Huh?
OK, Germany never attacked the US, but if I recal Junior high history correctly, we did commit to helping protect our allies. More importantly, there was real, proven _evidence_ of what Germany was doing (although, if I recall, we really didn't get involved until the Lusithinia event).
And how did Iraq attack us between '91 and '02? Sure there were some SAMs fired, but we were sort of, kind of flying over thier airspace uninvited.
>Everybody that pays taxes got a tax cut. The only reason the >rich got a "massive" tax cut is because they pay a massive >amount of taxes.
Um, on a percentage basis, the rich actually did better. I wish I could source this correctly, but I'm really tired. Absolute dollars are meaningless, as you point out, but the wealthy did pretty well on a percentage basis. You know why? Because the people who make the laws are _very_ wealthy.
>The liberation of Iraq has been one of the most stunningly >successful military compaigns ever. I was going to ask what >possible motivations you could have to call it a quagmire, but I >think we both know the answer to that...
How is it successful? Other than that president shrub told you so. Kids still die there every day, and there is no end in sight. If it were the 'most successful' we would not need to be there right now.
Please stop buying in to what the media preaches. The media has no incentive to tell you the truth, but have every incentive to propagate the propaganda.
A relevant side comment; banks are generally very concerned about security, online and in general. This is because it is a liablity for them. I work in the banking industry in fraud detection and prevention, and its big business. In the US at least, the consumer is only liable for the first $50 in a case of check card fraud, credit card companies are liable for the whole thing. I've had my work slow to a crawl because a bank's IT dept blocked _all_ attachements during a worm outbreak, I've FedExed CDs with 2 10K files because no one knew when attachments would be allowed again.
Speaking up really could make a difference, especially if you can get in touch with a techie. He/she can then go to the PHB with some ammo that consumers demand compatibility with more secure browsers such as Mozilla/Safari/Opera etc. (He/she already demanded this compatibility, but you know PHBs).
I'd not be the least bit surprised if the banking industry became a major driver in getting users to switch away from IE. Online fraud losses are creeping up on more traditional fraud s.a. check fraud. Add in the liability if consumer data gets out on the net and banks may begin to _only_ support non-IE browsers. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday, an IE hole is going to blow so big banks won't want thier customers on it because of the liability concern. At least this what the IT and loss prevention people would prefer.
Another aspect of this is to get a crappy job, learn it and code something up to make it easier/faster/better/cheaper. One of the guys at my local liquor store did this, he wrote a small inventory management system for the store. The manager liked it and they shopped it around to other stores around town.
It didn't sound like a lot of $, but if you get some extra pocket money and some experience you're doing pretty well.
Mod parent up, this is very true. Take a job at a small company for less money; you get: 1) opportunity to grow - at a small company everyone does some of everything. You get network, DBA, desktop and coding experience all rolled in to one. 2) you're efforts get noticed and you see results. 3) small companies tend to have close relationships with a few customers. You can get to know and impress your customers and maybe create a new opportunity with one of them. 4) small company may be purchased and you get to join a large company (or lose your job).
Also think about jobs that might not be tech specific. For example, did you minor in econ? Maybe look at business analyst positions or marketing for a tech company. Are you really good at explaining technology to non-tech people? Think about technical sales rep jobs.
If you have any skills and experience outside of the technology world leverage that to find positions you didn't consider before. I'd much rather have a software sales rep that knows technology than one who doesn't.
I fully agree with this as well, depending on the nature of your programming group. At one job, I did all my work by myself, having an office was perfect and when I had to move and share an office my productivity went _way_ down. In my current work, my company was just purchased and had the pleasure of moving from a small free form office to a cubicle farm. Our group was very collaborative, we had a sqaure type area with each of us facing a corner and tables between us. This was great because it made collaboration quick and easy, just turn around.
If you have the means, make sure your devlopers and creative people have a dual monitor setup. This was huge for me, code on one screen, documentation or email on another.
