On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:15:07 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:14:08 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:44:38 -0800, jps wrote:



The bill sucks but don't blame Obama for the **** we're in or the debt
our progeny will shoulder.

I suspect that bill will be radically changed in the Senate.
Too much resistance to the debt incurred.
And too many pieces that aren't "stimulative."
We got burned when the pols rushed TARP, and public resistance
against hurriedly tossing money is pretty high.
What I'm enjoying seeing is tentative jabs at "free trade."
We need more PERMANENT jobs.
Without addressing that need none of this stuff is good long term.
Cheap consumer goods and crass materialism is what got us here.
Wall Street bull**** telling everybody they could be rich without
labor.

--Vic

I haven't confirmed but rumor is that many of the layoffs at Microsoft
were blue badge (permanent hires) US citizens and few were H1-B's.

If so, I don't think it's a good formula for enticing congress to
relax H1-B quotas, as Microsoft has long argued.

We need a more educated workforce. While manufacturing would be a
good thing, we need more engineers and programmers.

But why go into engineering or programming when the jobs are being outsource
for $40k a year? Or less. I figured H1-B's kept our salaries down about
40%. When you could get a guy with a MS-electronics engineering for $50k a
year, why would they pay us American engineers $80k to start? And max out
at about $100k. Good sounding salary but when you go to school for 6 years
and take courses to keep up on the latest, the money starts to pale.

Outsourcing is efficient for pedestrian applications. Real
development of new products is best done under the watchful eye of
local managers.

There's a lot of folks out there who'd be damned pleased with a
$40K/yr. job right now and it surely wouldn't require 6 years of
school. 2 - 4 at most.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:06:53 -0800, jps wrote:


Outsourcing is efficient for pedestrian applications.

Efficient to whom?
Sure as hell isn't efficient to the American who lost his job or the
American economy.
Maybe you haven't quite adjusted to the new reality yet.

Real
development of new products is best done under the watchful eye of
local managers.

Bull**** on a couple counts. Firstly, Indians can do it all. And
often speak better English while they're at it. And H1-B's can do
local management.
Secondly, management of projects requires skill and knowledge of what
is being managed, The best managers are those who have come up
through the ranks, and it's not coincidental they all start with
PEDESTRIAN applications. Those spawning ranks are disappearing.
You have to decide if you're on the side of business as usual or
a strong America.
You just posed 2 slippery slopes, and displayed the kind of thinking
that I've seen directly lead to your previous complaint of seeing only
H1-B's apply for work at your firm.

There's a lot of folks out there who'd be damned pleased with a
$40K/yr. job right now and it surely wouldn't require 6 years of
school. 2 - 4 at most.

But 40k jobs could then be termed "pedestrian."
And outsourced.

--Vic

"HK" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


Ahhh...honestly earn...well...


See? I sometimes choose my words carefully also.

What is the value of a chief executive who employs 150,000 people,
increases the share holder's value and shows a profit?

No more than 10 times the average earnings of the average employee.


Why? What is the basis of your number? Why not 5 times? Why not 20
times?
Is 10 times a "moral" basis number?

The problem we have is not one of making sure people don't earn too much
money.
The problem we have is enforcing the laws that prevent people from screwing
other people out of theirs.

Eisboch

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:52:17 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:06:53 -0800, jps wrote:


Outsourcing is efficient for pedestrian applications.

Efficient to whom?
Sure as hell isn't efficient to the American who lost his job or the
American economy.
Maybe you haven't quite adjusted to the new reality yet.

Real
development of new products is best done under the watchful eye of
local managers.

Bull**** on a couple counts. Firstly, Indians can do it all. And
often speak better English while they're at it. And H1-B's can do
local management.
Secondly, management of projects requires skill and knowledge of what
is being managed, The best managers are those who have come up
through the ranks, and it's not coincidental they all start with
PEDESTRIAN applications. Those spawning ranks are disappearing.
You have to decide if you're on the side of business as usual or
a strong America.
You just posed 2 slippery slopes, and displayed the kind of thinking
that I've seen directly lead to your previous complaint of seeing only
H1-B's apply for work at your firm.

There's a lot of folks out there who'd be damned pleased with a
$40K/yr. job right now and it surely wouldn't require 6 years of
school. 2 - 4 at most.

But 40k jobs could then be termed "pedestrian."
And outsourced.

--Vic

I know a lot of folks who've attempted to offshore and, for simple to
moderate IT projects that are well-defined with lots of documentation
and clear requirements, offshoring is okay.

When you're building a product that requires the ability to confront
and make sound decisions about unanticipated permutations, offshore
hasn't worked very well, even with good management.

