OT: President Match
Karen
It matches your opinions on issues against the candidates positions:
Go to the Q&A section:
www.presidentmatch.com
Karen
WhansaMi
with Edwards. I came up totally matched with Kucinich instead.
Sheila
Vicki Robinson
>Good lord. I must have misunderstood the questions. I was sure I'd come up
>with Edwards. I came up totally matched with Kucinich instead.
I came up with Kucinich too. And second was Al Sharpton!
Vicki
--
Just to think I used to worry about things like that.
Used to worry 'bout rich and skinny
'til I wound up poor and fat.
-Delbert McClinton
WhansaMi
>
>>Good lord. I must have misunderstood the questions. I was sure I'd come up
>>with Edwards. I came up totally matched with Kucinich instead.
>
>I came up with Kucinich too. And second was Al Sharpton!
>
>Vicki
>--
Yeah, me too. That one kind of scared me. :-O
I did the head to head comparison, and I think where I left the moderates and
went to the more liberal was in the last questions about prioritizing. There
were some things that I aligned exactly with Edwards on, but I think I
prioritized them as less important than the things I did with Kunicich.
Basically, I see myself as a moderate to conservative Democrat.
Sheila
Deborah M Riel
Go Kucinich! In my ideal world, he'd actually stand a chance...
Deb R.
kitty
"Karen" <kat...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bv6bc...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Deborah M Riel
>My match was John Kerry!
>
Mine was 100% Kucinich, but I could've predicted that without even
taking the quiz. Kerry was 93%. The worst for me was the 8% Bush
which made me feel all cheap and icky inside.
Deb R.
Karen
"WhansaMi" <whan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040127143815...@mb-m16.aol.com...
>
> Basically, I see myself as a moderate to conservative Democrat.
>
> Sheila
Me too, although I'm not a registered Democrat or Republican. I came up
Kerry 1st and Edwards 2nd.
Karen
Anne Robotti
Robinson) wrote:
>In a previous article, whan...@aol.com (WhansaMi) said:
>
>>Good lord. I must have misunderstood the questions. I was sure I'd come up
>>with Edwards. I came up totally matched with Kucinich instead.
>
>I came up with Kucinich too. And second was Al Sharpton!
Woo-hoo!! We gain supporters every day!
Anne
Anne Robotti
Hey, people were saying that about Clinton a year before the election!
Anne
Anne Robotti
Don't fight it Deb, there's a little Bush in all of us. Except me. I'm
pure. But the rest of you all have a little bit. Even Melissa and
Jane.
Anne
Ducking and running for cover
Geri and sometimes Brian
>pure. But the rest of you all have a little bit. Even Melissa and
>Jane.
Embrace it! You know you want to!
~~Geri~~
~Veni, vidi, visa~
I came, I saw, I shopped!
Geri and sometimes Brian
>>pure. But the rest of you all have a little bit. Even Melissa and
>>Jane.
>
>Embrace it! You know you want to!
BTW, I am 100% Bush! My next in line was Lieberman, as I suspected. (I didn't
type in a party, just to see what would happen.) I am actually more
conservative than President Bush, because I hate his amnesty program for
illegal aliens. If only our Senator Tom McClintock out here would run for
President some day. He would rock.
Geri
(blowing kisses to all of you socialist lefties - KISS, KISS, KISS)
Lynn Randall
Bush-man 100%
Lieberman 78%
In actuality, I plan on sitting out the next election - my vote is for None
Of The Above!
Lynn
Lynn Randall
I don't even know who he is, but he came in last for me - 38%.
Lynn
Lynn Randall
"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:bv6e5s$ft1$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
That's frightening!
Lyhnn
Geri and sometimes Brian
>Of The Above!
I generally like President Bush, but if there was a candidate who would close
the borders, that one would get my vote.
_calinda_
Ya know.. I am so utterly shocked by the outcome that I can't even
state it. If you had asked me who I was going to vote for and
whichI disliked most.. well.. my "favored candidate" came in dead
last at 43%.. and my most disliked came in with a 100% match.
Hmm... good thing there is still time to think about this...
Interesting for sure!
Cal~
WhansaMi
No fair Cal! I told! You have to tell!
