It is about spiritual purity, not racial, in my belief. The belief was that the children and the spouse would be influenced by the non-Jewish spouse in terms of religious training. And, reading the bible, one can find the story of Solomon, who had many wives, some that were not of Jewish decent. These wives ( if the story is to be believed ) did, in fact, corrupt Solomon with respect to his worship of God, and Solomon worshiped other gods besides God.
As the parent points out, the size and weight are large factors in the amount of noise.
Also, the Concorde was slated to be flying over large cities, like New York. A bit different than booming over a desert. Or a dessert for that matter.
Note that it *was* allowed to fly to the US, but it was not to fly supersonic over land. This suggests that while the not made in US issue may have been a factor, it was not the only one. ( I.E. there is a real issue made in US or not about flying supersonic over populated areas. ).
If the rate is split with a spouse, there are some questions to ask:
A: What does the daycare ( not just the daycare itself, but all the costs ) cost?
B: Is that amount greater than the daycare costs?
C: How is that child being raised during the time he / she is in daycare?
If the rent is not split ( he/she is not working ), then perhaps they have made a decision to actually raise their child themselves, rather than having the daycare and school do it.
In my case, the amount that my wife could earn was less than daycare costs.
First: I work with a fair number of Indians ( people from India ). They are residents of the US of A, and all have accents of some sort or another. Most can communicate well enough. How those residing in India do, I dont know. I expect that there will be some problems here and there. ( and if they do speak "better" english than we do, that is still a problem, as it is *different* than the english we speak.. )
Second: Education is part of the skill equation. Experience is the other part. How many programmers are there in India/Russia that can claim 10+ years of experience? 20+? Yes, there are some. I would not expect there to be as many as a percentage of currently practicing programmers.
Programmers in India et al, are good. They are not quite as good as American programmers yet. The sole advantage to outsourcing is the pay rate. They are not better skilled. They cannot have the domain knowledge that the American programmers have, they havent, by and large, had time to aquire it. You obviously are not a programmer, nor do you have any real connection to it.
They *were* paying more, and making a profit ( most of them. disagree? please, show some numbers, dont make claims.... IBM, HP, DELL, all making money before, as I understand it... ). And apparently, they were compentitive on the global marketplace. They had reasonable stock prices.
So, I dont see it as forcing them to pay more. I see it as keeping them giving back something where they are taking. ( They are US corporations, living off the protections of the constitution ( supposed *my* constitution ), the protections of the police, the laws, the military, etc, etc. All these things that *I* and not corporations are paying taxes for. )
He is correct, and this is the one area where quality would go up from outsourcing, rather than just costs going down.
But, lets face it, American management in general cant see past the end of a dollar bill ( and usually not even that far ). They could be replaced by magic 8 ball's, and the decision quality would go *up*.
Lemme try again: There is much to what you say, however, I dont think that the additional income will spur discretionary spending. The govt will decide what they need, additional money will probably not cause them to say "hmm, lets buy a few more 'X'" ( whatever 'X' happens to be ). And for whatever item is under consideration, there is no guarantee that they will make there purchase from the US ( nor am I saying they should ).
For the case of the airline, I see your point, but again, the other company may well chose to purchase airbus rather than boeing. ( also, most major airplane purchases these days involve some "quid pro quo" in the form of some aerospace concern "in country" making some subassembly(s) for the airplanes in question... ) Anyway.
But the bottom line for each salary that is shipped overseas, there will, on average, just as you say, be some amount coming back. On that amount coming back, some small percentage of that small amount, will be taxable income. What I was trying to get at was that there will be a drop in the taxes paid to the US govt. And those corporations making these decisions are already not paying a lot of taxes to begin with, so their additional income will probably not make up the shortfall.
AFA getting a job ( I have one, thanks, just hypothetical... ), I am a darned good programmer. Not ready to challenge Donald Knuth just yet, but still pretty doggone good.:-) Most companies where I am located ( and I would assume elsewhere ) just dont value quality. Most would just as soon take a guy that can produce at 1/10th my level and pay him half what they pay me, cause they think it is a deal. Outsourcing is just another price point on that continuum, and it could make it more than just a little bit difficult.
