You must have missed these lines in my previous post:
If everyone, everywhere cashed out at the same time, then they would all have to pay taxes as well. Billy G would still be the pimpinest mofo on the block.
Wealth is wealth, pre-tax or post-tax. No one cares what these people have after taxes. I'm sure you'd love to dispute that, but frankly, I don't give a shit.
So, your solution is to try living without the corporations. Riiiight.
Q. Who made your Subaru stationwagon?
A. Big corporations.
Q. What powers your vehicle?
A. Biodiesel, partially from big corporations.
Q. What powers the farm equipment used by your local productors[sic]?
A. Gasoline, from big corporations.
Q. Who makes all the products sold by the independantly[sic] owned shops?
A. Big corporations.
And finally...
Q. Who made the computer and all it's parts that you're typing this on?
A. Big corporations.
You are deluding yourself if you think what you propose is enough to counteract the big corps. What you need to do is go a step further and live like the Amish.
Even so, you further assume that voting will help. Obviously, you missed my previous point that only the wealthy can afford to run for office. Hell, Ross Perot almost bought the presidency.
Even if a middle-class or poor citizen made it into office, they would then be bombarded by special interests funded by the rich. It takes extraordinary will to turn down that kind of money. From looking at our own government, I feel pretty safe to say that few people have an extraordinary will.
I'm not saying America doesn't have terrible wealth inequality, just that people have a tendancy to make up stats in this area:-)
Very cute, jerkoff. You find one source from seven years ago that shows I'm off by 6% and you think you've got me. Well, despite your assertion otherwise, I didn't make this shit up. Here's the proof from more than your one source.
Also, there is a very interesting Stanford study that shows that these numbers massively overstate the wealth of the richest Americans because they are gross numbers. Bill Gates has $26bn of Microsoft stock. *But*, if he sold it he'd have to pay capital gains taxes.
Screw that. If everyone, everywhere cashed out at the same time, then they would all have to pay taxes as well. Billy G would still be the pimpinest mofo on the block.
Wealth is wealth, pre-tax or post-tax. No one cares what these people have after taxes. I'm sure you'd love to dispute that, but frankly, I don't give a shit.
Not that he would sell all his Microsoft shares and give up control of his company. As it stands now, Gates is the center of the computer industry. He is more wealthy than whole nations. He exerts an inordinate amount of power due to that wealth and position. He has the ear of senators, representatives, the president, and foreign governments. Just recently, the head of Vietnam stopped by Microsoft in Redmond before going to the White House. And in a few weeks, the head of China will also stop by Seattle before heading to DC. If all these people want to talk to Gates before talking to Bush, then that certainly makes me wonder who is the most powerful man in the world.
By the same argument, I can claim that you're getting ripped off every time you buy something, just because the same item is available for a fraction of the cost in USD (taking into account the exchange rate) in some other country.
We're well aware of that. For example, everyone knows we're getting ripped off on drug prices. It's cheaper to buy drugs in Canada, so that's what many Americans do.
We could make an argument (by your logic) that you're being ripped off because you're paying $2000.00 in rent living in an expensive (and probably more desirable) area while you could get by with a $400.00 rent living in a cheaper, rural area.
First off, anyone paying rent is getting ripped off. You are just paying down someone else's mortgage when you could be paying down your own.
Second, the only people that have to pay $2000 rent live in uber-expensive housing markets like NYC or LA. Up here in the Seattle area, you can rent a nice, three bedroom apartment for half of that. When people choose to live in NYC or LA, they know full-well the costs involved.
Third, if you actually buy a place in Seattle and have to pay a $2000 mortgage, then it's very likely you are living in a nice house, in a nice neighborhood, and close to work. And when you come to sell your house in a few years, you will get far more than what you paid for it. In that way, a house is as much an investment as it is a place to live.
Taking those three things into account, and no one in the US is getting ripped off on housing costs.
Hope this further clarifies my stance on why comparing raw figures without taking into account any of these other factors like the cost of living does not make sense.
No, it does not. If your work otherwise commands $50,000, then you are getting ripped off by accepting $10,000. I don't care what your cost of living is.
In the end, the major cost saving for companies is *not* the lower salary (as you claim fast food workers in the US get), but about the *Exchange Rate*.
No, lowered salaries is the major cost savings. Companies can pay $10,000 for work that would otherwise cost $50,000. I'm sorry, but no exchange rate will save $40,000.
The sad thing is that your lower cost of living has deluded you into thinking that $10,000 is actually good money for what you do. You're doing work that would otherwise earn $50,000. In essence, you are getting ripped off by $40,000 that should be yours, whether your cost of living is lower or not.
On a side note, fast-food McDonalds workers make at least the minimum wage of $7.35 per hour here in Washington State, USA. That's about $15,000 per year for full time work. So yes, our fast food workers make more than you.
