But what if you can afford to pay Indian Java developer wages? See, that's the issue.
If you disagree with that, you may want to stop shopping in Wal-mart or in any other store where low prices are only possible because of foreign cheap labor.
It's easy to look back at things that happened 150 years ago and then put people in the Right or Wrong columns.
Yes, it is. If you find it difficult, the ones who thought other humans should be their property are the ones in the "Wrong" column.
100 years is enough: If you want to deny the right to vote based on the presence or absence of an X and Y chromosome, you are also "Wrong".
70 years is also enough: If you knowingly aided in the genocide of another group, you are also "Wrong".
Even 50 years is enough: If you think people shouldn't be allowed to vote, purely on the basis of the skin color they are born with, you are also "Wrong".
Here's a nice general tip: If you don't want it actively done to you, don't actively do it to others - it's probably wrong.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. If the expression "Monday morning quarterback" is not clear enough for you, what about "hindsight is 20/20"?
Who's "us"? Are you a spokesperson of some group, or do you just lack the backbone to speak for yourself? I can see how it can be more comforting for you to identify with a vague pool of people where your shallow, binary understanding of the world is easier to hide. But really, there's nobody behind or besides you, so why don't you man up.
Out of courtesy I'll summarize things one last time: the North and South did not fight over slavery, they fought over economic power, and hostilities started after Southern states walked away from a country where they did not feel they had a say in decisions made at the national level. There's no "truth" or "lie" to hide here. It was just people with conflicting economic agendas, as it often happens, and the winners made sure to paint themselves as noble heroes, which also often happens. That's all.
It's easy to look back at things that happened 150 years ago and then put people in the Right or Wrong columns. That's the Monday morning quarterback syndrome.
If you want wisdom, here it is: there hasn't been a single armed conflict in History that opposed Good People and Bad People. Things are always more complicated than that. The more strongly you believe that one side in a specific conflict was "right", the less you know about said conflict. If you don't have the intellectual humility to accept that, you're vastly overestimating your capacity to see the big picture.
Have you heard of Charles A. Beard? It's a famous historian of the early 20th century. His take on the Civil War sums things up:
social cataclysm in which the capitalists, laborers, and farmers of the North and West drove from power in the national government the planting aristocracy of the South
Obviously nowadays it is more politically correct to place the concerns of the slaves suffering as the top of Lincoln's list. Which is about as convincing as Bush and his "reasons" to invade Iraq.
What happened in the civil war is simple. The South had a huge economic advantage because of slavery. That's the part that bothered the North. The economic part - not the freedom for Black people (who were still second-class citizens in New York or Washington a century later). The whole thing was bullshit wrapped in lies and propaganda.
So when the North elected "their" President, which wasn't even on the ballot in the South, many Southern states called it quits and founded the CSA. Which was unacceptable for the North as they needed the Southern states as trade partners. War ensued.
The outcome: 1 million people died, and the winning side, the North, rewrote history to give themselves the nice role as winners usually do.
But of course try to raise that issue and automatically you're deemed "pro-slavery" or worse. Typical.
You really like that quote, you've been using it twice in this thread. Maybe you should get it framed or something. That's probably the only Republican president you don't badmouth.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Well that's in the context of the North using slavery as a pretext to destroy the South's economy, so I'll take a pass on the infinite wisdom of this quote.
Why don't you name that company? Funny how such hard evidence is always "some company I know". A "straight 5 billion in net profit" puts that company in a very, very small list.
Not to say that all layoffs are justified. Just look at the disgusting thing that happened at Radio Shack where new executives fired all experienced staff, paid themselves huge bonuses based on "cost savings" and drove the company straight into bankruptcy.
But still. The purpose of a company is to make money, not to give jobs to people. You'll get that if at some point you create a company of your own.
Funny how that same reasoning doesn't seem to keep prices to the consumer from rising. And it sure doesn't influence CEO salaries. Why not bring in an H1B, there are plenty of well qualified European CEOs accustomed to working for a fraction of what an American CEO costs.
I just did a bit of googling on this matter and it is truly amazing. Did you know that Yahoo's CFO (the chief bean counter) made 50% more money last year than the CEO of SAP? Yet SAP make 4x more money than Yahoo.
Other interesting figures:
HP: CEO makes 20 millions, (100 billions revenue, 5 billions profit) Microsoft: CEO makes 84 millions, (100 billions revenue, 12 billions profit) Apple: CEO makes 9 millions, (200 billions revenue, 40 billions profit) JP Morgan: CEO makes 20 millions, (50 billions revenue, 22 billions profit)
and my favorite: Twitter: CEO makes 24 millions (1.4 billions revenue, -500 millions profit)
Meanwhile in Europe: SAP: CEO makes 9 millions (18 billions revenu, 4 billions profit) VW: CEO makes 23 millions (200 billions revenues, 12 billions profit)
Well I tried to find more European IT companies but there isn't a lot that are in the multi-billions dollars income bracket.
the problem with "pay more" is that there's often a huge discrepancy between what a company can afford and what experienced people think they're worth.