Maybe ask some of the people who will be working in the office what they think, they'll appreciate your request for input. Maybe a survey and feed back the groups results and which items can be implemented?
Isn't this what.NET will allow them do? MS introduces a layer of abstraction that allows the same code to run on old and new MS OS, 32 and 64 bit, and MS can say 'Look at how flexible we are' (Oh, I write this on a Mac, but develop for MS and *Nix)
I think MS has enough $ to push.NET, wait a few years and offer a certain level of platform independance. The didn't get rich by being stupid, they've got a 5-10 year plan and they know that there are _many_ business that are still using Win98 or NT 4.0 that don't plan to upgrade in the near future. They see an opportunity to run Office 2008 and Exchange 2008 on P1s running Nt 4.0 (bloat issues aside for now).
I'd like to see Linux take over on the desktop, but let's face it, we need to increase the profit motive and get more marketing and organization. Joe Blow is not going to take anything but Windows until he's told to and it is easy to get all the same 'stuff' for less (the cheaper part is obvious to us).
I know you're being funny, but it is so true. When my co-workers and I are at the bar and we get an idea or have to explain something we don't whip out a Palm to draw a picture or jot down a note - we use a napkin or coaster! This is despite the facte that between us we have many gadgets to choose from.
Another example, my manager copies his Notes calendar to a paper calendar/notebook. Guess which one tends to be most accurate over time as meetings are rescheduled and such? Yup, the paper one.
There are some things that will always be on paper, especially ideas on bar napkins and the back of envelopes and ATM receipts.
This is certainly true, and not just with obscure code. In a previous job I wrote a number of reporting and work flow applications that saved the company hundreds of thousands of dollars a month. I was the only one in the company who could code (which was not my primary role), so when I got sick of thier shitty treatment I found another job. The COO didn't want to put together a support contract, or even have me come in once in a while for changes and enhancements - he wanted me to maintain the applications for free! Naturally I told them to piss off. It wasn't two weeks before I started getting calls and emails - "how does this work", "We need to change this report" etc. Last I heard they were back to letting a few hundred Gs slip away every month.
The people who make decisions rarely have the background or understanding of technology to make good business decisions. They are perfectly happy to lose a million a year rather than give you a $5K raise. The trick is to find a company with people who appreciate your skills and knowledge.
Your explaination makes me feel less bad about patting the trunk (gently!!) and saying 'good girl' when I get out to fill up.
I wish others at the local gas station could appreciate fine German automobiles....I'm getting tired of all these funny looks. Now I can just say 'I'm grounding myself' though that might get its own share of funny looks, and a number of phsycoanalyst's business cards.
You are right on the ball. This is a marketing move, and nothing more, nothing less. MS needs to do whatever they can to 'look good' to the public, to admins, and to PHBs. Despite the blatant marketing BS, I'm glad to have those boxes patched.
When you can get a good OS for free, why would anyone _pay_ for a shitty one?
It would still be a stupid patent, even if they filed for it in 1990. The idea is not novel, the idea is to increase the noise to the point that the signal is hard to find. The government did this a long time ago with radio/radar jamming. Its not a new or novel idea, just a new implementation. And it is really easy to get around, the P2P network (users) just adapts and finds a way to identify the real thing.
Additionally, the bogus files will not survive because people will just delete them once they realize they are bogus, thus they will not propagate as fast as real files, and will eventually die off. You'd think these acedamians would realize that.
I don't use P2P myself, but I don't think the RIAA would have as much to worry about if they put out some music worth paying for. I'm happy to pay to support artists I like, and iTunes is pretty damn good, but c'mon, the only way I'd buy anything by Brittany Spears is for 30 minutes alone with her to do my bidding.