I could say the same to you. You have done little to educate me on *why* you believe as you do, or to persuade me that you are correct. You have made claims, but not backed it with anything but a single article that does nothing to examine anything other than the viewpoints that support what CEO's have decided to do. By the way, the article claims that increased productivity is a driver for this. I do not mean to denigrate offshore programmers, but that makes no sense. I can see the cost savings. Productivity gains? They are not better than US programmers. Not worse, probably not as experienced on average, but by and large a very good bunch. But not better. That, and they are far from the subject matter experts, in a different time zone, and half the world away, all of which make for inefficiencies.
As to the "I assume there is a typo", you misread, I think. You had a n domestic and m US. US == domestic for me, so, the split made no sense. I see where that was from the article, now that you have given me the link to it ( just saying there is an article is only very slightly helpfull )
And as to showing proof, I have tried to justify my assertions. Frankly, I have no proof to offer, and I dont believe I have lead you to believe I am any expert on these matters. I have done my best, and have been willing to be persuaded, but, sorry, just you saying it is no better than just me saying it. I was trying to draw you out to see where you stood on the matter, but you are in the same boat with me, I think, someone with opinions and feelings, etc. So, all I can say is that you have not offered anything to back your assertions, and you have no other credentials that I should value your opinions more than my own.
Imagine how many would (-: like all the pesky popup writers:-) be murdered if it were not illegal. The law works, dude. No, it is not 100% effective. I will take 98% and be happy.
Actually, I started out speaking against a misuse of data, if you will take your mind back.
On taking money out, you are making a number of unwarranted assumptions. The cars are assembled here. Not every item used in the assembly of the car is producing here in the US. A large amount of it is from Japan. *That* part stays over. How much? I dont know, but it adds to the 6bn number, no?
On "the meat of the matter", you claim without support that shifting production overseas has created 516,000 new jobs. Can you back that up with something? Where did the jobs come from? From where I sit, it looks like we are losing jobs in the software sector, not gaining. And I dont nessesarily buy that the products prices *in software* will fall. Microsoft has had a center in India for a while, as I understand it, has the price of XP or Office changed?
I dont see where lower salaries for our workers is a good thing. Other prices will not fall, at least not soon. So, those workers will spend more on core things like housing and such, and have less disposable income. My understanding is that consumer spending is a large part of our economy, and that would have to fall.
You claim 244,000 domestically and 272,000 in the US. I assume there is a typo there, but I am not sure where.
You put the site up. You figure out how to pay for the bandwidth. I dont want popups. Simple, no? I dont want to pay for the bandwidth to send it to me. I dont want it. If I had known your site used popups or spyware, I would not have clicked in the first place. So that makes it deceptive. How about if I dig holes in your streets, your car gets banged up because I made it look like just another street. My fault or yours? You should not have driven with protection, dude. Streets are unsafe. You should know that.
Not a perfect analogy, but I think you will get it if you are halfway honest with yourself.
And how about those laws? There was a time when we ( the human race ) didnt have any. So, you walk around without armour, its your fault you got murdered? We dont need any more laws?
Why should I have to pay for something to stop someone else's obnoxious behaviour?
It is not stupid to outlaw obnoxious advertizing methodologies. It's _my_ machine.
If I knew that the site did those things I would not visit. If you want things to work that way, then all the popup sites need to advertise themselves *clearly* _before_ someone enters that they do popups.
The bandwidth is already paid for. I paid for it. It's _my_ bandwidth. Not yours.
Go out of business! Do something legitimate with your time.
First, you are assuming I am against free trade. I am not wild about free trade where some of the partners are not as free in their trade as other partners, but in general, all being equal, I am for it.
I understand that we participate in the global economy, and that we have to give as well as get. No problems with that.
My point is that, using your example above, they took in that entire 126bn. Yes, they spent a good bit of it to make the products to sell, and were left with 6bn in profits, but they took in 126bn. They spent less than that, and had a profit from it. Those numbers are their global numbers, yes? Some part of that was in selling cars in the US. So, with regard to the US economy, for them, they spent some amount making the cars, then sold them for more than that amount. Some of the labor was done in the US, and that money stayed. Some raw materials and or finished goods from US business' were used, so that money stayed. The rest went to Japan and to whomever Toyoda purchased non-US goods and services to build the cars with. Net flow to Japan, and out of the US economy. I am basing this on the idea that if the purchaser didnt purchase a car from Toyoda or another Japanese manufacturer, they would have bought a domestically produced car instead. So any increase in production that happened for that Toyoda would also have happened for the Ford or Chevy they would have purchased instead, so I see that as a wash, and therefore not relevant.