Sheila
Deborah M Riel
Geri and sometimes Brian <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote:
>>Don't fight it Deb, there's a little Bush in all of us. Except me. I'm
>>pure. But the rest of you all have a little bit. Even Melissa and
>>Jane.
>
>Embrace it! You know you want to!
>
>~~Geri~~
>
Deb R.
Melissa
>I came up with Kucinich too. And second was Al Sharpton!
>
>Vicki
Me too, but that shouldn't surprise anyone.
Love,
Melissa
"The old Tom didn't poison your fish either!"
-Carson Kressley, from Queer Eye
Melissa
>which made me feel all cheap and icky inside.
>
>Deb R.
I had a lower match than that. 2% for Bush. :)
Geri and sometimes Brian
That's right - get those liberal demons out, girl!
Kathy Cole
> A friend sent this to me, and I thought it was kind of fun and interesting.
> It matches your opinions on issues against the candidates positions:
Sharpton 100%
Dean 100%
Kerry 98%
Kucinich 98%
Clark 96%
Edwards 85%
Lieberman 79%
Bush 22% (eek!)
Thanks Karen, than was fun.
Kathleen
Bush 100%
Lieberman 76%
Edwards 71%
Kerry 68%
Clark 64%
With hope and heart,
Kathleen
--
If you are humble nothing will touch you, neither praise nor disgrace,
because you know what you are.
~Mother Theresa
: BTW, I am 100% Bush! My next in line was Lieberman, as I suspected.
:
_calinda_
even
>> state it. If you had asked me who I was going to vote for and
dead
>> last at 43%.. and my most disliked came in with a 100% match.
>> Hmm... good thing there is still time to think about this...
>>
>> Interesting for sure!
>> Cal~
>
> No fair Cal! I told! You have to tell!
>
> Sheila
Harder than I imagined... I voted for GWB last time, and had
planned on voting for him again. I came up with a 43% match for
him. I knew that I was moving away from his way of thinking, and of
that of the GOP as well. I've never felt comfortable with the way
abortion issue has been slowly moving back to the dark ages, due to
the republican party. But I felt on most issues I was more
conservative than this stupid quiz says I am.
This matches me up with John Kerry, senator from Massachusetts, who
I have never, ever liked. There is just something about him that
comes across as disingenuous to me!
Anyway.. I guess I need to do some rethinking of where my political
bent really lies, huh?
Cal~
Tracey
>than this stupid quiz says I am.
I took this 'stupid quiz', too and it's rigged. Rigged,
I tell you! When 7 out of 8 choices are Democrats, then
it's gotta be rigged.
But, you know what it is for me, I think? I've always
said that I've very conservative personally but I don't
presume to think that everyone else has to be conser-
vative. I know, as well as I can know, what I would do
in situation X, but that doesn't mean that what I would
do should necessarily be made into law so that everyone
else has to do the same as I would.
Tracey
WhansaMi
>planned on voting for him again. I came up with a 43% match for
>him. I knew that I was moving away from his way of thinking, and of
>that of the GOP as well. I've never felt comfortable with the way
>abortion issue has been slowly moving back to the dark ages, due to
>the republican party. But I felt on most issues I was more
>conservative than this stupid quiz says I am.
>
>This matches me up with John Kerry, senator from Massachusetts, who
>I have never, ever liked. There is just something about him that
>comes across as disingenuous to me!
Well, I think you are looking at two different issues. One is agreement on the
issues, and the other is whether or not you feel comfortable with a particular
candidate's intregrity, honesty and character. I don't think that the two are
dependent on one another.
BTW, there is something I just don't like about Kerry too, but I can't put my
finger on it. I was disappointed with New Hampshire last night. The thing is,
it is truly visceral, because I really don't know that much about the man.
That may mean that he just doesn't give a good first impression (in terms of
what I expect from a president), or it may mean that there really is something
hinky about him. I guess I'll have to try to figure that out as time goes on.
>
>Anyway.. I guess I need to do some rethinking of where my political
>bent really lies, huh?
I tend to be liberal on some issues (abortion rights, gay rights), moderate on
some (capital punishment, welfare reform) and fairly conservative on other
(foreign relations, the military). I'm not sure where I fall anymore!