You are deluding yourself if you think you can limit the influence of the rich. The top 1% of Americans own 40-50% of the wealth in America, more than the bottom 95% combined. Bill Gates alone has more money than the bottom 45% of Americans combined.
The rich own and control the corporations. It used to be that America was a farm society where everyone was self-sufficient and didn't rely on anyone else. Good luck trying to live that lifestyle today. Now, everyone works for corporations. You do what they say, when they say it. They don't care about your free speach rights, they don't care about your right to carry a firearm, they don't care whether you can only work 60 hours this week, and they don't care that you're underpaid for the amount of money you generate for them. They'll take all that extra money you generate and give themselves an extra million dollar bonus. Tough shit for you. You just get the "prevailing wage" of what every other company is ripping off their workers for. You are their slave and they know it. Just try living without them.
Through the ownership of corporations, the rich control the media. The idea that the media is controlled by a bunch of independent liberals is long since past. The majority of the media outlets have combined under a few mega-corporations. They decide what you see on TV, what you hear on the radio, what you read in the paper and magazines, and what you see online in the main news outlets. Good luck trying to communicate a story they don't want passed along.
The rich own the politicians, both Democrat and Republican. If you have the money, you can pay to talk to the politician of your choice. Hell, if you have the money, you can attempt to buy the presidency like Ross Perot. As it stands, the wealthy are the only ones who can afford to run for political offices at all.
The rich own the courts. People like Heidi Fleiss, madame to the stars, get thrown in jail for prostitution, while all the famous and powerful people found in her client list go unouted and unprosecuted. People like Michael Jackson can and do get away with pedophilia. People like OJ Simpson can and do get away with murder. Bill Gates, richest man in the world, could come to your house right now and shoot you right between the eyes, in cold blood, for all the naughty things you say about Microsoft... and not a court in the world would convict him of your death.
Yet, with all this you think you can limit their power by just what, not shopping at Wal-Mart?! Give me a break. You are delusional.
...a number of CEOs somehow managed to trump college degrees with common sense.
A small number. And these are generally special cases like Dave Thomas, the deceased former-CEO of Wendy's, who didn't graduate high school. The only thing special about him was that he founded the business and made it successful. Not too many people lose money selling popular hamburgers. The trick is figuring out how to make a cheap burger people like, which is more trial and error than rocket science.
Company Boards of Directors carefully choose CEOs. Education is of vital importance.
There are lots of successful non-degree holders out there...
I never said there wasn't. As I said previously, there are good-paying jobs out there that don't require degrees.
...although it's getting harder even for smart people to "break in".
That's because there are now far more smart people who take the time to attend and complete college. When companies have the choice of a smart person with a college degree versus a smart person without a college degree, they'll pick the educated person every time. And they are correct in doing so considering it's guaranteed that the college educated candidate at one point knew everything covered by the degree. A business has no way of objectively finding what the uneducated person knows, knew, or the breadth of that knowledge. Granted, the college educated candidate could have forgotten everything, but they'll have a much easier time picking everything back up than the other candidate learning it for the first time.
Second, I have a masters in EE. It cost me 6 additional months (due to careful planning and some strong arming of school policies) and netted $20k/yr. What's wrong with that is that it shouldn't have happened. I only did it to work the system, I had no interest in being in school or what I was learning.
So, you cheated? You didn't take any masters-level courses? You aren't actually qualified to hold a masters degree?
Somehow, I don't think so. I know some schools allow students to take masters-level courses in their junior and senior years. In those cases, they have done the work of a masters candidate, so they graduate with a bachelors degree and quickly earn enough credit for their masters. Those people have done the work and do deserve the credit, regardless of their motivation.
Do companies really want that specialization, or the feeling of safety and security that comes from having someone with some more letters after his name?
Again, it depends on the position. Some positions require specialization, such as a MSCS for high-level software architecture positions. Some require letters, such as C-level and mid-management positions. Some positions require neither. And some positions require both.
The question thus far is whether you can get that level of specialization without college education. My position is no.
I know only one thing about an MBA: from the right school it's worth a whole lot of money, from the other schools, not a dime.
Of course. The fact that Devry and University of Phoenix exist does not negate the value of a MBA, unless it's from Devry or University of Phoenix.
I started a MBA, and dropped it when my first company started to tank. Why? The first crew to go were not the factory workers, nor the engineers, nor even the secretaries. The first to go where the MBAs in our finance, and program management groups.
Again, this does not negate the value of the MBA. The real question is how long would it take those people with MBAs and experience in finance and program managment to find another job paying just as much or more. Then, ask how long it would take factory workers, engineers, and secretaries to find a new job. The MBAs and engineers would find new work the fastest while the factory workers and secret
Could not one learn MBA material on his own, quicky, with sufficient prior training?