Your last statement puzzles me. I made no mention of how much, so why you state the part about goods having 'a very low market clearing price' or 'to have outlandishly high margins' seems like hyperbole. They have a market clearing price less than the cost to produce, and a margin that is non-zero. That is sufficient for a net flow to them.
So, you are saying that the Japanese car companies are putting more money in over here than they take in the selling of the cars? Wouldnt that mean that the cars cost more to build than to sell?
That is an interesting money flow.
Claim 1: Not a zero sum game. Claim 2: You cant take more from an economy than you put in.
Then you must always be putting more in than you take out. How is that possible? Would not every economy be forced to grow? ( from more than just population growth... ) Where does this ( money, goods, services ) come from? Is it created from nothing?
How it is possible: taking more in goods / services / money than you put in. They are not a charity, if they were not taking more than they put in, there would be *no* profit for them.
With respect, why dont you go research that, and see just how easy it is. *You* go do just that checking, and do it like you are doing it for real. And go for advanced study, go actually apply for one, just to see how theory and practice can sometime be slightly out of alignment.
I'm not going to as yet, as that is not my situation. But I can look on the other side and see how it might be easier said than done.
Just how many jobs have been outsourced? How many people have lost jobs due to this? How many have gained?
What is the aggregate dollar amount of these salaries?
How much money is flowing overseas?
What is the actual gain that these companies have seen? ( total, per share, per kdollars of salary reduced )
Do these companies pay dividends? What increase in dividends due to outsourcing? Who holds the shares in the companies involved?
The additional profit made, what was done with it, if it were not made available as dividends?
What is the tax revenue "hit" from this? Federal, state and local.
What actual jobs were / are created?
Follow some of the people who were layed off due to outsourcing. What have their experiences been? How long to find another job? Did it pay as well? Did anyone lose a house, car, etc, etc?
Follow the companies doing the outsourcing, what gains do they expect from this? How is it benefiting them?
What is the cost ( to society included ) and what is the benefit?
I disagree to an extent. Those companies are operating and enjoying what America has to offer business' ( and if they think it's better elsewhere *why arent they there* ). I dont think it is too much to ask that they give some back. They already pay less in taxes than I do, have more access to the goverment, etc etc.
And I find your arguement true, but disingenuous. What you say is nominally true, and could in fact happen, but in the cases of a good deal of out sourcing today, Americans were doing those jobs, then those jobs were exported to elsewhere in exchange for a short term gain on a companies bottom line. Those companies were functioning with American employees, and could have continued. Why didnt they? Because the workers that the company was using to make a profit could be replaced. It's kinda the same as the spousal unit that is put thru college by the hard work and sacrifice ( and American workers can and do sacrifice, contrary to popular myth ) of the other spouse, only to be tossed aside for a younger/sexier spouse once the goal is achieved and the opportunity exists. Is the employerr employee relationship a marriage? No, just using a bit of analogy, none of which are not perfect. There is an interdependance.
Are we "owed" jobs? No, I dont think so. But I do think we should have a fair shot at them, and having to compete with someone with a state funded education, lower and fewer taxes, lower living costs is *not* a fair shot. I have little that I can to do lower my cost of living except to go live in a cardboard box. And I pass enough people on my way to work doing that, that I dont want any part of it.
If an honest appraisal came up with that assessment ( that one american worker was still to expensive ), then well and good. In the wake of all the accounting scandals, I think it would be right to question most companies assessments of anything, though.
Slashdot Mirror
It is about spiritual purity, not racial, in my belief. The belief was that the children and the spouse would be influenced by the non-Jewish spouse in terms of religious training. And, reading the bible, one can find the story of Solomon, who had many wives, some that were not of Jewish decent. These wives ( if the story is to be believed ) did, in fact, corrupt Solomon with respect to his worship of God, and Solomon worshiped other gods besides God.
As the parent points out, the size and weight are large factors in the amount of noise.
Also, the Concorde was slated to be flying over large cities, like New York. A bit different than booming over a desert. Or a dessert for that matter.