What people think they're worth? If you can't find workers at a given price point, it means they're worth more than you think.
That's exactly where the visa workers show up. You have to put them in the demand/offer equation because they exist, they are cheap, and they are for the most part as qualified as the American equivalent with a 40% discount. And that's for the most part India staff.
Here's the kicker. India is a drop in the ocean. China is currently mass-producing engineers. For the moment they are extremely low-quality engineers because the school system is weak and the learning opportunities are not fantastic. But 8 millions grads per year - that's still 3x more than in the US. There is no way but upwards for Chinese IT workers and soon Indians will be the exception.
When those floodgates open, let's see how much trouble you have finding work at your "price point". It's a ticking bomb, or what people in Silicon Valley call "disruptive" (until it's their own industry that gets disrupted).
the problem with "pay more" is that there's often a huge discrepancy between what a company can afford and what experienced people think they're worth.
It's a problem which fixes itself pretty quickly as the experienced people run out of money. Except they don't seem to be running out of money so someone must be paying them what they think they're worth. Therefore the problem isn't with them.
Haven't you noticed the clear shift towards IT companies hiring less experienced workers? How often do you think people with 12-15 years of programming experience interview at Amazon or Google?
Next time you hear about the talent shortage in IT and the companies raiding college to grab people who haven't even finished their degree, read the fine print. There's a shortage of IT talent in the 0-4 years of experience. People with more experienced are not considered. Remember that blog post? http://unemployable.pen.io/
The IT world today is young staff and/or visa workers. Experienced people have to either accept a lower salary or hang on to whatever job they have, because they are no in demand. I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying this is how it is.
Heard all the same bullshit about those "dangerous" Japanese cars and those "low-quality" Mexican factories. Same same same.
Strange, I don't see you or other America First zealots throwing your iPhone in the hazardous materials bin. Yet all the manufacturing is done offshore, and large part of the software is written by visa workers. (Apple signs up an extra 1500 IT visa workers or so every year).
Sooner or later, someone will figure out that labor comes first. It precedes capital. There is no capital without labor to make it happen.
Of course, "capitalism" is a sacrilege. Someone putting his money at risk to run a business is a piece of shit, while the people who get paid by the week for their time are the real heroes.
I guess that's why all countries following the teachings of Marx (who said basically the same thing you are) were so hugely successful.
We got bought out by Paychex, but even that couldn't help us get any experienced people.
Pay more. If you can't get experienced people, it's because you're not paying enough.
the problem with "pay more" is that there's often a huge discrepancy between what a company can afford and what experienced people think they're worth.That's the whole reason why so many companies jump on the visa workers thing. Just like it happened in the auto industry, workers got used to high wages and are unwilling to consider the actual value of their contribution in a world where programming is now a commodity, so they end up replaced by cheap labor from a developing country. Same thing that happened to helpdesk, then sysadmins.
Of course it's easier to blame everything on pure greed from those evil companies, but see how much good this did in Detroit.
My Brother HL1030, on the other hand, is on its fifth toner refill (and second fuser) in the time I've had it, now well over 100,000 pages printed over the last seven years.
That's 40 pages per day, 7 days a week, for 7 years. I hope what you're printing is used to save orphans or something, because you personally have killed 10 trees. Future generations are thankful.
Epson stock price has dropped about 40% in the last year, and the company has paid dividends in the range of $0.20 - $0.60 per share over the last few years.
Roughly this means that in order to use his Epson income to buy an 8 ball of coke to be snorted on the ass of a hooker, a shareholder needed in 2015 to have an Epson position that took a $800 dive in the last 12 month, and which is unlikely to turn black anytime soon. That amount excludes the price of the hooker, the coat check and the valet service.
Slashdot Mirror
But what if you can afford to pay Indian Java developer wages? See, that's the issue.
If you disagree with that, you may want to stop shopping in Wal-mart or in any other store where low prices are only possible because of foreign cheap labor.
It's easy to look back at things that happened 150 years ago and then put people in the Right or Wrong columns.
Yes, it is. If you find it difficult, the ones who thought other humans should be their property are the ones in the "Wrong" column.
100 years is enough: If you want to deny the right to vote based on the presence or absence of an X and Y chromosome, you are also "Wrong".
