SCJP 1.4
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Originally posted by Marie Mazerolle:
I graduated in October 2000, and by that time, I just felt very lucky to have found a job right after graduation. I worked there for 2 years before my lay-off. Again, I was very lucky as I found another job with a great organization 2 months after.
I think industries all have their ups and downs, just as the global economy does, and the best thing you can do is to stay prepared. The IT industry will pick up eventually, although I would be very surprised if it ever came back to the level it was in the mid-1990s. So until then, I study & read as much as I can. And when that time comes, I will force myself to continue studying and learning because I know that eventually, the market will get tighter again...
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Often the most important part of the news is what they didn't tell.
Employees definately took the companies to the cleaners--although, in fairness, the companies themselves didn't seem to mind as long as the dot com economy kept growing.
SCJP<br/>
"I study politics and war that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy in order to give their children a right to study painting poetry and music."<br />--John Adams
Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
Today the companies aren't colluding, they're just making the most of a soft labor market.
-----Mike Dahmus [email protected]
Originally posted by Mike Dahmus:
This is dishonest.
H1-B and L-1 are examples of the companies "colluding" in the sense that they are artifically manipulating the market.
Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
Not in the slightest. It's not dishonest when the law says you can do it.
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
I disagree entirely. There are plenty of things that are entirely legal and are entirely dishonest and/or immoral.
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
As to the point in question, it is my firm belief that the H- and L- visa provisions are being dishonestly manipulted by corporations to avoid paying fair wages to American workers. But that's my own PERSONAL opinion.
Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
Tobacco isn't inherently immoral.
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
You and I have a fundamental disagreement on what is moral. Making profit from someone's disease and death is pretty immoral to me, no matter how much you tell them. If you put a warning label on crack, is it moral to sell it? However, we're veering into opinion, and I choose not to debate this point.
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
As to the manipulation of the H- and L- visas, there is just a truckload of information on this subject on the Internet, including the wording of the provisions themselves. The problem is that the visas were originally put in place because of a "shortage of qualified American workers" (ostensibly because of the Y2K problem and the dot-com bubble). These provisions were then extended and INCREASED even after 2000, when Y2K was past and the dot-com market had collapsed, and despite the fact that record numbers of qualified American IT workers were out of work.
Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
I always supported anti-smoking laws. But fundamentally, I think people do have a right to "hurt themselves" by smoking.
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
You support laws banning things you consider acceptable.
That finishes the conversation for me. I won't get into even a discussion with someone who can argue both sides of the street.
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Okay, simple question: do you think it's moral to sell crack? The crack user knows the problems, so by how I understand your logic, it's okay to sell it to them.
(I know this is a little adrift of the primary topic, but you seem to be willing to try to find a common ground, so if you'll permit me a little latitude in my questions, maybe we can do so.)
Joe
I'm sending you a personal reply, because I need to be careful about what I say onrecord on this topic.
SCJP 1.4
Originally posted by Paul Pullman:
L-1 was intended to grant to foreign executives of US international companies to work in the US for a short term. However, many foreign, in particular Indian, consulting companies have been using it to bring thousands of software developers as co-CEOs, VPs and the likes into this country to do consulting work for US companies. Dishonest? Immoral?
Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Do you think ambulance chasers, those who sue doctors trying to advance the healing arts, those who represent stupid people who spill hot coffee deserve a bigger piece of the pie than those who develop complex software systems.
Originally posted by Greg Neef:
What I don't know is where it can stop. Today jobs are flooding to India where rates are 1/5th US. In 3 years, India may be screwed with jobs flooding out of there to China or somewhere else with rates even lower than India's (as is happening in textiles today). I honestly don't see the answer. Does the whole world's standard of living have to sink to the lowest common denominator? That seems to tbe the trend. The cyber-libertarian point of view says. "So be it", but baring some serious deflation (read Depression) in the develped countries which will bring living cost down to those of the 3rd world I am unclear how we can compete.
Mark Herschberg, author of The Career Toolkit
https://www.thecareertoolkitbook.com/
Often the most important part of the news is what they didn't tell.
[ flickr ]
Originally posted by Tim Holloway:
The prosperity that offshoring has brought to India has had some notable effects. Middle-class Indians are now able to go to malls and buy foreign-made products.
[ flickr ]
Originally posted by Ashok Krishnan:
Opening up its markets to outside competition has compelled Indian firm to be more professional and competitive and also it has brought in a lot of foreign and private investment in to the country.
See, now here I was thinking the benefit is that the whole world's standard of living rises to some middle ground. Amazing how we can take the same idea and spin it in opposite ways.
Originally posted by Nathan Thurm:
1. You're obviously a fan of the free market.
Originally posted by Nathan Thurm:
2. But yet you have a ?so be it? attitude with L1, H1B, India's tariff's , and China's pegging the yuan to our dollar. You've indicated that you don't think the US should do anything about these government interventions into the free market which I can't understand.
Originally posted by Nathan Thurm:
3. On top of that the reason you've dismissed any concerns for US jobs and doing anything about these interventions is that you perceive them to be ?artificial?
...
So let me get this straight, even if these "artificial" interventions may take our jobs, we shouldn't do anything because what India/China is doing may not work for them? And then what. Do we get our jobs back when this is done, whether it works or not? And if we don't get our jobs back, then why shouldn't we do something about it?
Originally posted by Nathan Thurm:
4. And then finally you?re thinking that the whole world?s standard of living will rise because of outsourcing, even though numerous government interventions are making this possible. Which to me implies that you think that outsourcing while using these government interventions WILL work, which confuses me since you're such a big advocate of the free market. So, if this does work, are you going to ease back from some of your free market views then?