Note that it *was* allowed to fly to the US, but it was not to fly supersonic over land. This suggests that while the not made in US issue may have been a factor, it was not the only one. ( I.E. there is a real issue made in US or not about flying supersonic over populated areas. ).
Lettuce of onionlike spheres.
Yuck.
If the rate is split with a spouse, there are some questions to ask:
A: What does the daycare ( not just the daycare itself, but all the costs ) cost?
B: Is that amount greater than the daycare costs?
C: How is that child being raised during the time he / she is in daycare?
If the rent is not split ( he/she is not working ), then perhaps they have made a decision to actually raise their child themselves, rather than having the daycare and school do it.
In my case, the amount that my wife could earn was less than daycare costs.
First: I work with a fair number of Indians ( people from India ). They are residents of the US of A, and all have accents of some sort or another. Most can communicate well enough. How those residing in India do, I dont know. I expect that there will be some problems here and there. ( and if they do speak "better" english than we do, that is still a problem, as it is *different* than the english we speak.. )
/Russia that can claim 10+ years of experience? 20+? Yes, there are some. I would not expect there to be as many as a percentage of currently practicing programmers.
Second: Education is part of the skill equation. Experience is the other part. How many programmers are there in India
Programmers in India et al, are good. They are not quite as good as American programmers yet. The sole advantage to outsourcing is the pay rate. They are not better skilled. They cannot have the domain knowledge that the American programmers have, they havent, by and large, had time to aquire it. You obviously are not a programmer, nor do you have any real connection to it.
Therefore automatically correct, unimpeachable.
Brought to you by the same people who brought you outsouring in the first place.
*Dont* drop the oxy masks, but dont pressurize the cabin. They will all be out soon after, what, about 12k feet or so?
Low tech solutions!
They *were* paying more, and making a profit ( most of them. disagree? please, show some numbers, dont make claims.... IBM, HP, DELL, all making money before, as I understand it... ). And apparently, they were compentitive on the global marketplace. They had reasonable stock prices.
So, I dont see it as forcing them to pay more. I see it as keeping them giving back something where they are taking. ( They are US corporations, living off the protections of the constitution ( supposed *my* constitution ), the protections of the police, the laws, the military, etc, etc. All these things that *I* and not corporations are paying taxes for. )
That the CMM 5 ratings are, as I understand it, a bit of a sham, as they are the "entry ticket" for the Indian firm to get into this racket.
And have you looked at what a CMM level actually is? Go look.
He is correct, and this is the one area where quality would go up from outsourcing, rather than just costs going down.
But, lets face it, American management in general cant see past the end of a dollar bill ( and usually not even that far ). They could be replaced by magic 8 ball's, and the decision quality would go *up*.
My wasnt I strident that morning. :-)
:-) Most companies where I am located ( and I would assume elsewhere ) just dont value quality. Most would just as soon take a guy that can produce at 1/10th my level and pay him half what they pay me, cause they think it is a deal. Outsourcing is just another price point on that continuum, and it could make it more than just a little bit difficult.
Lemme try again:
There is much to what you say, however,
I dont think that the additional income will spur discretionary spending. The govt will decide what they need, additional money will probably not cause them to say "hmm, lets buy a few more 'X'" ( whatever 'X' happens to be ). And for whatever item is under consideration, there is no guarantee that they will make there purchase from the US ( nor am I saying they should ).
For the case of the airline, I see your point, but again, the other company may well chose to purchase airbus rather than boeing. ( also, most major airplane purchases these days involve some "quid pro quo" in the form of some aerospace concern "in country" making some subassembly(s) for the airplanes in question... ) Anyway.
But the bottom line for each salary that is shipped overseas, there will, on average, just as you say, be some amount coming back. On that amount coming back, some small percentage of that small amount, will be taxable income. What I was trying to get at was that there will be a drop in the taxes paid to the US govt. And those corporations making these decisions are already not paying a lot of taxes to begin with, so their additional income will probably not make up the shortfall.
AFA getting a job ( I have one, thanks, just hypothetical... ), I am a darned good programmer. Not ready to challenge Donald Knuth just yet, but still pretty doggone good.
Thank you for taking the time to read.
No, he has just *billed* for 20 years worth of perl development. Like the lawyers, ya-know.