Sheila
>
>Cal~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Vicki Robinson
>I took this 'stupid quiz', too and it's rigged. Rigged,
>I tell you! When 7 out of 8 choices are Democrats, then
>it's gotta be rigged.
It's rigged in that, if you don't answer any questions you match
everyone 100%. So instead of starting out with no matches and adding
points for agreement, you start out agreeing with everyone completely,
and then you lose points for disagreements. The questions are so
broadly drawn as to be meaningless in many cases.
But it was kind of fun, anyway.
Vicki
--
Just to think I used to worry about things like that.
Used to worry 'bout rich and skinny
'til I wound up poor and fat.
-Delbert McClinton
jane
>
>Vicki
Ditto, without the exclamation point. Who came after, though? I was surprised
that Kerry matched me better than Dean.
jane
jane
>
>Lynn
Bush came in last for me - 4%.
jane
jane
>finger on it.
He's an asshole. Still, I'm not looking for someone to hang out with. I'm
looking for someone to run the country.
jane
jane
>which made me feel all cheap and icky inside.
>
>Deb R.
>
Broken clock. You're good.
jane
Anne Robotti
Well, yeah, but is an asshole going to be the best person for the job?
Anne
Deborah M Riel
OK. I just couldn't accept this 8% Bush thing. I went back to the
quiz, and filled in all the answers the same way I had before, with
the exception at the end where it asks if it's important whether or
not your candidate has held a political office before. Last time I
checked "yes" and this time I left it at "no opinion". This time
Bush dropped to 2%, which makes me feel much less cheap and icky. My
head has stopped spinning, and I've stopped spewing green pea soup.
Deb R.
Anne Robotti
Riel) wrote:
>OK. I just couldn't accept this 8% Bush thing. I went back to the
>quiz, and filled in all the answers the same way I had before, with
>the exception at the end where it asks if it's important whether or
>not your candidate has held a political office before. Last time I
>checked "yes" and this time I left it at "no opinion". This time
>Bush dropped to 2%, which makes me feel much less cheap and icky. My
>head has stopped spinning, and I've stopped spewing green pea soup.
Still though, there's gotta be a little corner of you wondering when
that 2% is going to rear its ugly head...
Anne
jane
>Bush dropped to 2%, which makes me feel much less cheap and icky.
Thanks a whole lot. I was at 4% and I already had it marked "no opinion."
That makes me 2% more bush than you.
jane
>Deb R.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>Bush dropped to 2%, which makes me feel much less cheap and icky.
Pretty wild that a silly internet poll can make you feel "cheap and icky". It
isn't like it really means anything.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>that 2% is going to rear its ugly head...
>
jane
>
>Anne
Well, to be honest, I think they're probably all assholes.
But do I think it's a prerequisite for good presidenthood? No, I do not.
Because Lee's not an asshole, and I've got her earmarked for the job. After I
die, of course.
jane
Anne Robotti
See, I've always suspected this.
<snicker>
Anne
Deborah M Riel
Geri and sometimes Brian <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote:
>>Bush dropped to 2%, which makes me feel much less cheap and icky.
>
>Pretty wild that a silly internet poll can make you feel "cheap and icky". It
>isn't like it really means anything.
>
green pea soup, too.
Deb R.
Melissa
>That makes me 2% more bush than you.
>
>jane
>
And me! Ha, I'm more liberal than Jane!
Lynn Randall
"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040129000149...@mb-m02.aol.com...
I think it's very weird that they all scored such high marks from me, since
I don't like any of them and I consider myself a Libertarian - less taxes,
less government, and strong 2nd amendment.
And I will never vote for Bush since he characterized the out-sourcing of
technical jobs to India as the fault of American technical workers not
keeping current with their job skills.
Lynn
Geri and sometimes Brian
>green pea soup, too.
Got pictures?
Geri and sometimes Brian
>technical jobs to India as the fault of American technical workers not
>keeping current with their job skills
Is it true?
I like President Bush in a lot of ways, but he spends like a liberal and I
don't like that. I don't like his illegal alien amnesty plan at all - which
70% of the population opposes. OTOH, he seems to be the least of the evils.