Not to nit pick, but while all barcodes are represented in two dimensions, probably because that's the easiest thing to do on a flat 2-D surface, not all barcodes encode information in 2 dimensions. Now, naturally I didn't RTFA, but the barcode on a box of cereal encodes information in one dimension. Take the thinnest line and call it a 1, a line of double that thickness is 11 and the spaces are 0, a double wide space is 00. The height dimension is just a matter of convenience so you do not have to be precise when scanning an item, it has no information content.
OK I RTFA, and it sure looks like this scheme actually encodes the information in a 2 dimensional matrix, and a cursory look indicates that the same information is encoded 4 times in different orientations so the reader does not need to be lined up precisely.
Sounds like Cybercode and your use of it is pretty cool. Something I need to look into - thanks.
Most likely its because thier marketing department found out that most Linux users also have a Mac or Windows box already, and if they don't, those Linux users wouldn't mind picking up a Mac so they can get iTunes (and an iPod).
Worked on me.
You gave me a really interesting thought, because you're right, corps get off with little tax and have a lot (too much) infulence in government. Maybe there should be a slight tax on offshore expenses. Sort of a way of balancing the trade deficit, not all the way or you ruin the economy, but a little. We could encourage companes to spend money in the US and keep jobs. Its still not Pareto effecient, but it may be a good balance.
The point is that many people who are brilliant coders could also be great business analysts and project managers and code reviewers. the people making sure that the guys overseas are doing things right. I'm self taught, but my guess is that most comp sci grads have enough knowledge and intelligence that they can do the architecture and design, and can understand the business process better than some guy in India. So maybe they only code 1-2 hours a day, but spend the rest of the time analyzing the requirements and such.
Please explain how investors are 'useless bloodsucking parasitic leeches", without investors, you most likely would not have a job. Ever take econ classes? Do you have a 401K, or you are counting on becoming independantly wealthy? (judging by your comment you don't have a great shot at that)
I think we understand each other better now. And you're right about the government's portection of the steel industry (esp under Bush, what a wanker). I can't recall off the top of my head, but studies have been done showing the negative effect on GDP of these protections (I don't want to dig out my papers). I also remember an article in Harvard Business Revue against protecting the steel industry, now there's a CEO publication.
But, many IT or 'near IT' jobs cannot be outsourced. For example, companies always need admins and trainers on site, because some things cannot be done effeciently off site. Another example, I write software for the banking industry. I need to know a lot about various government regulations, regulatory compliance and about how the people use the software. I need to be able to easily travel to a customer's site whether 10 miles away or on either coast, and work with the people using the software. We need to communicate at any time during the North American business day, that's why I work 7 - 5 central time.
A lot of the programming I currently do is going to be offshored in the next month and I'm thrilled. There's more work than I can do, and I get real tired of grunt coding after a while. I'll get to do the architecture and requirements, then review the code, but I won't have to spend so much time banging out accessors. Someone else is doing the boring part, and I can focus on the fun stuff (at least for me). I think I'm fortunate that the least appealing portions of my job are being offshored and not the job itself.
You make some good points, and I most certainly respect them. As most of both of our ideas are rather subjective, I will only disagree with you one point. _Most_ CEOs are not corporate raiders, and _most_ are not greedy, heartless bastards. Some are, and those are the ones who get a lot of attention. I will also agree that executive comphensation has been rather high for the last decade at least. It has always been higher than your average worker's because of the responsibility of the job, but lately, the disparity has grown dramatically.
I think my opinions are colored because I have been fortunate (so far knock on wood) to build relationships with employers where the loyalty goes both ways. This has been due to both good managers and hard work on my part. Loyalty isn't given it is earned. I don't see a lot of people suggesting that somone shouldn't take a job that pays twice as much, but can't allow you to give a notice. It goes both ways. We don't want a German like employement law where it is nearly impossible to remove poor performing workers.