I hope and pray you get back where you need to be soonest.
I could say the same to you. You have done little to educate me on *why* you believe as you do, or to persuade me that you are correct. You have made claims, but not backed it with anything but a single article that does nothing to examine anything other than the viewpoints that support what CEO's have decided to do. By the way, the article claims that increased productivity is a driver for this. I do not mean to denigrate offshore programmers, but that makes no sense. I can see the cost savings. Productivity gains? They are not better than US programmers. Not worse, probably not as experienced on average, but by and large a very good bunch. But not better. That, and they are far from the subject matter experts, in a different time zone, and half the world away, all of which make for inefficiencies.
As to the "I assume there is a typo", you misread, I think. You had a n domestic and m US. US == domestic for me, so, the split made no sense. I see where that was from the article, now that you have given me the link to it ( just saying there is an article is only very slightly helpfull )
And as to showing proof, I have tried to justify my assertions. Frankly, I have no proof to offer, and I dont believe I have lead you to believe I am any expert on these matters. I have done my best, and have been willing to be persuaded, but, sorry, just you saying it is no better than just me saying it. I was trying to draw you out to see where you stood on the matter, but you are in the same boat with me, I think, someone with opinions and feelings, etc. So, all I can say is that you have not offered anything to back your assertions, and you have no other credentials that I should value your opinions more than my own.
Imagine how many would (-: like all the pesky popup writers :-) be murdered if it were not illegal. The law works, dude. No, it is not 100% effective. I will take 98% and be happy.
Actually, I started out speaking against a misuse of data, if you will take your mind back.
On taking money out, you are making a number of unwarranted assumptions. The cars are assembled here. Not every item used in the assembly of the car is producing here in the US. A large amount of it is from Japan. *That* part stays over. How much? I dont know, but it adds to the 6bn number, no?
On "the meat of the matter", you claim without support that shifting production overseas has created 516,000 new jobs. Can you back that up with something? Where did the jobs come from? From where I sit, it looks like we are losing jobs in the software sector, not gaining. And I dont nessesarily buy that the products prices *in software* will fall. Microsoft has had a center in India for a while, as I understand it, has the price of XP or Office changed?
I dont see where lower salaries for our workers is a good thing. Other prices will not fall, at least not soon. So, those workers will spend more on core things like housing and such, and have less disposable income. My understanding is that consumer spending is a large part of our economy, and that would have to fall.
You claim 244,000 domestically and 272,000 in the US. I assume there is a typo there, but I am not sure where.
BS.
You put the site up. You figure out how to pay for the bandwidth. I dont want popups. Simple, no? I dont want to pay for the bandwidth to send it to me. I dont want it. If I had known your site used popups or spyware, I would not have clicked in the first place. So that makes it deceptive. How about if I dig holes in your streets, your car gets banged up because I made it look like just another street. My fault or yours? You should not have driven with protection, dude. Streets are unsafe. You should know that.
Not a perfect analogy, but I think you will get it if you are halfway honest with yourself.
And how about those laws? There was a time when we ( the human race ) didnt have any. So, you walk around without armour, its your fault you got murdered? We dont need any more laws?
Dont give them ideas!
Why should I have to pay for something to stop someone else's obnoxious behaviour?
It is not stupid to outlaw obnoxious advertizing methodologies. It's _my_ machine.
If I knew that the site did those things I would not visit. If you want things to work that way, then all the popup sites need to advertise themselves *clearly* _before_ someone enters that they do popups.
The bandwidth is already paid for. I paid for it. It's _my_ bandwidth. Not yours.
Go out of business! Do something legitimate with your time.
First, you are assuming I am against free trade. I am not wild about free trade where some of the partners are not as free in their trade as other partners, but in general, all being equal, I am for it.
I understand that we participate in the global economy, and that we have to give as well as get. No problems with that.
