The Constitution was written "to form a more perfect Union" than the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution had stated that "the union shall be perpetual." Thus secession was a legal impossibility.
The legitimate government of the US had every right to come to the south and put down a rebel insurgence. If anyone was being aggressive, it was the rebels who took up arms against the legitimate northern forces in the first place.
The Constitution was written "to form a more perfect Union" than the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution had stated that "the union shall be perpetual." Thus secession was a legal impossibility.
The whole point of the article was to show that Washington state has the highest pay in the nation. I can't tell you why you're still in overpriced Silicon Valley.
I tried offering below market rates during my job search last year and got nowhere. Companies in my location only look overseas for below market rates now, not in the US.
Chinese, Indian, and US wages do not have to become equal before it becomes unprofitable for US companies to stop shipping work to China or India. In fact, shipping work overseas becomes unprofitable long before equality is reached. Even today, 44% of companies say outsourced projects did not save any money. 25% of the companies have brought functions back in-house after realizing they could be addressed more successfully and at lower costs. If costs go up in China or India at all, then it's likely US outsourcing would stop.
I was specifically speaking about IT in my previous arguments, but I will address your manufacturing statement now. Raw materials are not the main cost in manufacturing in any developed country. Labor is. China is not a developed country yet, but it is quickly getting there. I've already read of cases where Chinese factories are having problems getting the cheap country workers that they've historically relied upon. That means wages will start going up, independently of any currency move. When you have salaries increase in China, then the prices of those goods will increase and less Chinese goods will be sold in the US. That will become more evident once the peg is released and currency differences come into effect as well.
There is also the logistical problem of creating goods for a market halfway around the globe. With oil over $50/barrel, shipping prices for large goods, such as cars and refrigerators, can outrun savings on labor. Shipping prices for smaller goods may still be profitable, but certainly less profitable. We've already seen decreased manufacturing sent to China.
Free market economics is pure bullshit in this argument. Every country has a legitimate right to dictate who may or may not enter their country. People are not trade goods.
So, you say we should artifically increase the supply of workers in the US. What's the affect of that? Well, we've seen mass layoffs in the US. Now there are more people competing for fewer jobs. That's translated to lower wages as well. There are now fewer applications to computer science departments because US students actually want a job when they graduate from such a grueling program as computer science. So, there will be less US IT workers in the future, making us more dependent on those foreign sources of labor.
I prefer to see the US become stronger, not weaker.
To answer your question, I'd prefer to have the foreign workers outside the US. Right now the value of the dollar is too high since China is pegging the value of its currency to the dollar, in effect artificially propping up the value of the dollar. Luckily, the declining value of the dollar has put additional pressure on them to release that peg. We've already seen the rupee increase its value while the dollar has gone down. The value of both the yuan and the rupee will shoot past the dollar once China releases that peg. At some point, the cost of shipping work overseas will outweigh the cost of keeping work here.
That would leave the entire US market for US IT workers. Wages will go back up and students will become interested in computer science again. The US will be less dependent on foreign sources of labor and self-sufficient once again.
From looking at tons of job listings, employers seem to only want a laundry list of certain programming languages and applications. Anyone with a CS degree from a decent school can become proficient in any of those languages or applications in as little as two weeks. Any "specific technology" requirements are therefore irrelevant when dealing with someone who possesses a CS degree. Those laundry lists are only good for those without a CS degree and therefore unproven skills.
CS programs require a great amount of group work in which you must "coordinate with multiple other people". Your grade in the class is often dependent on both the success of your combined product, but also how your classmates rate you and your participation in said project. So, that complaint is irrelevant.
As for the ability to "communicate with the customer (whoever specifies the requirements)", that can be seen as communicating with the professor. Professors determine the requirements, which are not often clear. Students must determine and fulfill the requirements of their projects from these very demanding people. The fact that you must deal with multiple professors every single quarter and from every single class you take means that you have a great deal of experience communicating requirements by graduation. So, that complaint is irrelevant.
Your last three complaints, "perform first-level quality assurance (unit testing, et al.), design interdependent systems, and encode processes in a computer language" are frankly bullshit. ALL of those things are done in computer science courses.
Programmers are not software engineers. It's the same difference as between a carpenter and a structural engineer. One might be good at building, but the other knows a little of everything regarding design. One might know some things to design a house, the other is guaranteed to know the information to design a house. Which would you trust to design your house? Which would you trust to design your mission critical software? You wouldn't want just a programmer.