It could be argued that there has been a global economy for millenia, but it is only recently (10 - 20 yrs) that it has been practical for multi-national organizations to take advantage of labor mobility and keep the labor within the organization. While I don't like IT offshoring much more than anyone else in IT, we can't deny that it is a cycle that has been seen before, steel and autos are the common examples. We need to make sure that we have skills that either cannot be outsourced or or are not practical to outsource (like plumbing;)
So, yes it is bad for individuals to lose thier jobs, and it is generally not thier fault, and no they are not "whiners". But if you do the math (yes, I did major in Econ), on the whole everybody wins. Those same people will be enabled to get a job with that companies supplier or customer. That is why I advocate generous severance packages (at least 1 year) in those situations, so they are not in the unemployment line.
Sorry for this, I just hate to be misunderstood. I am certianly not some ultra conservative, pro-Bush nut job. I've just studied international economics and the steel industry and worked out the maths. If you don't like the way things are going make it clear that you are willing to pay a premium for domestically produced goods, that shifts the numbers and can justify keeping jobs local despite the expsense. But in general, consumers want more for less $, thus a product's marginal cost must be pushed down in order to maintain a profit as demanded by the owners of the business (you if you own stock) and creditors (if you own bonds).
If I could clarify my comment a bit: 1) It doesn't matter if the company is going under today or not. CEOs get paid a lot to try to predict the future and figure out what the economy and business climate will be like in 3 - 10 years, while at the same time being profitable today. Its called strategic planning.
2) grandma may be dependant on SS today, but if you think it will be around for too much longer you are kidding yourself. I should have used the 55 - 60 year old who has been contributing to 401K for a few years, and knows that SS won't cover costs as the example.
3) No, the people who worked hard to build up the company do not _deserve_ to lose thier jobs. And I truly believe that a responsible company will offer a generous severance in these situations.
The simple fact is that we have entered a global economy. Labor mobility is higher and easier to achieve than ever before (especially in technology). The internet and modern telecommunications have made it possible to remove physical location from the labor equation in many ways. Time zone differences and language barriers are still an issue, but we see that dealt with rather smoothly.
No one should think that thier employer owes them a job, and no one should think that they owe thier employer anything but an honest day's work. The simple fact is, make yourself valuable to the organization and you will probably have a job. If you get laid off or downsized you will have the skills and the resume to prove your worth to another company, or maybe start your own.
I'm not trying to be crass, but to just point out that none of us are entitled to our jobs. Save money and do your best to add value to the organization and you have smaller chance of being downsized or offshored. The entitlement mentality is killing the US.
It seems we need an economics lesson here. Just because an American worker loses his/her job doesn't mean the CEO has simply taken away his/her livelihood. The money has been *redistributed*. If the company does not stay profitable, many more people do lose thier jobs. Also remember, there are more people depending on a company than just the ones who happen to work there. What about grandma and gradpa whose retirement is dependant on the success or failure of the company?
I'm no big fan of offshoring, and it does hurt (at least temporarily) people here at home. But it is small minded to forget that the money from those salaries gets divided between the new offshore worker and the share holders (and the corp execs, yes).
Also, how can someone get rich in a way that is equitable? Wealth is inherently unequal. What you seem to be saying would equate to asking Bill Gates to send some of his personal income to India to pay programmers to do nothing so the jobs stay at home and his personal wealth can diminish. (Gates is a bad example being so reviled here, but work with the analogy)
As a I side note, the company I work for was purchased by a company that does a lot off shoreing. They did let a bunch of programmers go a few years ago, but a lot of people became business analysts and project or resource managers. And they still need programmers to do architecture and design work, and review the code that comes back. If you're worried about being offshored, make sure that grunt coding isn't the only thing you can do. US companies generally recognize smart, hard working people and want to leverage thier skills.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? OK, Germany never attacked the US, but if I recal Junior high history correctly, we did commit to helping protect our allies. More importantly, there was real, proven _evidence_ of what Germany was doing (although, if I recall, we really didn't get involved until the Lusithinia event). And how did Iraq attack us between '91 and '02? Sure there were some SAMs fired, but we were sort of, kind of flying over thier airspace uninvited. >Everybody that pays taxes got a tax cut. The only reason the >rich got a "massive" tax cut is because they pay a massive >amount of taxes. Um, on a percentage basis, the rich actually did better. I wish I could source this correctly, but I'm really tired. Absolute dollars are meaningless, as you point out, but the wealthy did pretty well on a percentage basis. You know why? Because the people who make the laws are _very_ wealthy. >The liberation of Iraq has been one of the most stunningly >successful military compaigns ever. I was going to ask what >possible motivations you could have to call it a quagmire, but I >think we both know the answer to that... How is it successful? Other than that president shrub told you so. Kids still die there every day, and there is no end in sight. If it were the 'most successful' we would not need to be there right now. Please stop buying in to what the media preaches. The media has no incentive to tell you the truth, but have every incentive to propagate the propaganda.