In a word, no.
I have bachelors degree in business management. You would be hard-pressed to get the same education I got at the bachelors level in economics, finance, accounting, business law, statistics, information systems, management, and marketing without going to college. A master's degree in business is far more challenging, requiring far more work and effort to attain. It would be nearly impossible for you to pick up all the knowledge that an MBA program provides without actually going through the program. That is partially why MBA's are so valued in the first place.
To put it in better perspective, would someone hire a guy into marketing because he seems to be very motivated, because he knows how to use Power Point, or because he has an MBA (assuming PhD's in marketing are silly ideas).
Depends on the marketing position. Some don't require a college degree, so someone who only has motivation or Power Point knowledge could be a good fit.
However, if the marketing position actually requires marketing knowledge, then only being motivated or only knowing Power Point isn't going to cut it. That person with the MBA is the only person qualified for the position.
Let's face it, most people bright and motivated enough to endure EE/CS degrees are looking to cash in.
Speak for yourself. I could have easily "cashed in" with my business management degree. However, I went back to school for 2 years to get a second bachelors in computer science. That happened because I realized too late into getting my first degree what I really wanted to do with my life.
After graduation, I struggled for 3 years to find a paying job using my computer science degree. Again, I could have easily found good paying work with my business management degree. But then, I wouldn't be doing what I really wanted to do.
1) The public school science and math classes are so dumbed down that "graduates" have an inflated view of their capabilities. When they get to University, they find courses in math and physical science way too hard. Thus they immediately runaway to other choices.
You: Fact 1 has what to do with religion vs. science?
Teaching religion as science in the case of ID is a "dumbing down" of science education. Skipping the teaching of evolution in science classes is a "dumbing down" of science education. You really can't understand modern biology without this education. Any high school student who aces a dumbed-down biology course is going to have an inflated view of themself when they hit a college course that is not dumbed-down. That student will have a much harder time in that reality-based college class.
2) There is a reward/difficulty issue that has nothing to do with religion. Most that could (with effort) complete a degree in the physical sciences see that lawyers, accountants, marketing specialists, etc. tend to make *more* money with less personal responsibility and greater choice of employers. Therefore they runwaway from more rigorous physical science options.
You: Fact 2 might be ameliorated by tort reform.
That doesn't change the fact that accountants, marketing specialists, and other business majors make more money, have less personal responsibility, and greater choice of employers than majors in physical sciences and engineering. And what was not previously mentioned is that physical science degrees require much more work.
3) The problem of offshoring/outsourcing. What person in their right mind is going to go for a minimum of 4 years at a respected computer science major at University when after graduation he will be in direct competition with guys in Bangalore that will work for $5/hour and be wealthy on a local basis?
You: "Fact" 3 is overblown. There are whole categories of business/financial problems that require knowledge of US specific laws and accepted practices. There are whole other classes of applications that require understanding of US business practices that isn't readily available in Bangalore.
Offshore outsourcing may be overblown. The cost savings from offshoring is 10-20% and will soon be overtaken by the double-digit wage increases that Indians are now demanding.
However, that doesn't account for companies actually moving offshore without outsourcing. We now see companies like HP laying off 14,000 people this year while hiring roughly the equivalent amount in India. Granted, these people weren't outsourced since the jobs stayed in HP. In the end, that's still 14,000 less jobs for American IT professionals.
There is no rational reason for getting a computer science degree in America when American businesses are so cavalier in laying off IT workers.
Pokemon Ripoff of Magic
on
Power Up
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Interesting that the reviewer brings up Pokemon as influencing America, especially considering that Magic was around long before Pokemon and certainly influenced it. Magic comes from the Seattle area.
So please inform me how you've been coerced into using their software, and why you didn't use an alternative if one was available?
Try buying a computer without Microsoft Windows. All the big manufacturers require you to purchase that on almost all of their models. You have to look pretty thoroughly to find a system that doesn't include it. Good luck trying to find a Linux laptop from a major manufacturer.
Try buying a computer without Microsoft Works or Office. Again, all the big manufacturers include these software bundles whether you want them or not.
It did not sound like Google was "abusing" anyone. What it did sound like was that this woman had a demanding, executive level job where everyone must improve their numbers on a quarterly basis. And Google wanted her to perform that job just like she did prior to her pregnancy.
However, the pregnancy turned out to be demanding as well, making it so that she could not perform up to her prior level. They tried to do the right thing by moving her to a less demanding position rather than fire her for decreased output. But, she fought this logical move.
The point of the grandparent message was that this woman had several choices in this scenario:
She chose sales, a demanding career by any standard.
She chose to move up to an executive position, with tons more pressure.
With all this pressure and the demand to perform, she chose to get pregnant.