70 years is also enough: If you knowingly aided in the genocide of another group, you are also "Wrong".
Even 50 years is enough: If you think people shouldn't be allowed to vote, purely on the basis of the skin color they are born with, you are also "Wrong".
Here's a nice general tip: If you don't want it actively done to you, don't actively do it to others - it's probably wrong.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. If the expression "Monday morning quarterback" is not clear enough for you, what about "hindsight is 20/20"?
What will you regale us with next?
Who's "us"? Are you a spokesperson of some group, or do you just lack the backbone to speak for yourself? I can see how it can be more comforting for you to identify with a vague pool of people where your shallow, binary understanding of the world is easier to hide. But really, there's nobody behind or besides you, so why don't you man up.
Out of courtesy I'll summarize things one last time: the North and South did not fight over slavery, they fought over economic power, and hostilities started after Southern states walked away from a country where they did not feel they had a say in decisions made at the national level. There's no "truth" or "lie" to hide here. It was just people with conflicting economic agendas, as it often happens, and the winners made sure to paint themselves as noble heroes, which also often happens. That's all.
It's easy to look back at things that happened 150 years ago and then put people in the Right or Wrong columns. That's the Monday morning quarterback syndrome.
If you want wisdom, here it is: there hasn't been a single armed conflict in History that opposed Good People and Bad People. Things are always more complicated than that. The more strongly you believe that one side in a specific conflict was "right", the less you know about said conflict. If you don't have the intellectual humility to accept that, you're vastly overestimating your capacity to see the big picture.
Have you heard of Charles A. Beard? It's a famous historian of the early 20th century. His take on the Civil War sums things up:
social cataclysm in which the capitalists, laborers, and farmers of the North and West drove from power in the national government the planting aristocracy of the South
Obviously nowadays it is more politically correct to place the concerns of the slaves suffering as the top of Lincoln's list. Which is about as convincing as Bush and his "reasons" to invade Iraq.
What happened in the civil war is simple. The South had a huge economic advantage because of slavery. That's the part that bothered the North. The economic part - not the freedom for Black people (who were still second-class citizens in New York or Washington a century later). The whole thing was bullshit wrapped in lies and propaganda.
So when the North elected "their" President, which wasn't even on the ballot in the South, many Southern states called it quits and founded the CSA. Which was unacceptable for the North as they needed the Southern states as trade partners. War ensued.
The outcome: 1 million people died, and the winning side, the North, rewrote history to give themselves the nice role as winners usually do.
But of course try to raise that issue and automatically you're deemed "pro-slavery" or worse. Typical.
Bullshit, go to any job site and search for "junior" or "entry level" there will be about 2 jobs on opposite sides of the country
that's because what used to be "junior" in IT (0-5 years) is now considered "experienced".
Do you see a lot of postings looking for someone with 10 or 15 years of experience? What about 20 years?
You really like that quote, you've been using it twice in this thread. Maybe you should get it framed or something. That's probably the only Republican president you don't badmouth.
Don't take it from me, listen to Abraham Lincoln:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...
Well that's in the context of the North using slavery as a pretext to destroy the South's economy, so I'll take a pass on the infinite wisdom of this quote.
Why don't you name that company? Funny how such hard evidence is always "some company I know". A "straight 5 billion in net profit" puts that company in a very, very small list.
Not to say that all layoffs are justified. Just look at the disgusting thing that happened at Radio Shack where new executives fired all experienced staff, paid themselves huge bonuses based on "cost savings" and drove the company straight into bankruptcy.
But still. The purpose of a company is to make money, not to give jobs to people. You'll get that if at some point you create a company of your own.
Funny how that same reasoning doesn't seem to keep prices to the consumer from rising. And it sure doesn't influence CEO salaries. Why not bring in an H1B, there are plenty of well qualified European CEOs accustomed to working for a fraction of what an American CEO costs.
I just did a bit of googling on this matter and it is truly amazing. Did you know that Yahoo's CFO (the chief bean counter) made 50% more money last year than the CEO of SAP? Yet SAP make 4x more money than Yahoo.
Other interesting figures:
HP: CEO makes 20 millions, (100 billions revenue, 5 billions profit)
Microsoft: CEO makes 84 millions, (100 billions revenue, 12 billions profit)
Apple: CEO makes 9 millions, (200 billions revenue, 40 billions profit)
JP Morgan: CEO makes 20 millions, (50 billions revenue, 22 billions profit)
and my favorite:
Twitter: CEO makes 24 millions (1.4 billions revenue, -500 millions profit)
Meanwhile in Europe:
SAP: CEO makes 9 millions (18 billions revenu, 4 billions profit)
VW: CEO makes 23 millions (200 billions revenues, 12 billions profit)
Well I tried to find more European IT companies but there isn't a lot that are in the multi-billions dollars income bracket.
the problem with "pay more" is that there's often a huge discrepancy between what a company can afford and what experienced people think they're worth.