At first I thought this was a poop joke....
Then I was very disappointed.
A relevant side comment; banks are generally very concerned about security, online and in general. This is because it is a liablity for them. I work in the banking industry in fraud detection and prevention, and its big business. In the US at least, the consumer is only liable for the first $50 in a case of check card fraud, credit card companies are liable for the whole thing. I've had my work slow to a crawl because a bank's IT dept blocked _all_ attachements during a worm outbreak, I've FedExed CDs with 2 10K files because no one knew when attachments would be allowed again.
Speaking up really could make a difference, especially if you can get in touch with a techie. He/she can then go to the PHB with some ammo that consumers demand compatibility with more secure browsers such as Mozilla/Safari/Opera etc. (He/she already demanded this compatibility, but you know PHBs).
I'd not be the least bit surprised if the banking industry became a major driver in getting users to switch away from IE. Online fraud losses are creeping up on more traditional fraud s.a. check fraud. Add in the liability if consumer data gets out on the net and banks may begin to _only_ support non-IE browsers. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday, an IE hole is going to blow so big banks won't want thier customers on it because of the liability concern. At least this what the IT and loss prevention people would prefer.
--
IE isn't a feature, its a bug
Another aspect of this is to get a crappy job, learn it and code something up to make it easier/faster/better/cheaper. One of the guys at my local liquor store did this, he wrote a small inventory management system for the store. The manager liked it and they shopped it around to other stores around town. It didn't sound like a lot of $, but if you get some extra pocket money and some experience you're doing pretty well.
Mod parent up, this is very true. Take a job at a small company for less money; you get:
1) opportunity to grow - at a small company everyone does some of everything. You get network, DBA, desktop and coding experience all rolled in to one.
2) you're efforts get noticed and you see results.
3) small companies tend to have close relationships with a few customers. You can get to know and impress your customers and maybe create a new opportunity with one of them.
4) small company may be purchased and you get to join a large company (or lose your job).
Also think about jobs that might not be tech specific. For example, did you minor in econ? Maybe look at business analyst positions or marketing for a tech company. Are you really good at explaining technology to non-tech people? Think about technical sales rep jobs.
If you have any skills and experience outside of the technology world leverage that to find positions you didn't consider before. I'd much rather have a software sales rep that knows technology than one who doesn't.
Best of luck to OP and everyone else looking.
(actual rooms with doors and (possibly translucent glass)
(hint: flashing light + flashing computer image = fried eyes).
You my friend, are certainly not a Lisp programmer are you?
Good thoughts.
I fully agree with this as well, depending on the nature of your programming group. At one job, I did all my work by myself, having an office was perfect and when I had to move and share an office my productivity went _way_ down. In my current work, my company was just purchased and had the pleasure of moving from a small free form office to a cubicle farm. Our group was very collaborative, we had a sqaure type area with each of us facing a corner and tables between us. This was great because it made collaboration quick and easy, just turn around.
If you have the means, make sure your devlopers and creative people have a dual monitor setup. This was huge for me, code on one screen, documentation or email on another.