Interesting scenario. However, the rupee is going up while the dollar continues to decline. Once China stops pegging the value of its currency to the dollar, the yuan will go up while the dollar will decline further.
My point? Even if foreign companies get good enough to compete with US companies, they won't be able to compete on cost as the dollar declines and comes into equilibrium with their currencies.
If you create artificially high supply of workers by enticing foreigners here, then less domestic students will enter computer science courses. Eventually, those foreigners aren't going to want to come here because they'll be able to make just as much money in their own country. Then we'll be double-screwed because we won't be able to get foreign or domestic workers.
Let's see, standards went way up over the last 5 years because there was an over-supply of workers. Someone coming out of college during that time couldn't even find entry level work because of this. They were the ones telling all their friends not to get into computer science.
So, now employers are complaining because they have to compete for workers again and can't get the creme of the crop that they could 5 years ago. I say GOOD! Offering entry level jobs is a good thing, since that's the fresh blood that'll keep our industry going. WHEN we get a healthy entry level market again, THEN we'll see enrollments in computer science go up.
The only people I've seen who denigrate Computer Science education are those who've never been through it. Every CS class that I went through had at least a third of the class drop out before it was over because it was so damn hard. Some actually tough classes had a higher dropout rate.
Frankly, these same people who denigrate CS education often have huge holes in their own knowledge. However, without that education, they can't see their own deficiencies. They are literally ignorant in whole sections of computer science.
He's probably referring to this survey which actually states high-tech workers in Washington state are the best paid in the nation with salaries averaging $94,600 a year.
IT companies have been bleeding workers for the last five years. During that time, new college graduates have also been unable to find entry level work. There are excellent workers in both of those groups.
This has nothing to do with finding the best employees and everything to do with finding the cheapest employees.
There will always be some IT jobs kept in the US. If anything, companies need programmers, testers, systems analysts, and program managers who understand our society and the way things work here. If you start handing those jobs out to foreigners as well, then there is no sanctuary for domestic IT workers.
People can make individual donations through more anonymous sources such as children or grandparents.
These shots were fired straight at the corporations involved. The message is that support of non-Republican parties will not be tolerated by this administration. Republicans want these corporations to get their people under control and line up behind the party, or else the companies will lose out on the benefits afforded them by the President.
What is scary would be the next step along these lines. For example, Costco is a well known company that gives to Democratic causes. Bush certainly knows this. What if he wanted to make life difficult for Costco? As President, he could significantly hurt any company known for their Democratic party donations.
The beliefs of one's church do not necessarily match the beliefs of the individual. One can easily see that demonstrated from all the PopeTV going on these last few weeks. Liberal Catholics have bemoaned the election of Cardinal Ratsigner to due to his conservative views.
Sounds like Nokia isn't putting up with this. Their VP is totally correct- an international meeting on telecom is not a partisan matter.
Bush is biting the hand that feeds him and the Republican party. He will change his mind once the telecom companies start threatening to close their pocketbooks. If not, this will only help the Democrats in the future.
People without a CS degree are literally ignorant in certain sections of computer science. Certainly, some people may be able on their own to get the same broad and deep knowledge that a CS degreee provides. However, a potential employer would never know if you have covered all the topics that a degree program covers. It's unlikely that you would know either.
As I said previously, the communist party still controls China with an iron fist. Given that, any captialist reforms or apparent holdings are meaningless. If the communists wanted to nationalize the holdings of private parties, then they could do so in an instant. Any capitalists would be powerless to stop them.
