Outsourcing

[RKON]

[p_j]

Just about every statement you make is with a broadbrush.

Its hyperbole... i.e. an exaggeration of reality.

Everything in life is temporary... i won't go into a discussion of the temporal.

Is Jamestown the standard again?

Longer than that. Thomas Jefferson established the first public university IIRC.

If what you are saying is true, its merely an anecdote and meaningless otherwise.

Whew... that sounds downright Marxist.

I would think that outsourcing as a product of government intervention would be worth "fighting." Rather anti-capitalist if you ask me.

C'mon, be serious. You rarely support your arguments with anything other than religious sounding declarations and saying that long term trends are good. Citing labor hours in Jamestown is a dodge if there ever was one. Moreover your "theory" is your own. Throwing out the name Adam Smith doesn't mean that you and he agree.

The only thing I have not given is

Ditto to you.

I agree with you there.

USSR bad therefore?

In an

He didn't really say much about how money and the workplace operate.

[p_j]

BS. Honest people quote statistics ad infinitum to argue opposite arguments all the time.

Don't forget zealotry. Considering that you seem unable to consider any argument that questions your assumptions and continually capitalize the word reality which continually argee with your broad sweeping generalizations, maybe you should consider that as a distorting influence.

How long of a time period of reduced free time is necessary before it becomes statistically significant or a 'Reality' worth considering in any sense?

Which state is that in?

I thought we were talking about outsourcing?

Besides, maybe you better define "market economies" because it seems to be a catch all for goodness and I have a hard time following your use of it.

That's fine, but you operate assuming that the statistics are there. You may be wrong. Do you think that's possible?

The average citizen? Ever?

I'm not sure that the average citizen is always the best metric.

Where do you read these statistics?

Uh-oh... sounds like religion again. Are you sure this is reality? I hope you don't go to an editorial from Cato for 'Reality.'

Well, there you go, a bit of hyperbole is refreshing, eh?

How about my new Chevy is crap, maybe all new Chevys are crap? How about Volkswagens? Are new Volkswagens the same quality as the 80's, 70's or

60's?

I would recommend Adam Smith to you. If you really had an interest in 'Reality,' the story of his unpublished third volume on justice is enlightening.

[Doug Miller]

In a nutshell -- yes. You would argue otherwise? E.g. that the USSR was not bad, or was bad but for a different reason?

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[Tim Daneliuk]

No. Allowing market forces to operate while maintaining border security simultaneously would be a win-win.

Why? Because you said so? There is nothing religious about it. Cheap labor drives economic growth. This is not to say it has no other consquences. Clearly, it can. But it's not just some bit of theology I invented.

Yes. That is better said. Certain agribusiness sectors could not continue to exist in their current form. They might or might not cease to exist entirely.

Everything is (ultimately) market driven. The only exception - that is, when the market does NOT operate - is when systemic fraud and/or force are exercised to restrain market forces. Even then, the market eventually catches up, it just is considerably delayed. But fraudulent/forceful outsourcing was not really the scope of this thread as I understood it. Rather, the discussion is whether or not outsourcing, broadly defined, was good/bad and what consequences it brought.

Yes, my community bears witness to this, as does my own life. But I was responding specifically to contentions about _illegal_ Mexican immigration, which is overwhelmingly a labor force at the bottom of the food chain in most cases. Mexican doctors are not sneaking across the Rio Grande to practice medicine, as best I know.

Absent reason, attack with labels, eh? You intentionally ignore the context of the comment to try and trivialize it. Minimum wage is obviously introduced here as _an example_ of legistative intrusion by the people I call "Do Gooders", no more.

No, an implict plan to increasingly collectivize society and its sensibilities, thereby making the group more important than the individual. This has a long and studied tradition form most of recorded human history, regardless of the form of governance in use. People with power want to maintain it, grow it, and increasingly command everyone else. I merely cite what I did here to note that even in our free democracy, these instincts exist.

Brilliant riposte' ...

It is, but I suggest here that for people who obtain access to our system illegally, the law should be rewritten. The Constitution is written, you'll recall, with the ability to be amended.

By all means. Note that I stipulated that "fair warning" be required.

Why? Because you said so? I want to send no message. Do not presume what you cannot possible fathom - my intentions. I want the borders to be secure, much like I want the boundaries of my own property to be secure. I am simply applying a similar precept.