Maybe ask some of the people who will be working in the office what they think, they'll appreciate your request for input. Maybe a survey and feed back the groups results and which items can be implemented?
Isn't this what .NET will allow them do? MS introduces a layer of abstraction that allows the same code to run on old and new MS OS, 32 and 64 bit, and MS can say 'Look at how flexible we are' (Oh, I write this on a Mac, but develop for MS and *Nix)
.NET, wait a few years and offer a certain level of platform independance. The didn't get rich by being stupid, they've got a 5-10 year plan and they know that there are _many_ business that are still using Win98 or NT 4.0 that don't plan to upgrade in the near future. They see an opportunity to run Office 2008 and Exchange 2008 on P1s running Nt 4.0 (bloat issues aside for now).
I think MS has enough $ to push
I'd like to see Linux take over on the desktop, but let's face it, we need to increase the profit motive and get more marketing and organization. Joe Blow is not going to take anything but Windows until he's told to and it is easy to get all the same 'stuff' for less (the cheaper part is obvious to us).
I know you're being funny, but it is so true. When my co-workers and I are at the bar and we get an idea or have to explain something we don't whip out a Palm to draw a picture or jot down a note - we use a napkin or coaster! This is despite the facte that between us we have many gadgets to choose from.
Another example, my manager copies his Notes calendar to a paper calendar/notebook. Guess which one tends to be most accurate over time as meetings are rescheduled and such? Yup, the paper one.
There are some things that will always be on paper, especially ideas on bar napkins and the back of envelopes and ATM receipts.
This is certainly true, and not just with obscure code. In a previous job I wrote a number of reporting and work flow applications that saved the company hundreds of thousands of dollars a month. I was the only one in the company who could code (which was not my primary role), so when I got sick of thier shitty treatment I found another job. The COO didn't want to put together a support contract, or even have me come in once in a while for changes and enhancements - he wanted me to maintain the applications for free! Naturally I told them to piss off. It wasn't two weeks before I started getting calls and emails - "how does this work", "We need to change this report" etc. Last I heard they were back to letting a few hundred Gs slip away every month.
The people who make decisions rarely have the background or understanding of technology to make good business decisions. They are perfectly happy to lose a million a year rather than give you a $5K raise. The trick is to find a company with people who appreciate your skills and knowledge.
Your explaination makes me feel less bad about patting the trunk (gently!!) and saying 'good girl' when I get out to fill up.
I wish others at the local gas station could appreciate fine German automobiles....I'm getting tired of all these funny looks. Now I can just say 'I'm grounding myself' though that might get its own share of funny looks, and a number of phsycoanalyst's business cards.
The overpriced one: Begway
....Thank you, I'll be here all week....
The one that always craps out: Legway
you mispelled Microsoft
You are right on the ball. This is a marketing move, and nothing more, nothing less. MS needs to do whatever they can to 'look good' to the public, to admins, and to PHBs. Despite the blatant marketing BS, I'm glad to have those boxes patched.
When you can get a good OS for free, why would anyone _pay_ for a shitty one?
Can I just say that I have to write a lot of code in T-SQL and MS SQL server does not have any bugs, it IS a bug.
Thanks
It would still be a stupid patent, even if they filed for it in 1990. The idea is not novel, the idea is to increase the noise to the point that the signal is hard to find. The government did this a long time ago with radio/radar jamming. Its not a new or novel idea, just a new implementation. And it is really easy to get around, the P2P network (users) just adapts and finds a way to identify the real thing.
Additionally, the bogus files will not survive because people will just delete them once they realize they are bogus, thus they will not propagate as fast as real files, and will eventually die off. You'd think these acedamians would realize that.
I don't use P2P myself, but I don't think the RIAA would have as much to worry about if they put out some music worth paying for. I'm happy to pay to support artists I like, and iTunes is pretty damn good, but c'mon, the only way I'd buy anything by Brittany Spears is for 30 minutes alone with her to do my bidding.