From the CIA World Factbook: (Sorry about the poor formatting, this is how the CIA lists the info)
In late 1978 the Chinese leadership began moving the economy from a sluggish, inefficient, Soviet-style centrally planned economy to a more market-oriented system. Whereas the system operates within a political framework of strict Communist control, the economic influence of non-state organizations and individual citizens has been steadily increasing. The authorities switched to a system of household and village responsibility in agriculture in place of the old collectivization, increased the authority of local officials and plant managers in industry, permitted a wide variety of small-scale enterprises in services and light manufacturing, and opened the economy to increased foreign trade and investment. The result has been a quadrupling of GDP since 1978. Measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, China in 2003 stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US, although in per capita terms the country is still poor. Agriculture and industry have posted major gains especially in coastal areas near Hong Kong, opposite Taiwan, and in Shanghai, where foreign investment has helped spur output of both domestic and export goods. The leadership, however, often has experienced - as a result of its hybrid system - the worst results of socialism (bureaucracy and lassitude) and of capitalism (growing income disparities and rising unemployment). China thus has periodically backtracked, retightening central controls at intervals. The government has struggled to (a) sustain adequate jobs growth for tens of millions of workers laid off from state-owned enterprises, migrants, and new entrants to the work force; (b) reduce corruption and other economic crimes; and (c) keep afloat the large state-owned enterprises, many of which had been shielded from competition by subsidies and had been losing the ability to pay full wages and pensions. From 80 to 120 million surplus rural workers are adrift between the villages and the cities, many subsisting through part-time, low-paying jobs. Popular resistance, changes in central policy, and loss of authority by rural cadres have weakened China's population control program, which is essential to maintaining long-term growth in living standards. Another long-term threat to growth is the deterioration in the environment, notably air pollution, soil erosion, and the steady fall of the water table especially in the north. China continues to lose arable land because of erosion and economic development. Beijing says it will intensify efforts to stimulate growth through spending on infrastructure - such as water supply and power grids - and poverty relief and through rural tax reform. Accession to the World Trade Organization helps strengthen its ability to maintain strong growth rates but at the same time puts additional pressure on the hybrid system of strong political controls and growing market influences. China has benefited from a huge expansion in computer internet use. Foreign investment remains a strong element in China's remarkable economic growth. Growing shortages of electric power and raw materials will hold back the expansion of industrial output in 2004.
State-owned enterprises shielded from competition is a mark of a non-capitalist economy. Central control is a mark of a non-capitalist economy. Having a communist government is a mark of a non-capitalist economy.
Certainly, some advancement toward capitalism has been made. But, China is still communist. And China can never become fully capitalist until they remove their communist government.
Slashdot Mirror
The Constitution was written "to form a more perfect Union" than the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution had stated that "the union shall be perpetual." Thus secession was a legal impossibility.
The legitimate government of the US had every right to come to the south and put down a rebel insurgence. If anyone was being aggressive, it was the rebels who took up arms against the legitimate northern forces in the first place.
The Constitution was written "to form a more perfect Union" than the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution had stated that "the union shall be perpetual." Thus secession was a legal impossibility.
High priced is not the correct term. Overpriced is.
The whole point of the article was to show that Washington state has the highest pay in the nation. I can't tell you why you're still in overpriced Silicon Valley.
I tried offering below market rates during my job search last year and got nowhere. Companies in my location only look overseas for below market rates now, not in the US.
Chinese, Indian, and US wages do not have to become equal before it becomes unprofitable for US companies to stop shipping work to China or India. In fact, shipping work overseas becomes unprofitable long before equality is reached. Even today, 44% of companies say outsourced projects did not save any money. 25% of the companies have brought functions back in-house after realizing they could be addressed more successfully and at lower costs. If costs go up in China or India at all, then it's likely US outsourcing would stop.
I was specifically speaking about IT in my previous arguments, but I will address your manufacturing statement now. Raw materials are not the main cost in manufacturing in any developed country. Labor is. China is not a developed country yet, but it is quickly getting there. I've already read of cases where Chinese factories are having problems getting the cheap country workers that they've historically relied upon. That means wages will start going up, independently of any currency move. When you have salaries increase in China, then the prices of those goods will increase and less Chinese goods will be sold in the US. That will become more evident once the peg is released and currency differences come into effect as well.
There is also the logistical problem of creating goods for a market halfway around the globe. With oil over $50/barrel, shipping prices for large goods, such as cars and refrigerators, can outrun savings on labor. Shipping prices for smaller goods may still be profitable, but certainly less profitable. We've already seen decreased manufacturing sent to China.
Free market economics is pure bullshit in this argument. Every country has a legitimate right to dictate who may or may not enter their country. People are not trade goods.
So, you say we should artifically increase the supply of workers in the US. What's the affect of that? Well, we've seen mass layoffs in the US. Now there are more people competing for fewer jobs. That's translated to lower wages as well. There are now fewer applications to computer science departments because US students actually want a job when they graduate from such a grueling program as computer science. So, there will be less US IT workers in the future, making us more dependent on those foreign sources of labor.