Further, as offshore programming services have improved their ability
to be more trustworthy with these design/creative decisions, their
rates have steadily climbed to where the overhead of the relationship
and lack of proximity makes less sense.

What used to be a $5 to $10/hr. worker has turned into a $15 to
$20/hr. once the offshore programmer is fully burdened with overhead
and profit.

I think there's an opportunity for Americans to work back into that
role. It's not going to be the retrained steel worker. It's going to
be a person with an associates to bachelors education. While it
doesn't do much for currently displaced factory workers, it could
certainly help supply future jobs for middle income families and
reduce our need for H1-B workers.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:03:19 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Jan 30, 11:59 am, jps wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:27:19 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:







"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:31:38 -0800, Frogwatch wrote:
Not content to
thumb their noses at their parents sacrifices, the boomers chose to
embrace immediate gratification via massive debt to fuel their every
whim. Now that the bill has come due, in true boomer fashion they are
now trying to pass the bill onto their great grandchildren via Obama’s
“Stimulus Plan” that will be paid by successive generations.
Up until Reagan, according to Dick Cheney, "proved deficits don't
matter", there were only two reasons for deficit spending, fighting a
war, and fighting a recession. There were 55,000 announced job cuts
on
Monday alone. Frankly, I'm praying Obama's "Stimulus Plan" is enough.
This is already going to be a severe recession, without Obama's plan,
it
could very well be a depression. Oh, and if something like the Great
Depression were to hit today, it would cost this country upwards of
$20
trillion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...8?language=pri...
Back on my bandwagon:
I noticed something in Obama's public statement after the House vote on
the
$819B stimulus package yesterday.
At one point he said that stimulating small business is essential for a
recovery. He then said, "Private business is the economic growth
engine of
the country, not the government."
Those are key words. Maybe he is catching on.
That is the biggest reason no Republicans voted for the package and 11
of
the Democrats voted against it. The package is laden with earmarks and
pork, with only a small portion of it dedicated to lowering taxes on
small
business or providing other economic incentives.
The Republicans want a much bigger portion of the package to go towards
tax
relieve for small and private business.
Article written last January. Look at what stimulates the economy in
the short term, which is what we need. It's not small business
investment.

http://www.economy.com/dismal/articl...sp?cid=102598- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

snip
The President and Congress are quickly coalescing around a fiscal
stimulus plan to shore up the flagging economy. As currently
envisioned, the plan is expected to cost at least $150 billion and
include a sizable tax rebate, short-term tax incentives for business
investment, and temporary increases in unemployment insurance benefits
and food stamps.
/snip

150 billion? What numbers is this guy looking at? I think he is off
by about 95%, coincidentally, about the same as the amount of pork in
the porkulous package... But he said it, so it must be true


Article written in January 2008...take a remedial reading course.

And that stimulus solved what?

How could it have solved anything if it wasn't undertaken?

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:15:07 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:14:08 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:44:38 -0800, jps wrote:



The bill sucks but don't blame Obama for the **** we're in or the debt
our progeny will shoulder.

I suspect that bill will be radically changed in the Senate.
Too much resistance to the debt incurred.
And too many pieces that aren't "stimulative."
We got burned when the pols rushed TARP, and public resistance
against hurriedly tossing money is pretty high.
What I'm enjoying seeing is tentative jabs at "free trade."
We need more PERMANENT jobs.
Without addressing that need none of this stuff is good long term.
Cheap consumer goods and crass materialism is what got us here.
Wall Street bull**** telling everybody they could be rich without
labor.

--Vic

I haven't confirmed but rumor is that many of the layoffs at Microsoft
were blue badge (permanent hires) US citizens and few were H1-B's.

If so, I don't think it's a good formula for enticing congress to
relax H1-B quotas, as Microsoft has long argued.

We need a more educated workforce. While manufacturing would be a
good thing, we need more engineers and programmers.

But why go into engineering or programming when the jobs are being
outsource
for $40k a year? Or less. I figured H1-B's kept our salaries down about
40%. When you could get a guy with a MS-electronics engineering for $50k
a
year, why would they pay us American engineers $80k to start? And max out
at about $100k. Good sounding salary but when you go to school for 6
years
and take courses to keep up on the latest, the money starts to pale.

Outsourcing is efficient for pedestrian applications. Real
development of new products is best done under the watchful eye of
local managers.

There's a lot of folks out there who'd be damned pleased with a
$40K/yr. job right now and it surely wouldn't require 6 years of
school. 2 - 4 at most.

But you are not getting a 4 year or 6 year university degreed person. And
those pedestrian applications are the ones who kept the 2 year schooled ITT
graduate employed. But now you are doing it for $20 an hour. Where the
minimum cost here would be $40-50 burdened an hour.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:52:17 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:06:53 -0800, jps wrote:


Outsourcing is efficient for pedestrian applications.