Not to nit pick, but while all barcodes are represented in two dimensions, probably because that's the easiest thing to do on a flat 2-D surface, not all barcodes encode information in 2 dimensions. Now, naturally I didn't RTFA, but the barcode on a box of cereal encodes information in one dimension. Take the thinnest line and call it a 1, a line of double that thickness is 11 and the spaces are 0, a double wide space is 00. The height dimension is just a matter of convenience so you do not have to be precise when scanning an item, it has no information content.
OK I RTFA, and it sure looks like this scheme actually encodes the information in a 2 dimensional matrix, and a cursory look indicates that the same information is encoded 4 times in different orientations so the reader does not need to be lined up precisely.
Sounds like Cybercode and your use of it is pretty cool. Something I need to look into - thanks.
Most likely its because thier marketing department found out that most Linux users also have a Mac or Windows box already, and if they don't, those Linux users wouldn't mind picking up a Mac so they can get iTunes (and an iPod). Worked on me.
You gave me a really interesting thought, because you're right, corps get off with little tax and have a lot (too much) infulence in government. Maybe there should be a slight tax on offshore expenses. Sort of a way of balancing the trade deficit, not all the way or you ruin the economy, but a little. We could encourage companes to spend money in the US and keep jobs. Its still not Pareto effecient, but it may be a good balance.
The point is that many people who are brilliant coders could also be great business analysts and project managers and code reviewers. the people making sure that the guys overseas are doing things right. I'm self taught, but my guess is that most comp sci grads have enough knowledge and intelligence that they can do the architecture and design, and can understand the business process better than some guy in India. So maybe they only code 1-2 hours a day, but spend the rest of the time analyzing the requirements and such.
True, but there are many Americans capable of doing much more than "the boring parts", but complain because they are not willing to do so.
Please explain how investors are 'useless bloodsucking parasitic leeches", without investors, you most likely would not have a job. Ever take econ classes? Do you have a 401K, or you are counting on becoming independantly wealthy? (judging by your comment you don't have a great shot at that)
I think we understand each other better now. And you're right about the government's portection of the steel industry (esp under Bush, what a wanker). I can't recall off the top of my head, but studies have been done showing the negative effect on GDP of these protections (I don't want to dig out my papers). I also remember an article in Harvard Business Revue against protecting the steel industry, now there's a CEO publication.
But, many IT or 'near IT' jobs cannot be outsourced. For example, companies always need admins and trainers on site, because some things cannot be done effeciently off site. Another example, I write software for the banking industry. I need to know a lot about various government regulations, regulatory compliance and about how the people use the software. I need to be able to easily travel to a customer's site whether 10 miles away or on either coast, and work with the people using the software. We need to communicate at any time during the North American business day, that's why I work 7 - 5 central time.
A lot of the programming I currently do is going to be offshored in the next month and I'm thrilled. There's more work than I can do, and I get real tired of grunt coding after a while. I'll get to do the architecture and requirements, then review the code, but I won't have to spend so much time banging out accessors. Someone else is doing the boring part, and I can focus on the fun stuff (at least for me). I think I'm fortunate that the least appealing portions of my job are being offshored and not the job itself.
You make some good points, and I most certainly respect them. As most of both of our ideas are rather subjective, I will only disagree with you one point. _Most_ CEOs are not corporate raiders, and _most_ are not greedy, heartless bastards. Some are, and those are the ones who get a lot of attention. I will also agree that executive comphensation has been rather high for the last decade at least. It has always been higher than your average worker's because of the responsibility of the job, but lately, the disparity has grown dramatically.
;)
I think my opinions are colored because I have been fortunate (so far knock on wood) to build relationships with employers where the loyalty goes both ways. This has been due to both good managers and hard work on my part. Loyalty isn't given it is earned. I don't see a lot of people suggesting that somone shouldn't take a job that pays twice as much, but can't allow you to give a notice. It goes both ways. We don't want a German like employement law where it is nearly impossible to remove poor performing workers.