I prefer to see the US become stronger, not weaker.
To answer your question, I'd prefer to have the foreign workers outside the US. Right now the value of the dollar is too high since China is pegging the value of its currency to the dollar, in effect artificially propping up the value of the dollar. Luckily, the declining value of the dollar has put additional pressure on them to release that peg. We've already seen the rupee increase its value while the dollar has gone down. The value of both the yuan and the rupee will shoot past the dollar once China releases that peg. At some point, the cost of shipping work overseas will outweigh the cost of keeping work here.
That would leave the entire US market for US IT workers. Wages will go back up and students will become interested in computer science again. The US will be less dependent on foreign sources of labor and self-sufficient once again.
From looking at tons of job listings, employers seem to only want a laundry list of certain programming languages and applications. Anyone with a CS degree from a decent school can become proficient in any of those languages or applications in as little as two weeks. Any "specific technology" requirements are therefore irrelevant when dealing with someone who possesses a CS degree. Those laundry lists are only good for those without a CS degree and therefore unproven skills.
CS programs require a great amount of group work in which you must "coordinate with multiple other people". Your grade in the class is often dependent on both the success of your combined product, but also how your classmates rate you and your participation in said project. So, that complaint is irrelevant.
As for the ability to "communicate with the customer (whoever specifies the requirements)", that can be seen as communicating with the professor. Professors determine the requirements, which are not often clear. Students must determine and fulfill the requirements of their projects from these very demanding people. The fact that you must deal with multiple professors every single quarter and from every single class you take means that you have a great deal of experience communicating requirements by graduation. So, that complaint is irrelevant.
Your last three complaints, "perform first-level quality assurance (unit testing, et al.), design interdependent systems, and encode processes in a computer language" are frankly bullshit. ALL of those things are done in computer science courses.
Programmers are not software engineers. It's the same difference as between a carpenter and a structural engineer. One might be good at building, but the other knows a little of everything regarding design. One might know some things to design a house, the other is guaranteed to know the information to design a house. Which would you trust to design your house? Which would you trust to design your mission critical software? You wouldn't want just a programmer.
Interesting scenario. However, the rupee is going up while the dollar continues to decline. Once China stops pegging the value of its currency to the dollar, the yuan will go up while the dollar will decline further.
My point? Even if foreign companies get good enough to compete with US companies, they won't be able to compete on cost as the dollar declines and comes into equilibrium with their currencies.
If you create artificially high supply of workers by enticing foreigners here, then less domestic students will enter computer science courses. Eventually, those foreigners aren't going to want to come here because they'll be able to make just as much money in their own country. Then we'll be double-screwed because we won't be able to get foreign or domestic workers.
Let's see, standards went way up over the last 5 years because there was an over-supply of workers. Someone coming out of college during that time couldn't even find entry level work because of this. They were the ones telling all their friends not to get into computer science.
So, now employers are complaining because they have to compete for workers again and can't get the creme of the crop that they could 5 years ago. I say GOOD! Offering entry level jobs is a good thing, since that's the fresh blood that'll keep our industry going. WHEN we get a healthy entry level market again, THEN we'll see enrollments in computer science go up.
Maybe if you went to ITT. If you actually went to a decent school, that would not happen.
The only people I've seen who denigrate Computer Science education are those who've never been through it. Every CS class that I went through had at least a third of the class drop out before it was over because it was so damn hard. Some actually tough classes had a higher dropout rate.
Frankly, these same people who denigrate CS education often have huge holes in their own knowledge. However, without that education, they can't see their own deficiencies. They are literally ignorant in whole sections of computer science.
He's probably referring to this survey which actually states high-tech workers in Washington state are the best paid in the nation with salaries averaging $94,600 a year.
The average for Washington state is actually more, $94,600.
IT companies have been bleeding workers for the last five years. During that time, new college graduates have also been unable to find entry level work. There are excellent workers in both of those groups.
This has nothing to do with finding the best employees and everything to do with finding the cheapest employees.
If you have 500 resumes and you can't find 12 candidates, then you're just too damn picky. Period.
This is supply and demand folks. If you can't find the supply, then demand less. Don't screw us all by attempting to artificially increase the supply.
The quality of US schools have not decreased. The only decrease there are the number of students.
