Even if Kerry were to close a tax loophole, is he going to force those other countries to start charging more money? Loophole or not, someone in India that will do for $30K/year what a U.S. worker wouldn't touch for less than twice that amount still amounts to lower costs for outsourcing.
Ok, again, read what I wrote. My "point of view" as you call it is not that. It's a fact. Please offer evidence to the contrary. If you don't agree with the practice, then a market-driven, capitalist society is not the place for you (that is not a derision, it is again, a fact).
As far as your second point, I have a couple of responses:
1) I will do my best work regardless of my pay. My point was that if I am unhappy with my pay, I will get a raise, deal with it, find a new job or find a new career instead of dictating my "wish" for what I'd like to be paid, and bitching about not getting it.
2) I'm hardly starving. Again, as I've said, I have dictated my own circumstances. So while you may consider someone out there who has a job as a "...happy starving, noble martyr for the cause of commerce and...CEOs," I am simply comfortable in my current circumstances, in a position where I'm both happy with my job AND the morals of my company. If those circumstances change to where they do not conform to my own needs/values, I WILL CHANGE MY OWN CIRCUMSTANCES, instead of dictating that others do it for me.
Our society hinges upon the willingness of individuals to lead their own lives instead of sitting around complaining about the lives of others.
What I find interesting is that in my experience (anecdotal as it is), those who take your stance _generally_ 1) Wouldn't turn down millions of dollars to do a job, and 2) If all of a sudden found themselves wealthy, would consider themselves "different" from the other "greedy and powerful" people, and not subject to the pitfalls of such circumstances. I believe it to be an arrogant stance based on envy and a feeling of powerlessness. Those are a bad combination.
Read what I wrote again. Please explain to me the money trail, or at least use your words correctly. You don't mean "hold" all of the wealth, you mean "control" all of the wealth. And again, there are measures to punish the MISUSE of greed and power. I said exactly what I meant and stand by it.
Now if elected officials don't uphold those measures to punish the misuse of wealth and power, we have the ability to change the status quo. But the status quo is easier, and people are lazy. But again there is NO law against greed. There is NO law against attaining wealth. Misuse is a different matter.
1) The government's protection of one's "general welfare" is to keep Osama and his ilk from putting your women into bondage,etc. NOT to keep someone from being "greedy and powerful"
2) There is NO law against being greedy, nor is there a law against being powerful. There are laws against the MISUSE of greed or power however, but that is different.
3) It's not like the "greedy and powerful" collect craploads of cash to hide from the common man. Even if they DO save that money, they most likely do not save it in cash under their mattress. Which means that it's either liquid, in which case the storing institution (i.e. a bank) uses that asset for other means while paying that person for the use of the money...but the bank makes money on it in turn. OR it's in non-liquid assets, such as a house, car, etc., in which case MORE also received the benefits of that money. You'll prolly knee-jerk and say "that's trickle down economics, so you're a facist pig." If so, read it again and tell me where I'm wrong.
4) Companies, as a matter of practice (but not without exception) are soley there to make money - for themselves, and for their shareholders. A company should be free to do that. If they can get cheaper labor overseas, so be it. If YOU don't like it, get into another industry. And yes, I'm a programmer too, and yes, I've been through rounds of layoffs from the dot-bombout so this is not a "holier than thou" stance. If I get to a point where I cannot make the living that I want programming, instead of bitching about what I'm owed by others, I will simply change my OWN circumstances.
5) Related to #4, the market should determine what a particular position is worth. We as programmers should NOT receive compensation soley based on what we THINK we should receive, or what we have received in the past. It's a different world. Good talent is cheap. Deal with it or do something else. Sheesh.
Heh, I like these: "...tech folk 'would need both technical and interpersonal skills.'"
and
"Techies, professors conclude, must act more like psychoanalysts; they must learn to 'appreciate the difference between what people say and what they mean.'"
Notice how the only people who need to change are the techies? Now, while those may be valid points, I submit that if non-techies were less lazy and tried using their brains as well, many of these issues would be resolved.
That's why I prefer middle/back-end development anyway - my customers are other programmers:)
Slashdot Mirror
"Even though the author specializes in cryptography, he seems unable to decipher any social situation...."
When was the last time you met a Cryptography CS student that could decipher social situations or wasn't awkward around girls?