She chose to stay in the position, although she could not maintain her performance.
She chose to fight a demotion due to lack of performance.
She ignored her doctor's advice and stayed on the job, raising her stress, and risk to her babies.
This woman knew what she was getting in to, and all of the risks. She should take some responsibility for her actions. If you can't do the job, then you should not expect the position.
Engineering is applied physics. Development is applied mathematics. So, you are correct. Developers are incorrect to call themselves engineers.
Secondly, there is a difference between software development and computer programming, which I think you are attempting to blur.
Secondly, why would a programmer have a right to work for more than a receptionist. Receptionists have a much worse job, it's only fair and democratic that those with more stimulating jobs get them in exchange for a lower wage.
Wages are based on two things. One, the amount of money your work creates. And two, the difficulty to replace you, ie your skill rarity.
One could ask why Michael Jordan made so much money. Obviously, anyone can play basketball, which after all, is only a game. The fact is that he could have arguably been called the best player in the world. So one, people paid a lot of money to see not just his team, but him on a regular basis. And two, since he was the best player in the world, he was irreplaceable.
Both software developers and programmers require special skills that take years of training and experience to acquire before even being qualified for an entry level position. That alone makes them rare, with the actual good ones being more rare. Not only are developers rare, but companies have built fortunes off of their work. So, one and two from above are easily covered.
A receptionist does not make a lot of money for the company. And a receptionist can be replaced by almost anyone walking off the street. Since they can not cover one and two above, they are paid poorly.
...you're not going to get VCs shoving money up your arse just because you can install Linux.
Now you are confusing administrators with programmers and developers.
Let's see... that was the speech where Bush declared the "end to major combat in Iraq". Sounds like a "Mission Accomplished" speech to me.
Only long after the speech did Bush flip-flop by saying that the fight in Iraq continues.
Bush has tried to distance himself from this banner by saying that the sign was put up by the Navy. That is literally correct, but deceptive. Some sailors did hang the sign. However, the sign itself was created by the White House.
That is just typical of Bush assigning responsibility elsewhere, especially to the military, and flip-flopping on their own pronouncements.
Me: Now we have our own terrorist breeding ground.
You: Technically, it's a terrorist killing ground.
Yeah, where the terrorists kill us. Great!
Terrorists are "breeding" all over the world, and have been for a long time.
Nevermind the fact that there were no terrorists in Iraq while Saddam was in power. I wonder where all the terrorists came from? Oh of course, they must have all come from outside of Iraq since the Iraqis have no reason whatsoever to hate us due to screwing up their country. They couldn't possibly have any ill will that before Americans came 100,000 of them were still alive. Oh, and they had electricity for their air conditioners, and clean, running water, and jobs to pay for all the food that they can't buy now. No of course, they can't be upset at anything we've done.
Nevermind the fact that we didn't seal the border and prevent any possible foreign terrorists from entering the country in the first place. Bush can't seal our own border here in the US, so it's not surprising he can't seal Iraq's border either.
If we've got a big honey-pot in the middle of the dessert where they simply can't resist engaging us (as opposed to driving trucks into our embassies in Africa or flying planes into our skyscrapers in New York) then hooray for our side.
Yes, hooray for us! Isn't that wonderful!!! Since we decided to take over someplace right in the middle of Arab nations, that makes our guys an easier target.
The fact is that we did win within a few days. Remember the "Mission Accomplished" speach? The problem is that we released almost all of Saddam's army, didn't guard the weapons depots, and didn't seal the borders. So, anyone could come across the borders, get a gun, find whatever remnants of Saddam's army is left and join the fight. Now we have our own terrorist breeding ground, all thanks to George Bush.
The problem is that the administration didn't plan past a few days. If you want to blame anyone for a short attention span, blame the administration.
These Indians may not be poor, but they certainly do the "shit work" mentioned in the great-grandparent message. Of course, "shit work" is a relative term to each society. But in America, working career-long in a convenience store is generally considered shit. I don't care if they actually own the store or not.
That discussion I brought up from from 7 years ago when Gates was the richest person in the world at approximately $100 billion. Over the time since then, his worth has gone down, but he is still the richest person in the world.
Europe has several problems against it. One, the Euro has appreciated enormously against the Dollar, making US goods and services far cheaper. Two, the US does not have the VAT, making for less bureaucracy when moving goods between states (analogous to European countries). Which brings up another benefit, all of our states are under one strong central government with English as the de-facto offical language. That makes business far easier, efficient, and profitable to conduct. That also makes our central government far more responsive and flexible than the EU. And finally, we don't have the level of taxes that take money out of consumers' hands and choke European economies.
There are several states that pull down the US GDP numbers as well. If you're going to count all of the US, then it is only fair to count all of Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
You must have missed these lines in my previous post:
If everyone, everywhere cashed out at the same time, then they would all have to pay taxes as well. Billy G would still be the pimpinest mofo on the block.