There will always be some IT jobs kept in the US. If anything, companies need programmers, testers, systems analysts, and program managers who understand our society and the way things work here. If you start handing those jobs out to foreigners as well, then there is no sanctuary for domestic IT workers.
People can make individual donations through more anonymous sources such as children or grandparents.
These shots were fired straight at the corporations involved. The message is that support of non-Republican parties will not be tolerated by this administration. Republicans want these corporations to get their people under control and line up behind the party, or else the companies will lose out on the benefits afforded them by the President.
What is scary would be the next step along these lines. For example, Costco is a well known company that gives to Democratic causes. Bush certainly knows this. What if he wanted to make life difficult for Costco? As President, he could significantly hurt any company known for their Democratic party donations.
The beliefs of one's church do not necessarily match the beliefs of the individual. One can easily see that demonstrated from all the PopeTV going on these last few weeks. Liberal Catholics have bemoaned the election of Cardinal Ratsigner to due to his conservative views.
Sounds like Nokia isn't putting up with this. Their VP is totally correct- an international meeting on telecom is not a partisan matter.
Bush is biting the hand that feeds him and the Republican party. He will change his mind once the telecom companies start threatening to close their pocketbooks. If not, this will only help the Democrats in the future.
People without a CS degree are literally ignorant in certain sections of computer science. Certainly, some people may be able on their own to get the same broad and deep knowledge that a CS degreee provides. However, a potential employer would never know if you have covered all the topics that a degree program covers. It's unlikely that you would know either.
That is why I wrote non-capitalist and not communist.
As I said previously, the communist party still controls China with an iron fist. Given that, any captialist reforms or apparent holdings are meaningless. If the communists wanted to nationalize the holdings of private parties, then they could do so in an instant. Any capitalists would be powerless to stop them.
-
In late 1978 the Chinese leadership began moving the economy from a sluggish, inefficient, Soviet-style centrally planned economy to a more market-oriented system. Whereas the system operates within a political framework of strict Communist control, the economic influence of non-state organizations and individual citizens has been steadily increasing. The authorities switched to a system of household and village responsibility in agriculture in place of the old collectivization, increased the authority of local officials and plant managers in industry, permitted a wide variety of small-scale enterprises in services and light manufacturing, and opened the economy to increased foreign trade and investment. The result has been a quadrupling of GDP since 1978. Measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, China in 2003 stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US, although in per capita terms the country is still poor. Agriculture and industry have posted major gains especially in coastal areas near Hong Kong, opposite Taiwan, and in Shanghai, where foreign investment has helped spur output of both domestic and export goods. The leadership, however, often has experienced - as a result of its hybrid system - the worst results of socialism (bureaucracy and lassitude) and of capitalism (growing income disparities and rising unemployment). China thus has periodically backtracked, retightening central controls at intervals. The government has struggled to (a) sustain adequate jobs growth for tens of millions of workers laid off from state-owned enterprises, migrants, and new entrants to the work force; (b) reduce corruption and other economic crimes; and (c) keep afloat the large state-owned enterprises, many of which had been shielded from competition by subsidies and had been losing the ability to pay full wages and pensions. From 80 to 120 million surplus rural workers are adrift between the villages and the cities, many subsisting through part-time, low-paying jobs. Popular resistance, changes in central policy, and loss of authority by rural cadres have weakened China's population control program, which is essential to maintaining long-term growth in living standards. Another long-term threat to growth is the deterioration in the environment, notably air pollution, soil erosion, and the steady fall of the water table especially in the north. China continues to lose arable land because of erosion and economic development. Beijing says it will intensify efforts to stimulate growth through spending on infrastructure - such as water supply and power grids - and poverty relief and through rural tax reform. Accession to the World Trade Organization helps strengthen its ability to maintain strong growth rates but at the same time puts additional pressure on the hybrid system of strong political controls and growing market influences. China has benefited from a huge expansion in computer internet use. Foreign investment remains a strong element in China's remarkable economic growth. Growing shortages of electric power and raw materials will hold back the expansion of industrial output in 2004.
State-owned enterprises shielded from competition is a mark of a non-capitalist economy. Central control is a mark of a non-capitalist economy. Having a communist government is a mark of a non-capitalist economy.Certainly, some advancement toward capitalism has been made. But, China is still communist. And China can never become fully capitalist until they remove their communist government.