I would like to see some politicians in office who actually represent their
population's viewpoints. Even Arnold is becoming a turncoat.
_calinda_
>> But I felt on most issues I was more conservative
> >than this stupid quiz says I am.
>
> I took this 'stupid quiz', too and it's rigged. Rigged,
> I tell you! When 7 out of 8 choices are Democrats, then
> it's gotta be rigged.
I think the reason for the 7 of 8 being the only 'choices' is due to
the assumption that Bush will mainly be unopposed by any
'mainstream' candidate for the republican primary. And then you had
the 7 'mainstream' democratic candidates. And that is with the
assumption that Kucinich & Sharpton are really all that
'mainstream'. I don't know.. I don't know enough about either of
them to really know.
<snipped remainder>
Cal~
Melissa
>don't like that.
He spends like a drunken sailor. Forget liberal. :)
>I don't like his illegal alien amnesty plan at all - which
>70% of the population opposes.
But it's not amnesty. That's what bugs me. I'd rather a real amnesty plan
that doesn't put immigration in the hands of corporations.
>I would like to see some politicians in office who actually represent their
>population's viewpoints. Even Arnold is becoming a turncoat.
>
>~~Geri~~
Is Arnold doing things that he didn't campaign on now?
People in NY hate Bloomberg right now, which amazes me. He ran on the platform
of "I know better than you do because I'm a billionaire and you're not." and
that's exactly how he runs the city.
Kathy Cole
Brian) wrote:
> Lynn wrote:
> >And I will never vote for Bush since he characterized the out-sourcing of
> >technical jobs to India as the fault of American technical workers not
> >keeping current with their job skills
>
> Is it true?
With respect to some specific individuals, sure. As a general statement
on the skill level of American IT workers, no, it's not true. It's a
line fed to allow businesses to save money exporting that work to
Bangalore and other, cheaper, areas. It's a handout to big business.
> I like President Bush in a lot of ways, but he spends like a liberal
> and I don't like that. I don't like his illegal alien amnesty plan
> at all - which 70% of the population opposes. OTOH, he seems to be
> the least of the evils.
I still wish McCain had won the republican nomination in 2000. He was
commenting in the last few days that his formerly conservative-spending
colleagues had started spending like drunken sailors, if I recall the
quote correctly.
And I strongly disagree that Bush is the least of the evils, but you
knew that. It does, however, seems like every last pandering one of
them has 37,000 spending programs without documenting how they're going
to pay for them, so I'm starting to tune out.
That, and fer pete's sake, did those ludicrous people think that selling
my name to every tom, dick and harry liberal cause after I gave to one
of them think that it would actually increase the amount of money I give
to various charitable or issue-based organizations?? I sent a few
dollars to one lobbying group in late fall, and I've been completely
drowned by solicitations ever since. So I opted out of mailed marketing
crap from the DMA, just to have random political groups make up the
slack *sigh*.
> I would like to see some politicians in office who actually represent
> their population's viewpoints. Even Arnold is becoming a turncoat.
Arnold had to become a turncoat. The state budget is a disaster, and
him making unpopular choices was inevitable. Sorry.
Karen
"Lynn Randall" <ly...@aikidocenters.com> wrote in message
news:84mcnX3xpa4...@ptd.net...
>
> > I don't like any of them and I consider myself a Libertarian - less
taxes,
> less government, and strong 2nd amendment.
>
>
I wish that in this election, I was voting for a candidate, and not just
against the opponent.
Karen
Melissa
>against the opponent.
>
>Karen
>
I'll be doing that in the primary, but probably not in the general election.
Melissa
>commenting in the last few days that his formerly conservative-spending
>colleagues had started spending like drunken sailors, if I recall the
>quote correctly.
I could have gone with McCain. Partly because I was more to the center in 2000
and partly because I've always felt that he was a man with integrity even if I
don't agree with alot of his views.
>
>That, and fer pete's sake, did those ludicrous people think that selling
>my name to every tom, dick and harry liberal cause after I gave to one
>of them think that it would actually increase the amount of money I give
>to various charitable or issue-based organizations?? I sent a few
>dollars to one lobbying group in late fall, and I've been completely
>drowned by solicitations ever since.