Adams is widely credited with being the father or the modern discipline of economics, though considerable meaningful work certainly followed him. The Englightenment thinkers had all manner of warts. They were not infallible. You may recall that Jefferson owned slaves, for example. Citing them is not a blanked endorsement of every position they held. They lived in times that did not have to consider illegal immigration on anywhere near the scale we do. New times bring new issues and require potentially new ideas.

Argument by misdirection. A pot smoker breaks a law as an otherwise legal member of society. Someone entering the country with the intention of subverting immigration control can legitimately be considered a "foreign invader". Big difference.

What an immensely irrelevant, incorrect, and obtuse side-stepping of the central point. Anyone old enough has likely broken some law large or small at some point. So what? Your conclusion, it would appear, is that this therefore means the rule of law is thus irrelevant to those who try to sneak in.

I did? What does that mean? You finally figured out what I was arguing all along? I embarrassed myself? My fly is open?

So what? Since when do we owe anyone who want to come here the right to become a citizen. Insofar as immigration and naturalization improve our country (and they do), this ought to be encouraged. To the extent they do not, they ought to be prohibited. The boundaries of what is good and what is not are certainly debatable, but there is not inherent obligation on our part to even care about the issue on behalf of those who would come here. We should care about it in our own enlightened self-interest?

Yes, I really am an immigrant. No, I am not a liar, nor am I ever as unpleasant personally in this medium as you appear to relish being. This is a debate of ideas. But, absent a coherent position of your own, you attack not my ideas, but my personal veracity. Its an old lawyer's courtroom trick: When the facts support your case, argue the facts. When they don't, attempt to undermind the character and veracity of the witness. Its a cheap shot.

One more time: I am proposing a _Change_ to our laws. I am reasonably familiar with what is now the case and it is not working well. (That is my _opinion_, BTW.)

"Poor Jose's Family" didn't come here in a legal manner (for the sake of example). They didn't *have* to do so. If they want the protection of our laws, come here legally, and participate in the system as a member of our political contract, not as a criminal.

Really. What a brilliant insight. The US cracks down on illegal foreign invaders and US citizens who *lawfully* visit other nations would therefore be at greater risk thereby? I hadn't considered that ramification. OK, you're right. We need to remove all restrictions on foreigners entering the country so that other nations will be nicer to us when we visit.

Right - *minmal* in each case to sustain life. No more. And you don't get to sue the agency delivering them because you don't like the food, want a bigger tent, or desire a face lift.

It was an attempt at irony and humor. Since this seems lost on you, let me explain: I was noting that real assimilation is taking place. The Mexican kids are very much the same as their other American counterparts.

You could not possibly be more offensive than with that last bit. You propose no new ideas of your own here. You write decontextualized responses intended to trivialize what it said, but you have nothing new to add. Worst of all, you attack personally (something I did not] do). You, sir or madam, are an ass.

PLONK

[Charlie Self]

Tim Daneliuk tucks tongue in cheek and replies:

Just bring money when traveling. IME, most people don't otherwise care about our government policies.

Charlie Self "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Disraeli as quoted by Mark Twain

[Renata]

Have you looked at house construction these days?

Yes, we're beuilding lots of McMansions, but they're cheap-a$$ SOBs.

I live in a 55 year old house, modest (very) size, with hardwood floors, solid masonry construction, little things here and there that would NEVER be done in a basic house today.

See, (among other things) back then, there were carpenters who had pride in their craft, not dipwads and furriners who don't know what the heck they're doing, have no pride 'cause they have no craft, but, hey, they're cheap.

And, I do believe I read that gas today is at a historical high, even inflation adjusted an' all.

Renata

-snip-

-snip-

[Noons]

That is unfortunately something that is being lost in all this greed-driven outsourcing: the fact that if it creates sufficient unemployment a lot of people WON'T buy your product. Regardless of how el-cheapo it might be produced in Outer Mongolia. IOW, shoot yourself on the foot. Which is EXACTLY where this myopic outsourcing "easy-profit" mania is leading us.

[Ray Kinzler]

Tim,

I have to admt I feel like a heel a bit arguing this subject with you. I really feel we are at separate ends of the spectrum and we really need to meet somewhere in the middle.

I understand what you are saying, in general, but the facts and figures you write about happen to be living, breathing human beings. And, at least in the IT industry, they are being used and abused terribly all in the name of globalization. Sure, this practice may help the bottom line but what price do you put on human beings?