Riiiiight.
Even if Kerry were to close a tax loophole, is he going to force those other countries to start charging more money? Loophole or not, someone in India that will do for $30K/year what a U.S. worker wouldn't touch for less than twice that amount still amounts to lower costs for outsourcing.
OH man, are you on the money. Alton r0xx0rs!!
Ok, again, read what I wrote. My "point of view" as you call it is not that. It's a fact. Please offer evidence to the contrary. If you don't agree with the practice, then a market-driven, capitalist society is not the place for you (that is not a derision, it is again, a fact).
As far as your second point, I have a couple of responses:
1) I will do my best work regardless of my pay. My point was that if I am unhappy with my pay, I will get a raise, deal with it, find a new job or find a new career instead of dictating my "wish" for what I'd like to be paid, and bitching about not getting it.
2) I'm hardly starving. Again, as I've said, I have dictated my own circumstances. So while you may consider someone out there who has a job as a "...happy starving, noble martyr for the cause of commerce and...CEOs," I am simply comfortable in my current circumstances, in a position where I'm both happy with my job AND the morals of my company. If those circumstances change to where they do not conform to my own needs/values, I WILL CHANGE MY OWN CIRCUMSTANCES, instead of dictating that others do it for me.
Our society hinges upon the willingness of individuals to lead their own lives instead of sitting around complaining about the lives of others.
What I find interesting is that in my experience (anecdotal as it is), those who take your stance _generally_ 1) Wouldn't turn down millions of dollars to do a job, and 2) If all of a sudden found themselves wealthy, would consider themselves "different" from the other "greedy and powerful" people, and not subject to the pitfalls of such circumstances. I believe it to be an arrogant stance based on envy and a feeling of powerlessness. Those are a bad combination.
Oy.
Read what I wrote again. Please explain to me the money trail, or at least use your words correctly. You don't mean "hold" all of the wealth, you mean "control" all of the wealth. And again, there are measures to punish the MISUSE of greed and power. I said exactly what I meant and stand by it.
Now if elected officials don't uphold those measures to punish the misuse of wealth and power, we have the ability to change the status quo. But the status quo is easier, and people are lazy. But again there is NO law against greed. There is NO law against attaining wealth. Misuse is a different matter.
You guys are all hilarious.
1) The government's protection of one's "general welfare" is to keep Osama and his ilk from putting your women into bondage,etc. NOT to keep someone from being "greedy and powerful"
2) There is NO law against being greedy, nor is there a law against being powerful. There are laws against the MISUSE of greed or power however, but that is different.
3) It's not like the "greedy and powerful" collect craploads of cash to hide from the common man. Even if they DO save that money, they most likely do not save it in cash under their mattress. Which means that it's either liquid, in which case the storing institution (i.e. a bank) uses that asset for other means while paying that person for the use of the money...but the bank makes money on it in turn. OR it's in non-liquid assets, such as a house, car, etc., in which case MORE also received the benefits of that money. You'll prolly knee-jerk and say "that's trickle down economics, so you're a facist pig." If so, read it again and tell me where I'm wrong.
4) Companies, as a matter of practice (but not without exception) are soley there to make money - for themselves, and for their shareholders. A company should be free to do that. If they can get cheaper labor overseas, so be it. If YOU don't like it, get into another industry. And yes, I'm a programmer too, and yes, I've been through rounds of layoffs from the dot-bombout so this is not a "holier than thou" stance. If I get to a point where I cannot make the living that I want programming, instead of bitching about what I'm owed by others, I will simply change my OWN circumstances.
5) Related to #4, the market should determine what a particular position is worth. We as programmers should NOT receive compensation soley based on what we THINK we should receive, or what we have received in the past. It's a different world. Good talent is cheap. Deal with it or do something else. Sheesh.
Flame away.
Heh, I like these:
:)
"...tech folk 'would need both technical and interpersonal skills.'"
and
"Techies, professors conclude, must act more like psychoanalysts; they must learn to 'appreciate the difference between what people say and what they mean.'"
Notice how the only people who need to change are the techies? Now, while those may be valid points, I submit that if non-techies were less lazy and tried using their brains as well, many of these issues would be resolved.
That's why I prefer middle/back-end development anyway - my customers are other programmers