Wealth is wealth, pre-tax or post-tax. No one cares what these people have after taxes. I'm sure you'd love to dispute that, but frankly, I don't give a shit.
So, your solution is to try living without the corporations. Riiiight.
Q. Who made your Subaru stationwagon?
A. Big corporations.
Q. What powers your vehicle?
A. Biodiesel, partially from big corporations.
Q. What powers the farm equipment used by your local productors[sic]?
A. Gasoline, from big corporations.
Q. Who makes all the products sold by the independantly[sic] owned shops?
A. Big corporations.
And finally...
Q. Who made the computer and all it's parts that you're typing this on?
A. Big corporations.
You are deluding yourself if you think what you propose is enough to counteract the big corps. What you need to do is go a step further and live like the Amish.
Jerkoff, you assume that I don't vote.
Even so, you further assume that voting will help. Obviously, you missed my previous point that only the wealthy can afford to run for office. Hell, Ross Perot almost bought the presidency.
Even if a middle-class or poor citizen made it into office, they would then be bombarded by special interests funded by the rich. It takes extraordinary will to turn down that kind of money. From looking at our own government, I feel pretty safe to say that few people have an extraordinary will.
I'm not saying America doesn't have terrible wealth inequality, just that people have a tendancy to make up stats in this area :-)
Very cute, jerkoff. You find one source from seven years ago that shows I'm off by 6% and you think you've got me. Well, despite your assertion otherwise, I didn't make this shit up. Here's the proof from more than your one source.
Also, there is a very interesting Stanford study that shows that these numbers massively overstate the wealth of the richest Americans because they are gross numbers. Bill Gates has $26bn of Microsoft stock. *But*, if he sold it he'd have to pay capital gains taxes.
Screw that. If everyone, everywhere cashed out at the same time, then they would all have to pay taxes as well. Billy G would still be the pimpinest mofo on the block.
Wealth is wealth, pre-tax or post-tax. No one cares what these people have after taxes. I'm sure you'd love to dispute that, but frankly, I don't give a shit.
Not that he would sell all his Microsoft shares and give up control of his company. As it stands now, Gates is the center of the computer industry. He is more wealthy than whole nations. He exerts an inordinate amount of power due to that wealth and position. He has the ear of senators, representatives, the president, and foreign governments. Just recently, the head of Vietnam stopped by Microsoft in Redmond before going to the White House. And in a few weeks, the head of China will also stop by Seattle before heading to DC. If all these people want to talk to Gates before talking to Bush, then that certainly makes me wonder who is the most powerful man in the world.
Quit being lazy. Cut and paste that into google. There's your references.
By the same argument, I can claim that you're getting ripped off every time you buy something, just because the same item is available for a fraction of the cost in USD (taking into account the exchange rate) in some other country.
We're well aware of that. For example, everyone knows we're getting ripped off on drug prices. It's cheaper to buy drugs in Canada, so that's what many Americans do.
We could make an argument (by your logic) that you're being ripped off because you're paying $2000.00 in rent living in an expensive (and probably more desirable) area while you could get by with a $400.00 rent living in a cheaper, rural area.
First off, anyone paying rent is getting ripped off. You are just paying down someone else's mortgage when you could be paying down your own.
Second, the only people that have to pay $2000 rent live in uber-expensive housing markets like NYC or LA. Up here in the Seattle area, you can rent a nice, three bedroom apartment for half of that. When people choose to live in NYC or LA, they know full-well the costs involved.
Third, if you actually buy a place in Seattle and have to pay a $2000 mortgage, then it's very likely you are living in a nice house, in a nice neighborhood, and close to work. And when you come to sell your house in a few years, you will get far more than what you paid for it. In that way, a house is as much an investment as it is a place to live.
Taking those three things into account, and no one in the US is getting ripped off on housing costs.
Hope this further clarifies my stance on why comparing raw figures without taking into account any of these other factors like the cost of living does not make sense.
No, it does not. If your work otherwise commands $50,000, then you are getting ripped off by accepting $10,000. I don't care what your cost of living is.
In the end, the major cost saving for companies is *not* the lower salary (as you claim fast food workers in the US get), but about the *Exchange Rate*.
No, lowered salaries is the major cost savings. Companies can pay $10,000 for work that would otherwise cost $50,000. I'm sorry, but no exchange rate will save $40,000.
The sad thing is that your lower cost of living has deluded you into thinking that $10,000 is actually good money for what you do. You're doing work that would otherwise earn $50,000. In essence, you are getting ripped off by $40,000 that should be yours, whether your cost of living is lower or not.