What people think they're worth? If you can't find workers at a given price point, it means they're worth more than you think.
That's exactly where the visa workers show up. You have to put them in the demand/offer equation because they exist, they are cheap, and they are for the most part as qualified as the American equivalent with a 40% discount. And that's for the most part India staff.
Here's the kicker. India is a drop in the ocean. China is currently mass-producing engineers. For the moment they are extremely low-quality engineers because the school system is weak and the learning opportunities are not fantastic. But 8 millions grads per year - that's still 3x more than in the US. There is no way but upwards for Chinese IT workers and soon Indians will be the exception.
When those floodgates open, let's see how much trouble you have finding work at your "price point". It's a ticking bomb, or what people in Silicon Valley call "disruptive" (until it's their own industry that gets disrupted).
the problem with "pay more" is that there's often a huge discrepancy between what a company can afford and what experienced people think they're worth.
It's a problem which fixes itself pretty quickly as the experienced people run out of money. Except they don't seem to be running out of money so someone must be paying them what they think they're worth. Therefore the problem isn't with them.
Haven't you noticed the clear shift towards IT companies hiring less experienced workers? How often do you think people with 12-15 years of programming experience interview at Amazon or Google?
Next time you hear about the talent shortage in IT and the companies raiding college to grab people who haven't even finished their degree, read the fine print. There's a shortage of IT talent in the 0-4 years of experience. People with more experienced are not considered. Remember that blog post? http://unemployable.pen.io/
The IT world today is young staff and/or visa workers. Experienced people have to either accept a lower salary or hang on to whatever job they have, because they are no in demand. I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying this is how it is.
Heard all the same bullshit about those "dangerous" Japanese cars and those "low-quality" Mexican factories. Same same same.
Strange, I don't see you or other America First zealots throwing your iPhone in the hazardous materials bin. Yet all the manufacturing is done offshore, and large part of the software is written by visa workers. (Apple signs up an extra 1500 IT visa workers or so every year).
Sooner or later, someone will figure out that labor comes first. It precedes capital. There is no capital without labor to make it happen.
Of course, "capitalism" is a sacrilege. Someone putting his money at risk to run a business is a piece of shit, while the people who get paid by the week for their time are the real heroes.
I guess that's why all countries following the teachings of Marx (who said basically the same thing you are) were so hugely successful.
We got bought out by Paychex, but even that couldn't help us get any experienced people.
Pay more. If you can't get experienced people, it's because you're not paying enough.
the problem with "pay more" is that there's often a huge discrepancy between what a company can afford and what experienced people think they're worth.That's the whole reason why so many companies jump on the visa workers thing. Just like it happened in the auto industry, workers got used to high wages and are unwilling to consider the actual value of their contribution in a world where programming is now a commodity, so they end up replaced by cheap labor from a developing country. Same thing that happened to helpdesk, then sysadmins.
Of course it's easier to blame everything on pure greed from those evil companies, but see how much good this did in Detroit.
the cost of the Obamacare website corresponds to 70,000 workers getting $30k each.
Yes we can!
No, she paid $5000 to her IT guy to setup her mail server. If visa workers had done it it would have cost $50 and a fake job offer.
I guess if they start bringing in cheap labor from China instead of India they'll rename the company WebTaiChi.
you need to root the phone to make it waterproof.
Does it print animated gifs?
My Brother HL1030, on the other hand, is on its fifth toner refill (and second fuser) in the time I've had it, now well over 100,000 pages printed over the last seven years.
That's 40 pages per day, 7 days a week, for 7 years. I hope what you're printing is used to save orphans or something, because you personally have killed 10 trees. Future generations are thankful.
Epson stock price has dropped about 40% in the last year, and the company has paid dividends in the range of $0.20 - $0.60 per share over the last few years.
Roughly this means that in order to use his Epson income to buy an 8 ball of coke to be snorted on the ass of a hooker, a shareholder needed in 2015 to have an Epson position that took a $800 dive in the last 12 month, and which is unlikely to turn black anytime soon. That amount excludes the price of the hooker, the coat check and the valet service.
Epson printers are free on Craigslist.
It's called "schadenfreude".
this is the executive management team of Epson America:
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/S...
They all look trustworthy.
The brother cost me 60 bucks, the m177 cost me 144 bucks. I couldn't be happier.
Pursuit of happiness is easier for some