My point is that, using your example above, they took in that entire 126bn. Yes, they spent a good bit of it to make the products to sell, and were left with 6bn in profits, but they took in 126bn. They spent less than that, and had a profit from it. Those numbers are their global numbers, yes? Some part of that was in selling cars in the US. So, with regard to the US economy, for them, they spent some amount making the cars, then sold them for more than that amount. Some of the labor was done in the US, and that money stayed. Some raw materials and or finished goods from US business' were used, so that money stayed. The rest went to Japan and to whomever Toyoda purchased non-US goods and services to build the cars with. Net flow to Japan, and out of the US economy. I am basing this on the idea that if the purchaser didnt purchase a car from Toyoda or another Japanese manufacturer, they would have bought a domestically produced car instead. So any increase in production that happened for that Toyoda would also have happened for the Ford or Chevy they would have purchased instead, so I see that as a wash, and therefore not relevant.
Your last statement puzzles me. I made no mention of how much, so why you state the part about goods having 'a very low market clearing price' or 'to have outlandishly high margins' seems like hyperbole. They have a market clearing price less than the cost to produce, and a margin that is non-zero. That is sufficient for a net flow to them.
So, you are saying that the Japanese car companies are putting more money in over here than they take in the selling of the cars? Wouldnt that mean that the cars cost more to build than to sell?
That is an interesting money flow.
Claim 1: Not a zero sum game.
Claim 2: You cant take more from an economy than you put in.
Then you must always be putting more in than you take out. How is that possible? Would not every economy be forced to grow? ( from more than just population growth... ) Where does this ( money, goods, services ) come from? Is it created from nothing?
How it is possible: taking more in goods / services / money than you put in. They are not a charity, if they were not taking more than they put in, there would be *no* profit for them.
With respect, why dont you go research that, and see just how easy it is. *You* go do just that checking, and do it like you are doing it for real. And go for advanced study, go actually apply for one, just to see how theory and practice can sometime be slightly out of alignment.
I'm not going to as yet, as that is not my situation. But I can look on the other side and see how it might be easier said than done.
Just how many jobs have been outsourced?
How many people have lost jobs due to this?
How many have gained?
What is the aggregate dollar amount of these salaries?
How much money is flowing overseas?
What is the actual gain that these companies have seen? ( total, per share, per kdollars of salary reduced )
Do these companies pay dividends?
What increase in dividends due to outsourcing?
Who holds the shares in the companies involved?
The additional profit made, what was done with it, if it were not made available as dividends?
What is the tax revenue "hit" from this? Federal, state and local.
What actual jobs were / are created?
Follow some of the people who were layed off due to outsourcing. What have their experiences been? How long to find another job? Did it pay as well? Did anyone lose a house, car, etc, etc?
Follow the companies doing the outsourcing, what gains do they expect from this? How is it benefiting them?
What is the cost ( to society included ) and what is the benefit?
Will be paid to which govt?
Oh, over there. Yeah, OK.
That will not flow back.
And the rent? Food? Are those going to flow back? Doubt it. Not in any appreciable amount.
The rest? Who knows. If 100% of that flowed back ( and it wont ), where would that put us?
In the mean time, I guess I just declare bankrupcy, and go on the dole? That helps, thanks!
I disagree to an extent. Those companies are operating and enjoying what America has to offer business' ( and if they think it's better elsewhere *why arent they there* ). I dont think it is too much to ask that they give some back. They already pay less in taxes than I do, have more access to the goverment, etc etc.
And I find your arguement true, but disingenuous. What you say is nominally true, and could in fact happen, but in the cases of a good deal of out sourcing today, Americans were doing those jobs, then those jobs were exported to elsewhere in exchange for a short term gain on a companies bottom line. Those companies were functioning with American employees, and could have continued. Why didnt they? Because the workers that the company was using to make a profit could be replaced. It's kinda the same as the spousal unit that is put thru college by the hard work and sacrifice ( and American workers can and do sacrifice, contrary to popular myth ) of the other spouse, only to be tossed aside for a younger/sexier spouse once the goal is achieved and the opportunity exists. Is the employerr employee relationship a marriage? No, just using a bit of analogy, none of which are not perfect. There is an interdependance.
Are we "owed" jobs? No, I dont think so. But I do think we should have a fair shot at them, and having to compete with someone with a state funded education, lower and fewer taxes, lower living costs is *not* a fair shot. I have little that I can to do lower my cost of living except to go live in a cardboard box. And I pass enough people on my way to work doing that, that I dont want any part of it.
If an honest appraisal came up with that assessment ( that one american worker was still to expensive ), then well and good. In the wake of all the accounting scandals, I think it would be right to question most companies assessments of anything, though.