Efficient to whom?
Sure as hell isn't efficient to the American who lost his job or the
American economy.
Maybe you haven't quite adjusted to the new reality yet.

Real
development of new products is best done under the watchful eye of
local managers.

Bull**** on a couple counts. Firstly, Indians can do it all. And
often speak better English while they're at it. And H1-B's can do
local management.
Secondly, management of projects requires skill and knowledge of what
is being managed, The best managers are those who have come up
through the ranks, and it's not coincidental they all start with
PEDESTRIAN applications. Those spawning ranks are disappearing.
You have to decide if you're on the side of business as usual or
a strong America.
You just posed 2 slippery slopes, and displayed the kind of thinking
that I've seen directly lead to your previous complaint of seeing only
H1-B's apply for work at your firm.

There's a lot of folks out there who'd be damned pleased with a
$40K/yr. job right now and it surely wouldn't require 6 years of
school. 2 - 4 at most.

But 40k jobs could then be termed "pedestrian."
And outsourced.

--Vic

I know a lot of folks who've attempted to offshore and, for simple to
moderate IT projects that are well-defined with lots of documentation
and clear requirements, offshoring is okay.

When you're building a product that requires the ability to confront
and make sound decisions about unanticipated permutations, offshore
hasn't worked very well, even with good management.

Further, as offshore programming services have improved their ability
to be more trustworthy with these design/creative decisions, their
rates have steadily climbed to where the overhead of the relationship
and lack of proximity makes less sense.

What used to be a $5 to $10/hr. worker has turned into a $15 to
$20/hr. once the offshore programmer is fully burdened with overhead
and profit.

I think there's an opportunity for Americans to work back into that
role. It's not going to be the retrained steel worker. It's going to
be a person with an associates to bachelors education. While it
doesn't do much for currently displaced factory workers, it could
certainly help supply future jobs for middle income families and
reduce our need for H1-B workers.

The H1-B is here in the US. Getting managed just like an American Engineer.
Just woking for less than an UAW autoworker makes. And just the fact that a
175,000 H1-B visas were issued at the same time American Engineers were
being laid off, tells me that guys like you are supporting the number of
visas to keep your costs down and your excessive 60% profit up. Slimebag!

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:03:19 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Jan 30, 11:59 am, jps wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:27:19 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:







"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:31:38 -0800, Frogwatch wrote:
Not content to
thumb their noses at their parents sacrifices, the boomers chose to
embrace immediate gratification via massive debt to fuel their
every
whim. Now that the bill has come due, in true boomer fashion they
are
now trying to pass the bill onto their great grandchildren via
Obama's
"Stimulus Plan" that will be paid by successive generations.
Up until Reagan, according to Dick Cheney, "proved deficits don't
matter", there were only two reasons for deficit spending, fighting
a
war, and fighting a recession. There were 55,000 announced job cuts
on
Monday alone. Frankly, I'm praying Obama's "Stimulus Plan" is
enough.
This is already going to be a severe recession, without Obama's
plan,
it
could very well be a depression. Oh, and if something like the
Great
Depression were to hit today, it would cost this country upwards of
$20
trillion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...8?language=pri...
Back on my bandwagon:
I noticed something in Obama's public statement after the House vote
on
the
$819B stimulus package yesterday.
At one point he said that stimulating small business is essential for
a
recovery. He then said, "Private business is the economic growth
engine of
the country, not the government."
Those are key words. Maybe he is catching on.
That is the biggest reason no Republicans voted for the package and
11
of
the Democrats voted against it. The package is laden with earmarks
and
pork, with only a small portion of it dedicated to lowering taxes on
small
business or providing other economic incentives.
The Republicans want a much bigger portion of the package to go
towards
tax
relieve for small and private business.
Article written last January. Look at what stimulates the economy in
the short term, which is what we need. It's not small business
investment.

http://www.economy.com/dismal/articl...sp?cid=102598- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

snip
The President and Congress are quickly coalescing around a fiscal
stimulus plan to shore up the flagging economy. As currently
envisioned, the plan is expected to cost at least $150 billion and
include a sizable tax rebate, short-term tax incentives for business
investment, and temporary increases in unemployment insurance benefits
and food stamps.
/snip

150 billion? What numbers is this guy looking at? I think he is off
by about 95%, coincidentally, about the same as the amount of pork in
the porkulous package... But he said it, so it must be true


Article written in January 2008...take a remedial reading course.

And that stimulus solved what?

How could it have solved anything if it wasn't undertaken?

$600 a person rebate. That stimulus?