It could be argued that there has been a global economy for millenia, but it is only recently (10 - 20 yrs) that it has been practical for multi-national organizations to take advantage of labor mobility and keep the labor within the organization. While I don't like IT offshoring much more than anyone else in IT, we can't deny that it is a cycle that has been seen before, steel and autos are the common examples. We need to make sure that we have skills that either cannot be outsourced or or are not practical to outsource (like plumbing
So, yes it is bad for individuals to lose thier jobs, and it is generally not thier fault, and no they are not "whiners". But if you do the math (yes, I did major in Econ), on the whole everybody wins. Those same people will be enabled to get a job with that companies supplier or customer. That is why I advocate generous severance packages (at least 1 year) in those situations, so they are not in the unemployment line.
Sorry for this, I just hate to be misunderstood. I am certianly not some ultra conservative, pro-Bush nut job. I've just studied international economics and the steel industry and worked out the maths. If you don't like the way things are going make it clear that you are willing to pay a premium for domestically produced goods, that shifts the numbers and can justify keeping jobs local despite the expsense. But in general, consumers want more for less $, thus a product's marginal cost must be pushed down in order to maintain a profit as demanded by the owners of the business (you if you own stock) and creditors (if you own bonds).
If I could clarify my comment a bit:
1) It doesn't matter if the company is going under today or not. CEOs get paid a lot to try to predict the future and figure out what the economy and business climate will be like in 3 - 10 years, while at the same time being profitable today. Its called strategic planning.
2) grandma may be dependant on SS today, but if you think it will be around for too much longer you are kidding yourself. I should have used the 55 - 60 year old who has been contributing to 401K for a few years, and knows that SS won't cover costs as the example.
3) No, the people who worked hard to build up the company do not _deserve_ to lose thier jobs. And I truly believe that a responsible company will offer a generous severance in these situations.
The simple fact is that we have entered a global economy. Labor mobility is higher and easier to achieve than ever before (especially in technology). The internet and modern telecommunications have made it possible to remove physical location from the labor equation in many ways. Time zone differences and language barriers are still an issue, but we see that dealt with rather smoothly.
No one should think that thier employer owes them a job, and no one should think that they owe thier employer anything but an honest day's work. The simple fact is, make yourself valuable to the organization and you will probably have a job. If you get laid off or downsized you will have the skills and the resume to prove your worth to another company, or maybe start your own.
I'm not trying to be crass, but to just point out that none of us are entitled to our jobs. Save money and do your best to add value to the organization and you have smaller chance of being downsized or offshored. The entitlement mentality is killing the US.
It seems we need an economics lesson here. Just because an American worker loses his/her job doesn't mean the CEO has simply taken away his/her livelihood. The money has been *redistributed*. If the company does not stay profitable, many more people do lose thier jobs. Also remember, there are more people depending on a company than just the ones who happen to work there. What about grandma and gradpa whose retirement is dependant on the success or failure of the company?
I'm no big fan of offshoring, and it does hurt (at least temporarily) people here at home. But it is small minded to forget that the money from those salaries gets divided between the new offshore worker and the share holders (and the corp execs, yes).
Also, how can someone get rich in a way that is equitable? Wealth is inherently unequal. What you seem to be saying would equate to asking Bill Gates to send some of his personal income to India to pay programmers to do nothing so the jobs stay at home and his personal wealth can diminish. (Gates is a bad example being so reviled here, but work with the analogy)
As a I side note, the company I work for was purchased by a company that does a lot off shoreing. They did let a bunch of programmers go a few years ago, but a lot of people became business analysts and project or resource managers. And they still need programmers to do architecture and design work, and review the code that comes back. If you're worried about being offshored, make sure that grunt coding isn't the only thing you can do. US companies generally recognize smart, hard working people and want to leverage thier skills.
Sorry for ranting.