On a side note, fast-food McDonalds workers make at least the minimum wage of $7.35 per hour here in Washington State, USA. That's about $15,000 per year for full time work. So yes, our fast food workers make more than you.
You are deluding yourself if you think you can limit the influence of the rich. The top 1% of Americans own 40-50% of the wealth in America, more than the bottom 95% combined. Bill Gates alone has more money than the bottom 45% of Americans combined.
The rich own and control the corporations. It used to be that America was a farm society where everyone was self-sufficient and didn't rely on anyone else. Good luck trying to live that lifestyle today. Now, everyone works for corporations. You do what they say, when they say it. They don't care about your free speach rights, they don't care about your right to carry a firearm, they don't care whether you can only work 60 hours this week, and they don't care that you're underpaid for the amount of money you generate for them. They'll take all that extra money you generate and give themselves an extra million dollar bonus. Tough shit for you. You just get the "prevailing wage" of what every other company is ripping off their workers for. You are their slave and they know it. Just try living without them.
Through the ownership of corporations, the rich control the media. The idea that the media is controlled by a bunch of independent liberals is long since past. The majority of the media outlets have combined under a few mega-corporations. They decide what you see on TV, what you hear on the radio, what you read in the paper and magazines, and what you see online in the main news outlets. Good luck trying to communicate a story they don't want passed along.
The rich own the politicians, both Democrat and Republican. If you have the money, you can pay to talk to the politician of your choice. Hell, if you have the money, you can attempt to buy the presidency like Ross Perot. As it stands, the wealthy are the only ones who can afford to run for political offices at all.
The rich own the courts. People like Heidi Fleiss, madame to the stars, get thrown in jail for prostitution, while all the famous and powerful people found in her client list go unouted and unprosecuted. People like Michael Jackson can and do get away with pedophilia. People like OJ Simpson can and do get away with murder. Bill Gates, richest man in the world, could come to your house right now and shoot you right between the eyes, in cold blood, for all the naughty things you say about Microsoft... and not a court in the world would convict him of your death.
Yet, with all this you think you can limit their power by just what, not shopping at Wal-Mart?! Give me a break. You are delusional.
...a number of CEOs somehow managed to trump college degrees with common sense.
...although it's getting harder even for smart people to "break in".
A small number. And these are generally special cases like Dave Thomas, the deceased former-CEO of Wendy's, who didn't graduate high school. The only thing special about him was that he founded the business and made it successful. Not too many people lose money selling popular hamburgers. The trick is figuring out how to make a cheap burger people like, which is more trial and error than rocket science.
Company Boards of Directors carefully choose CEOs. Education is of vital importance.
There are lots of successful non-degree holders out there...
I never said there wasn't. As I said previously, there are good-paying jobs out there that don't require degrees.
That's because there are now far more smart people who take the time to attend and complete college. When companies have the choice of a smart person with a college degree versus a smart person without a college degree, they'll pick the educated person every time. And they are correct in doing so considering it's guaranteed that the college educated candidate at one point knew everything covered by the degree. A business has no way of objectively finding what the uneducated person knows, knew, or the breadth of that knowledge. Granted, the college educated candidate could have forgotten everything, but they'll have a much easier time picking everything back up than the other candidate learning it for the first time.
Second, I have a masters in EE. It cost me 6 additional months (due to careful planning and some strong arming of school policies) and netted $20k/yr. What's wrong with that is that it shouldn't have happened. I only did it to work the system, I had no interest in being in school or what I was learning.
So, you cheated? You didn't take any masters-level courses? You aren't actually qualified to hold a masters degree?
Somehow, I don't think so. I know some schools allow students to take masters-level courses in their junior and senior years. In those cases, they have done the work of a masters candidate, so they graduate with a bachelors degree and quickly earn enough credit for their masters. Those people have done the work and do deserve the credit, regardless of their motivation.
Do companies really want that specialization, or the feeling of safety and security that comes from having someone with some more letters after his name?
Again, it depends on the position. Some positions require specialization, such as a MSCS for high-level software architecture positions. Some require letters, such as C-level and mid-management positions. Some positions require neither. And some positions require both.
The question thus far is whether you can get that level of specialization without college education. My position is no.
I know only one thing about an MBA: from the right school it's worth a whole lot of money, from the other schools, not a dime.
Of course. The fact that Devry and University of Phoenix exist does not negate the value of a MBA, unless it's from Devry or University of Phoenix.
I started a MBA, and dropped it when my first company started to tank. Why? The first crew to go were not the factory workers, nor the engineers, nor even the secretaries. The first to go where the MBAs in our finance, and program management groups.
Again, this does not negate the value of the MBA. The real question is how long would it take those people with MBAs and experience in finance and program managment to find another job paying just as much or more. Then, ask how long it would take factory workers, engineers, and secretaries to find a new job. The MBAs and engineers would find new work the fastest while the factory workers and secret
Could not one learn MBA material on his own, quicky, with sufficient prior training?