That happened to me once too. Now I always make certain that there's an opt
out policy on selling lists before I donate.
jane
>Love,
>Melissa
I'm moderate!
jane
Geri and sometimes Brian
>that doesn't put immigration in the hands of corporations.
I would prefer that *illegals* want to be citizens of this country, they do it
the way *legal* immigrant citizens do/did it. Anything else is a slap in the
face to the people who follow the laws.
Actually, the first thing that needs to be done is apply much stricter border
control, remove all free services to illegals so it is less attractive to be
one, and kick the violators out. In terms of what they do for the labor force
financially, they negate it (and over) in the burden they place on the country.
Not only that, the idea that they do jobs that would not otherwise get done is
also malarkey. There was not enough unskilled labor during various periods of
history of economic growth of the US, and the result was a higher degree of
invention and creation of labor saving ideas.
>Is Arnold doing things that he didn't campaign on now?
>
He appears to be going along with the new version of SB60 (the illegal
immigrant driver's license bill) even though the majority of people in the
state are *against* it. It appears to have been tweaked to put more controls
on security issues, but the bottom line is that the population is against
this.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>him making unpopular choices was inevitable. Sorry.
>
Geri and sometimes Brian
One of my favorite candidates ever was Steve Forbes. I loved his flat tax
plan.
Geri and sometimes Brian
Pffft ... and I am a monkey's uncle.
Rupa Bose
> (Geri and sometimes Brian) wrote:
>
> > Lynn wrote:
> > >And I will never vote for Bush since he characterized the out-sourcing of
> > >technical jobs to India as the fault of American technical workers not
> > >keeping current with their job skills
> >
> > Is it true?
>
> With respect to some specific individuals, sure. As a general statement
> on the skill level of American IT workers, no, it's not true. It's a
> line fed to allow businesses to save money exporting that work to
> Bangalore and other, cheaper, areas. It's a handout to big business.
The main value to outsourcing is that there's a huge cost and wage
differential between the US and the outsourcee countries, mainly
India. We're talking of wage differentials of a factor of perhaps
5-10x, so that even after you build in the cost of remote management,
a company can look to halve its costs or better. That's tempting to
any company, and if you're talking of an environment of competition,
there's always the issue that if you don't do it, your competitor
will.
It really, to my mind at least, has nothing to do with job skills.
Even if one has fabulous job skills, unless they are so unique that a
smart Indian youngster can't learn them, the wage competition will
continue.
I think it's a lot simpler: Can the job be outsourced (in other words,
can it be done remotely)? And is it cost-efficient to do so?
I think there are some jobs which can't be outsourced because they
require performance of services on the spot: Nursing, for instance.
But, for instance, I can visualize a time when you get an x-ray taken
in, say, California; it's electronically transmitted to a doctor in
Bangalore who reads and interprets it, and the next morning you have a
diagnosis by e-mail...
Rupa
Geri and sometimes Brian
>require performance of services on the spot: Nursing, for instance.
I wish that could be done with a remote from my house.
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
Rupa Bose <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
>
>But, for instance, I can visualize a time when you get an x-ray taken
>in, say, California; it's electronically transmitted to a doctor in
>Bangalore who reads and interprets it, and the next morning you have a
>diagnosis by e-mail...
Actually, I believe this kind of thing is already happening.
As a software engineer, the subject of outsourcing is near and dear to my
heart. ;-) I've no doubt there are people in India, and China, and Russia,
and Sri Lanka that are just as skilled as many of the people here. I do
object to anyone who suggests that any company NEEDS to go outside the
U.S. simply to obtain the skill set. That's simply untrue - especially
now, with unemployment in the software sector so high.
(BTW, I don't know if Mr. Bush said anything like that. I do know that Carly
Fiorina, CEO of HP, made a statement to that effect.)
Currently, there are some huge cultural barriers to outsourcing certain
types of software - not in terms of skill set, or even of language; but in
explaining flow-control paradigms to a drastically different society.
This kind of overhead, from what I've seen, is rarely taken into account
by executives and stockholders who just want to hear they can slash 50%
off their R&D budget with no consequences.