Originally posted by Nathan Thurm:
United States should follow the free market (except in the case of H1b and L1's we should just leave these bills be including the umlimited cap currently on L1's)
Originally posted by Nathan Thurm:
and we shouldn't encourage other countries to do anything to change their policies even though free market is the best way to go.
Originally posted by Nathan Thurm:
If government intervention works for them great, well that's the goal raise their standard of living, and if it doesn't well it's no surprise because they didn't follow the free market.
Originally posted by Nathan Thurm:
And as for doing anything to proect jobs from this government intervention the US government shouldn't do anything. So be it.
Originally posted by Nathan Thurm:
2.By the same, token, I don?t see how you can say China?s pegging the yuan to the dollar at it?s own risk. Far from it, if China goes down US goes down economically.
Originally posted by Nathan Thurm:
3.L-1?s are taking our jobs. I know you have a ?so be it? attitude regarding this but I think the new bills coming out, refereneced in the link I put out yesterday, putting a cap on the L1 number and also restricting terms are a good step. Any thoughts on this.
I happen to be a US citizen, which means I have a right, some would even say an obligation, to try to get my government to what I feel is best. I have no authority over India or other countries. Now I do have some secondary interests in other countries. For example, if two countries go to war it can obviously have global impact. So can their economic policies. Still, I feel that if they embark on poor policy choices, it's ultimately not my place to tell them they must do otherwise.
Let me propose the following analogy. There are two software firms who compete for contracts. One regularly underbids the other in terms of schedule. Naturally, they start getting more contracts. Of course, the way the meet this shortened deadlines is by cutting corners. In a few years their customers realize the number of bugs and maintainance costs far exceed the savings from the faster schedule. Eventually the custmers will abandon this company and turn to the one who does software the right way.
What should the company losing contracts do? It could respond by also producing quick and cheap, shoddy software, or it can rid it out. The right thing, of course, is to ride it out. Certainly, if it will take 10 years to ride out and the company can't afford to stay in business that long under these circumstances, then it must consider alternative options.
I believe the US should ride it out, and they we have the resources to do so. Is it convienent for us, personally? No. But from a utilitarian standpoint, I believe its better for the country as a whole. (This is the crux of my arguement, if it's not clear, let me know.)
You're reading too much into my statements. If you're not familiar with the economic theory of comparative advanage you should take a look at it. It basically says we're better off with free trade (undoubtedly others can explain it better than I).
I believe the US should act in its best interest. Protectionist policies are not in the long term interest of the US.
Um, this is starting to push the limits of my economic training. Why isn't the following true? They (China) inflate the price by creating artificial demand, buying dollars for yuan at higher prices then they are worth; in other words, paying, 8 yauns per dollar instead of, say, 5. When it finally becomes unhinged, those who bought the dollars at the overinflated price will be in serious trouble. Chinas thought it had the equivalent of 8,000 yauns (in dollars), but its really only worth 5,000 yuans.
Again, I never claimed L-1s and H1Bs were good for US workers. I only said that outsourcing was good for US consumers. I further implied, on the principle of competitive advantage, that this is a net benefit to the US as a whole.
Originally posted by Nathan Thurm:
But, if you (general you throughout this paragraph) believe that these poor policies are affecting your own country detrimentally (losses of millions of jobs enabled through tariffs and other non-tariff barriers), it is definitely your place to try to get them to do otherwise, by telling your government to do what you feel is best through the means that it has at its disposal, in this case, negotiation.
Originally posted by Nathan Thurm:
I don't think this analogy holds though. The reason work is going to India and China isn't from cutting deadlines or anything other shortcuts, it's because their costs (including salaries)are so much lower (I've seen estimates of $5000 to $10000 a year) that it should be and will be easy for them to underbid us.
Originally posted by Nathan Thurm:
Right, but according to the research I've read and the article I posted not only China could be in deep, deep trouble with their yuan valuation but by the same token as we produce less and less and and keep running a higher and higher deficit we're going to be in dire trouble too if China can't buy our debt.
Originally posted by Nathan Thurm:
It's only a net benefit if we can find that competitive advantage though. Reading some articles about outsourcing written one or two years ago, it was ok that we outsourced the jobs then because that enabled us to focus on the higher-dollar more technology intensive jobs like in our field. Now, they're outsourcing these jobs too, among many other white collar, middle class jobs, and I'm not seeing millions of new jobs coming along to replace them.
I don't think this analogy holds though. The reason work is going to India and China isn't from cutting deadlines or anything other shortcuts, it's because their costs (including salaries)are so much lower (I've seen estimates of $5000 to $10000 a year) that it should be and will be easy for them to underbid us.
It's not a perfect analogy. But I see two trends. First the real cost of outsourcing is much higher than most companies think. I fundamentally believe software creation is a communication problem and not a technology or raw engineering problem. As such, the narrow pipe in outsourcing will be costly. Second, I think the the production costs in India will increase to the point that it will balance out with the US in a period of time short enough for the US to endure without extra policies.
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:
Where I differ with your opinion is this: You and I agree that a lot of offshoring now going on is management malpractice. You seem relaxed about it, but I am not. The flawed decisions these managers are taking not only impact shareholders they impose massive (and largely undeserved) personal costs on IT workers on the developed countries. Many of us never played the dot.com greed game, so we do not deserve the consequences.
Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
Yep, that sounds like the key difference. I wouldn't say totally relaxed. Obviously I prefer stable, steady growth to wild swings. It comes down to the fact that this is indeed a problem stemming from short-sighted managers, but I don't believe it is the job of the government to compensate for corporate stupidity (except in the most extreme of cases).
--Mark
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
It's hard to fight evil. The little things, like a nice sandwich, really helps. Right tiny ad?
Smokeless wood heat with a rocket mass heater
https://woodheat.net
|