In a word, no.
I have bachelors degree in business management. You would be hard-pressed to get the same education I got at the bachelors level in economics, finance, accounting, business law, statistics, information systems, management, and marketing without going to college. A master's degree in business is far more challenging, requiring far more work and effort to attain. It would be nearly impossible for you to pick up all the knowledge that an MBA program provides without actually going through the program. That is partially why MBA's are so valued in the first place.
To put it in better perspective, would someone hire a guy into marketing because he seems to be very motivated, because he knows how to use Power Point, or because he has an MBA (assuming PhD's in marketing are silly ideas).
Depends on the marketing position. Some don't require a college degree, so someone who only has motivation or Power Point knowledge could be a good fit.
However, if the marketing position actually requires marketing knowledge, then only being motivated or only knowing Power Point isn't going to cut it. That person with the MBA is the only person qualified for the position.
Let's face it, most people bright and motivated enough to endure EE/CS degrees are looking to cash in.
Speak for yourself. I could have easily "cashed in" with my business management degree. However, I went back to school for 2 years to get a second bachelors in computer science. That happened because I realized too late into getting my first degree what I really wanted to do with my life.
After graduation, I struggled for 3 years to find a paying job using my computer science degree. Again, I could have easily found good paying work with my business management degree. But then, I wouldn't be doing what I really wanted to do.
1) The public school science and math classes are so dumbed down that "graduates" have an inflated view of their capabilities. When they get to University, they find courses in math and physical science way too hard. Thus they immediately runaway to other choices.
You: Fact 1 has what to do with religion vs. science?
Teaching religion as science in the case of ID is a "dumbing down" of science education. Skipping the teaching of evolution in science classes is a "dumbing down" of science education. You really can't understand modern biology without this education. Any high school student who aces a dumbed-down biology course is going to have an inflated view of themself when they hit a college course that is not dumbed-down. That student will have a much harder time in that reality-based college class.
2) There is a reward/difficulty issue that has nothing to do with religion. Most that could (with effort) complete a degree in the physical sciences see that lawyers, accountants, marketing specialists, etc. tend to make *more* money with less personal responsibility and greater choice of employers. Therefore they runwaway from more rigorous physical science options.
You: Fact 2 might be ameliorated by tort reform.
That doesn't change the fact that accountants, marketing specialists, and other business majors make more money, have less personal responsibility, and greater choice of employers than majors in physical sciences and engineering. And what was not previously mentioned is that physical science degrees require much more work.
3) The problem of offshoring/outsourcing. What person in their right mind is going to go for a minimum of 4 years at a respected computer science major at University when after graduation he will be in direct competition with guys in Bangalore that will work for $5/hour and be wealthy on a local basis?
You: "Fact" 3 is overblown. There are whole categories of business/financial problems that require knowledge of US specific laws and accepted practices. There are whole other classes of applications that require understanding of US business practices that isn't readily available in Bangalore.
Offshore outsourcing may be overblown. The cost savings from offshoring is 10-20% and will soon be overtaken by the double-digit wage increases that Indians are now demanding.
However, that doesn't account for companies actually moving offshore without outsourcing. We now see companies like HP laying off 14,000 people this year while hiring roughly the equivalent amount in India. Granted, these people weren't outsourced since the jobs stayed in HP. In the end, that's still 14,000 less jobs for American IT professionals.
There is no rational reason for getting a computer science degree in America when American businesses are so cavalier in laying off IT workers.
Interesting that the reviewer brings up Pokemon as influencing America, especially considering that Magic was around long before Pokemon and certainly influenced it. Magic comes from the Seattle area.
So please inform me how you've been coerced into using their software, and why you didn't use an alternative if one was available?
Try buying a computer without Microsoft Windows. All the big manufacturers require you to purchase that on almost all of their models. You have to look pretty thoroughly to find a system that doesn't include it. Good luck trying to find a Linux laptop from a major manufacturer.
Try buying a computer without Microsoft Works or Office. Again, all the big manufacturers include these software bundles whether you want them or not.
However, the pregnancy turned out to be demanding as well, making it so that she could not perform up to her prior level. They tried to do the right thing by moving her to a less demanding position rather than fire her for decreased output. But, she fought this logical move.
The point of the grandparent message was that this woman had several choices in this scenario:
- She chose sales, a demanding career by any standard.
- She chose to move up to an executive position, with tons more pressure.
- With all this pressure and the demand to perform, she chose to get pregnant.
- She chose to stay in the position, although she could not maintain her performance.
- She chose to fight a demotion due to lack of performance.
- She ignored her doctor's advice and stayed on the job, raising her stress, and risk to her babies.