Those barriers won't be in place forever, of course; the world is becoming
smaller and smaller. And I can't begrudge my company if they decide at
some point they can get what they get from me for less money from someone
else - here, or overseas. I do think, though, that when that time comes
there are going to be repercussions in our economy that haven't really been
thought through.
And I don't have any answers.
JMO,
Liz
--
li...@world.std.com
"No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and
spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they
can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963
Vicki Robinson
>Those barriers won't be in place forever, of course; the world is becoming
>smaller and smaller. And I can't begrudge my company if they decide at
>some point they can get what they get from me for less money from someone
>else - here, or overseas. I do think, though, that when that time comes
>there are going to be repercussions in our economy that haven't really been
>thought through.
>
>And I don't have any answers.
By the time the world becomes small enough for outsourcing to be equal
to domestic software development, Indian software engineers will be
commanding similar salaries to American or European engineers.
My husband is a software developer, and outsourcing is a bitter topic
in our house.
Vicki
--
Just to think I used to worry about things like that.
Used to worry 'bout rich and skinny
'til I wound up poor and fat.
-Delbert McClinton
Lynn Randall
"Melissa" <laa...@aol.comspamzap> wrote in message
news:20040130084437...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Even Arnold is becoming a turncoat.
> >
> >~~Geri~~
>
> Is Arnold doing things that he didn't campaign on now?
>
He's letting illegal immigrants get driver licenses.
Lynn
Lynn Randall
"Kathy Cole" <ka...@scconsult.com> wrote in message
news:vopk10ljkdi8ulm4m...@4ax.com...
> On 30 Jan 2004 00:42:26 GMT, gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes
> Brian) wrote:
>
> > Lynn wrote:
> > >And I will never vote for Bush since he characterized the out-sourcing
of
> > >technical jobs to India as the fault of American technical workers not
> > >keeping current with their job skills
> >
> > Is it true?
>
My God - this is Too Funny! I thought Geri was asking is it true that Bush
said this!
Of course it's not true that IT workers are not keeping current with their
job skills. As we have been told as employees of Lucent Technologies, the
corporate overhead for 1 American IT person is $179,000 per year; for 1
Indian, it is $40,000!!!!!
My husband and I are both in the position of clinging on to our jobs by our
fingernails, after a combined 40 years in the industry and much education
and experience.
Lynn
Lynn Randall
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
news:20040130113158...@mb-m15.aol.com...
>
> One of my favorite candidates ever was Steve Forbes. I loved his flat tax
> plan.
>
I agree.
Lynn
Lynn Randall
> (BTW, I don't know if Mr. Bush said anything like that. I do know that
Carly
> Fiorina, CEO of HP, made a statement to that effect.)
>
>
If you google around the June timeframe, you will see that Mr. Bush did
indeed say exactly that.
His speech was widely quoted on the IEEE website, and inspired an email
campaign of complaints against it.
Lynn
Lynn Randall
> in our house.
>
> Vicki
Yes!
Lynn
Rupa Bose
>
> Currently, there are some huge cultural barriers to outsourcing certain
> types of software - not in terms of skill set, or even of language; but in
> explaining flow-control paradigms to a drastically different society.
> This kind of overhead, from what I've seen, is rarely taken into account
> by executives and stockholders who just want to hear they can slash 50%
> off their R&D budget with no consequences.
>
> Those barriers won't be in place forever, of course; the world is becoming
> smaller and smaller. And I can't begrudge my company if they decide at
> some point they can get what they get from me for less money from someone
> else - here, or overseas. I do think, though, that when that time comes
> there are going to be repercussions in our economy that haven't really been
> thought through.
>
> And I don't have any answers.
>
I'm not sure anyone has. Economists explain it in terms of structural
changes and buggy-whips. Companies explain it in terms of Shareholder
Value. Politicians talk of globalization.
It is going to mean a distinctly different economy. One possibility is
one that has stars and support staff: A few people, with unique
skills, make a lot of money; others, who may have good skills but are
not unique, will make a lot less (perhaps fractions of a percent of
the star salaries).
Or it might mean more leisure time for Americans, if they own the
corporations which deepen their profit margins. Then we become a
nation of capitalists, and all the work is done by the people in or
from poorer countries. (Some oil-rich countries de facto function on
this model.)
