends, thus encouraging businesses to actually hire and innovate instead of busting. There were things that could have been done to avoid the bust and the recession- but he refused to do them, instead did something that made the recession WORSE.
Chill, man, your ideology is showing.
.NET and Java Enterprise, and the worst decision I had to make was whether to cook at home or go to a restaurant. I also had a savings account. Then 26 months of unemployment followed by a 75% reduction in pay changed all that- and yes, I most certainly do blame the idiots-in-power.
I can't help the fact that before October 2001, I had made all the right choices: I was slowly getting raises, I had my degree in software engineering, I was studying
Um, how did the tax cuts reduce your standard of living? They may be contributing to the deficit/debt, but I'm having a hard time seeing how the tax cuts have you in the poor house.
Simply put- the majority of the tax cuts were to people who live on dividends. Because people are encouraged to live on dividends, this puts downward pressure on payroll (after all, businesses only have so much profit to go around- and if the stockholders are forcing the majority out in dividends, it has to come from somewhere, and the easiest place to cut is payroll). There are two ways this happens: In the software engineering industry, it happened through layoffs and outsourcing. In other industries, it's layoffs and hiring illegal aliens instead (who, thanks to another Supreme Court Decision in the last few years, are exempt from Davis-Bacon Act and Federal Minimum Wage laws). But inflation didn't stop- after all, those living on dividends have plenty of money to buy. So the rest of us have to slowly subsidise more and more of our lifestyle with debt. I've hit the wall on that- but many others will soon.
Do you have the $30,000 or so that even an independant film costs to produce these days lying around?
I certainly don't- I'm living paycheck to paycheck thanks to the Bush "soak the middle class" so-called tax cuts. I don't pirate- but I don't see movies before I can rent them for $3 at Hollywood Video either.
$8 discount, $15 regular showing. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about a comparison between different cultures. I'm talking about basic pricing philosophy. Back when I was growing up, we had a third-run theater that continually waited until the end of the blockbuster weekends before they'd get copies of movies. They'd charge $2.50/ticket- and kept doing that well into the 1990s. $10 for a family of 4 to see some third-run film; and you can bet we didn't have people with camcorders sneaking in. (Last I heard, they went up to $3.50 but started throwing in the popcorn for free). Not to mention the old drive-ins that would charge by the carload instead of individually.
The point is that the MPAA wants to make all of their investment and profits up front- where if they'd go for volume pricing instead, and roll prices back a few years, they'd have NO problem with piracy at all.
Price your movie tickets within the reach of NORMAL FAMILIES!