I have included two recent articles about the subject. One, for sure, is simply a beat writer for a newspaper and may not have any credentials--I have no idea if he does or doesn't. The other is biggie in the computer trade press (you can see his bio at

I use Google to access this newsgroup, I see the baove did not come through as a link. Darn. I could publish it here if anybody wants me to.

With the above in mind, here are the links to the two articles:

(Watch the word wrap!)

am sorry if I seem bitter because, well, I am. I feel as though I gave my livilihood away. Nay, I feel as though it was ripped away from me by people who can not code nearly as well as I can.

[Doug Winterburn]

Not true:

-Doug

[mttt]

Ahh - anuth'a idiot boss. Has he been there long? If he just showed up, he might be the one we just let go... :)

The only way to make it to Level 4 is by going through Level 3. If you're a

3 shop, then you've got a shot at hitting 4 by EOY 2005. Had an "official" assessment yet?

Plenty of big shops can help you through it - CSC for one [ not an endorsement by any means ].

You can always *buy* a Level 4 rating, if you desire. Might be the path of least resistance.

[mttt]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. How '30's.

Insitutional investors and lil' Blue Haired Ladies from the Midwest are the correct answer.

[mttt]

think I *do* get it. I'm fending off the bean counters as we speak. Dell's a good example - initial thoughts aligned with yours (it's $$ not skills). After trying it for a while, they realized they can't afford outsourcing their help desk.

Ahem. We CANNOT compete on salary! But we can compete! It's about *value*, not costs. Yes, the pendulum will swing as the bean counters move stuff offshore. But it'll come back when they realize there's more to quality software than $3/hour Level 5 programmers.

Me too! 'Cept, I've got 25. Scared is good. Makes you aware of the situation. Lying awake at night worrying about how we're going to fend off this trend is a good thing. I *know* I can compete and survive this. Hell, with a few hours of thought, I came up with a half dozen ways to *exploit* the situation.

That's good news! Congrats, especially to your wife - as we desperately need more (mo' better) teachers. I'll hang out in IT for awhile longer. Pay's pretty damed good, and I know I can kick some Offshore Butt if the need arises.

[Tim Daneliuk]

Don't. Our differences of opinion are about ideas. They have not been personal. We can disagree and be pleasant.

The fallacy in your argument is that these people are being 'used and abused'. They aren't (unless fraud or force are being used against them, in which case they should seek legal relief). They are facing a changing world. That means they too have to change to survive. If there aren't enought IT jobs to go around, then some of us are going to have to find other kinds of work to do, get retrained or whatever. Is it fun? No. But its necessary. Survival is always the province of those who are most adaptable.

And now, a personal note:

I have a Master's in CS plus most of Ph.D. done. I have 20+ years of experience as an engineer, developer, and leader of technology organizations. I can't get a job. I haven't been able to for over

3 *years*. Frustrating? Yes. Bitter? No. Why? Because staying employable is *my* responsibility, not the responsibility of the Universe. I am likely going to have to take a position that is way outside my preferred field just to survive. But you know what? I refuse to be pissed off about it. Life is just too short to be bitter. I want to savor every minute I can, no matter how crappy moments like this are. It sounds really corny like some bad self-help book, but your attitude about life drives your success. If you wallow in misery and anger, you inhibit your own ability to succeed. The way you think dictates the way you act. And the way you act determines how well you succeed.

[B a r r y]

And for bonus points, who are the institutional investors?

Answer: All of us who own mutual funds and/or some sort of retirement plan with investment options other than fixed income.

Barry

[p_j]

No.

[Doug Miller]

In that case, if there was any point at all in your comment, I must've missed it.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[p_j]

lol... guess the whole H1B debate is unknown to you. It would make some sense before acusing someone of fallacious argument, if you actually knew what the arguments are.

What a humungously hypocritical statement.

Yeah, that's obvious in your desire to execute immigrants without documentation produced quickly enough or some pool slob who wants to drink out of your garden hose.

Sounds like your Tony Robbins tapes aren't working...

[p_j]

You're right.

He opened his speech by saying, "I kind of like ducking questions," and said he would be "glad to duck any questions like my mother once told me to do" following his remarks. - Bush in a speech to newspaper editors, publishers and executives, April 21, 2004