But the period of transition, well, it's going to be - interesting.
Rupa
Rupa Bose
> >I think there are some jobs which can't be outsourced because they
> >require performance of services on the spot: Nursing, for instance.
>
> I wish that could be done with a remote from my house.
>
Rupa
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
Lynn Randall <ly...@aikidocenters.com> wrote:
>
>His speech was widely quoted on the IEEE website, and inspired an email
>campaign of complaints against it.
Ah. Well, I suppose I'm unsurprised.
Thanks for the reference, Lynn.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>>
>Perhaps. Then, it could also be done with a remote from Gurgaon, India.
That would be alright, too.
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
>corporations which deepen their profit margins. Then we become a
>nation of capitalists, and all the work is done by the people in or
>from poorer countries. (Some oil-rich countries de facto function on
>this model.)
You're more of an optimist than I am. I see this trend as continuing to
decimate the middle class, leaving us with little more than extremely
wealthy corporation owners and those who cut their grass.
And no, I've nothing against either wealthy corporation owners or
landscapers. I just think a society made up predominantly of these two
financial classes won't be nearly as stable as one with a healthy middle
class.
It will be interesting to see if the downsides of some types of outsourcing
mitigate this trend in the future. (There's a Chinese curse in there
somewhere! ;-))
Melissa
>to domestic software development, Indian software engineers will be
>commanding similar salaries to American or European engineers.
>
>My husband is a software developer, and outsourcing is a bitter topic
>in our house.
>
>Vicki
SO is amazed by how much technical stuff his company outsources. No joke, when
his printer at work is broken he calls support people in India.
WhansaMi
>>to domestic software development, Indian software engineers will be
>>commanding similar salaries to American or European engineers.
>>
>>My husband is a software developer, and outsourcing is a bitter topic
>>in our house.
>>
>>Vicki
>
>SO is amazed by how much technical stuff his company outsources. No joke,
>when
>his printer at work is broken he calls support people in India.
>Love,
>Melissa
My DH does pricing for bids for tech support in the public and private sector.
At least in the companies he works with, he doesn't see as much of it as it
sometimes sounds like in the media. Maybe it is the companies he works with;
he says that most of them don't want their data going to unsecure places, and
they feel that US companies are more reliable in that way.
Sheila
Rupa Bose
> By the time the world becomes small enough for outsourcing to be equal
> to domestic software development, Indian software engineers will be
> commanding similar salaries to American or European engineers.
So we hope. But, realistically, the only bottleneck to having hordes
of software engineers is training. And training software engineers is
again mainly about having people to train them (and to a lesser
extent, having hardware to train them on).
India has 1 billion people, about half of them under 30. Let's say
only 10% of them have the kind of talent you need for software
development. That's 100 million people, of which around 50 million are
under 30 (and presumably flexible enough to learn new stuff).
where I think the transformation will occur is in allowing industry to
do things it could not otherwise do: Write more specialized code; have
special software developed for individual companies and so on.
I also think similar kinds of outsourcing will occur in biotech and in
pharmaceutical research, but will take a while -- I would guess about
another 10-15 years -- before it really takes off.
I think the government needs to think through the transitional period.
I read in the latest Time magazine that there's some assistance given
to people who have lost manufacturing jobs to outsourcing that is not
available to people who have lost service jobs. Doesn't sound fair to
me.
Rupa
Rupa Bose
> At least in the companies he works with, he doesn't see as much of it as it
> sometimes sounds like in the media. Maybe it is the companies he works with;
> he says that most of them don't want their data going to unsecure places, and
> they feel that US companies are more reliable in that way.
>
> Sheila
They're right -- for now.
Some Indian company is going to come up with some way of assuring data security.
Rupa
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
>
I kinda hope they already have - according to a "60 Minutes" segment a few
weeks ago, they're expecting to process 200,000 tax returns in India this
year.
Lori
"Karen" <kat...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bv6bc...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> A friend sent this to me, and I thought it was kind of fun and
interesting.