This woman knew what she was getting in to, and all of the risks. She should take some responsibility for her actions. If you can't do the job, then you should not expect the position.Firstly, computer programming is not engineering.
...you're not going to get VCs shoving money up your arse just because you can install Linux.
Engineering is applied physics. Development is applied mathematics. So, you are correct. Developers are incorrect to call themselves engineers.
Secondly, there is a difference between software development and computer programming, which I think you are attempting to blur.
Secondly, why would a programmer have a right to work for more than a receptionist. Receptionists have a much worse job, it's only fair and democratic that those with more stimulating jobs get them in exchange for a lower wage.
Wages are based on two things. One, the amount of money your work creates. And two, the difficulty to replace you, ie your skill rarity.
One could ask why Michael Jordan made so much money. Obviously, anyone can play basketball, which after all, is only a game. The fact is that he could have arguably been called the best player in the world. So one, people paid a lot of money to see not just his team, but him on a regular basis. And two, since he was the best player in the world, he was irreplaceable.
Both software developers and programmers require special skills that take years of training and experience to acquire before even being qualified for an entry level position. That alone makes them rare, with the actual good ones being more rare. Not only are developers rare, but companies have built fortunes off of their work. So, one and two from above are easily covered.
A receptionist does not make a lot of money for the company. And a receptionist can be replaced by almost anyone walking off the street. Since they can not cover one and two above, they are paid poorly.
Now you are confusing administrators with programmers and developers.
I hate when the modders bring people down for speaking the truth.
IBM and HP both recently laid off 14,000 workers each. There should be plenty of brains out there, available for work.
Let's see... that was the speech where Bush declared the "end to major combat in Iraq". Sounds like a "Mission Accomplished" speech to me.
Only long after the speech did Bush flip-flop by saying that the fight in Iraq continues.
Bush has tried to distance himself from this banner by saying that the sign was put up by the Navy. That is literally correct, but deceptive. Some sailors did hang the sign. However, the sign itself was created by the White House.
That is just typical of Bush assigning responsibility elsewhere, especially to the military, and flip-flopping on their own pronouncements.
Me: Now we have our own terrorist breeding ground.
You: Technically, it's a terrorist killing ground.
Yeah, where the terrorists kill us. Great!
Terrorists are "breeding" all over the world, and have been for a long time.
Nevermind the fact that there were no terrorists in Iraq while Saddam was in power. I wonder where all the terrorists came from? Oh of course, they must have all come from outside of Iraq since the Iraqis have no reason whatsoever to hate us due to screwing up their country. They couldn't possibly have any ill will that before Americans came 100,000 of them were still alive. Oh, and they had electricity for their air conditioners, and clean, running water, and jobs to pay for all the food that they can't buy now. No of course, they can't be upset at anything we've done.
Nevermind the fact that we didn't seal the border and prevent any possible foreign terrorists from entering the country in the first place. Bush can't seal our own border here in the US, so it's not surprising he can't seal Iraq's border either.
If we've got a big honey-pot in the middle of the dessert where they simply can't resist engaging us (as opposed to driving trucks into our embassies in Africa or flying planes into our skyscrapers in New York) then hooray for our side.
Yes, hooray for us! Isn't that wonderful!!! Since we decided to take over someplace right in the middle of Arab nations, that makes our guys an easier target.
You really went offtopic.
The fact is that we did win within a few days. Remember the "Mission Accomplished" speach? The problem is that we released almost all of Saddam's army, didn't guard the weapons depots, and didn't seal the borders. So, anyone could come across the borders, get a gun, find whatever remnants of Saddam's army is left and join the fight. Now we have our own terrorist breeding ground, all thanks to George Bush.
The problem is that the administration didn't plan past a few days. If you want to blame anyone for a short attention span, blame the administration.
These Indians may not be poor, but they certainly do the "shit work" mentioned in the great-grandparent message. Of course, "shit work" is a relative term to each society. But in America, working career-long in a convenience store is generally considered shit. I don't care if they actually own the store or not.
Lol... I think I'll make that my sig.
That discussion I brought up from from 7 years ago when Gates was the richest person in the world at approximately $100 billion. Over the time since then, his worth has gone down, but he is still the richest person in the world.
Europe has several problems against it. One, the Euro has appreciated enormously against the Dollar, making US goods and services far cheaper. Two, the US does not have the VAT, making for less bureaucracy when moving goods between states (analogous to European countries). Which brings up another benefit, all of our states are under one strong central government with English as the de-facto offical language. That makes business far easier, efficient, and profitable to conduct. That also makes our central government far more responsive and flexible than the EU. And finally, we don't have the level of taxes that take money out of consumers' hands and choke European economies.
There are several states that pull down the US GDP numbers as well. If you're going to count all of the US, then it is only fair to count all of Europe.