> It matches your opinions on issues against the candidates positions:
>
> Go to the Q&A section:
> www.presidentmatch.com
>
>
No big surprise here, I left off party choice and everything, came up 100%
Bush. :-)
Lori
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 1/30/04
Lori
"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040129000149...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> >I don't even know who he is, but he came in last for me - 38%.
> >
> >Lynn
>
> Bush came in last for me - 4%.
>
> jane
Sharpton came in last for me, 30 something %
Lori
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> >I'd rather a real amnesty plan
> >that doesn't put immigration in the hands of corporations.
>
> I would prefer that *illegals* want to be citizens of this country, they
do it
> the way *legal* immigrant citizens do/did it. Anything else is a slap in
the
> face to the people who follow the laws.
>
> Actually, the first thing that needs to be done is apply much stricter
border
> control, remove all free services to illegals so it is less attractive to
be
> one, and kick the violators out. In terms of what they do for the labor
force
> financially, they negate it (and over) in the burden they place on the
country.
> Not only that, the idea that they do jobs that would not otherwise get
done is
> also malarkey. There was not enough unskilled labor during various
periods of
> history of economic growth of the US, and the result was a higher degree
of
> invention and creation of labor saving ideas.
Absolutely agree with you on this!
Lori
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> >I could have gone with McCain.
>
> One of my favorite candidates ever was Steve Forbes. I loved his flat tax
> plan.
>
So did I. I've always thought that the best way.
Lori
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> >>Don't fight it Deb, there's a little Bush in all of us. Except me. I'm
> >>pure. But the rest of you all have a little bit. Even Melissa and
> >>Jane.
> >
> >Embrace it! You know you want to!
>
> BTW, I am 100% Bush! My next in line was Lieberman, as I suspected. (I
didn't
> type in a party, just to see what would happen.) I am actually more
> conservative than President Bush, because I hate his amnesty program for
> illegal aliens. If only our Senator Tom McClintock out here would run for
> President some day. He would rock.
>
> Geri
> (blowing kisses to all of you socialist lefties - KISS, KISS, KISS)
>
My next in line was Lieberman, too, I also left out party choice to see what
would happen. And i also think I'm even more conservative than Bush. I
think we'd get along pretty well, Geri, if we lived close enough to meet in
real life! :-)
Lori
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> >In actuality, I plan on sitting out the next election - my vote is for
None
> >Of The Above!
>
> I generally like President Bush, but if there was a candidate who would
close
> the borders, that one would get my vote.
>
> ~~Geri~~
Same here, Geri, same here.
Wendy
"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:bvevd6$tn6$1...@pcls4.std.com...
> In article <e5619372.04013...@posting.google.com>,
> Rupa Bose <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> >
> >Or it might mean more leisure time for Americans, if they own the
> >corporations which deepen their profit margins. Then we become a
> >nation of capitalists, and all the work is done by the people in or
> >from poorer countries. (Some oil-rich countries de facto function on
> >this model.)
>
> You're more of an optimist than I am. I see this trend as continuing to
> decimate the middle class, leaving us with little more than extremely
> wealthy corporation owners and those who cut their grass.
Whereas I see it as corporate terrorism. Corporations regularly set up off
shore to avoid taxation, now they are employing people in other countries to
avoid competitive rates of pay and legislation to protect workers. Look at
Coca Cola in Columbia, turning a blind eye to brutal attacks on workers
involved in trade union activities. Will these call centre workers get sick
leave, holidays, or maternity or paternity pay? Multinationals want to work
outside the law. This is how they go about it.
Wendy
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
Wendy <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Multinationals want to work
>outside the law. This is how they go about it.
Personally, I don't think they attach morals to it one way or another. If
they could get cheaper labor in a country with more stringent employment
rules, they'd still do it. It's all about money in the end. The bigger
the company, the more focused on squeezing the bottom line. (Which is
somehow supposed to trickle down to all of us, and make for a wonderful
healthy middle class, so we can all go out and buy big-screen TVs for the
Super Bowl. But I digress.)
But yeah, at those times when I try to fold my brain around a solution to the
problem, it occurs to me that only allowing outsourcing to countries that met
a minimum set of humanitarian standards might help. But then I remember some
of the stupid things our government ends up wrangling over, and I realize
that'll never happen. At least not until CEOs start getting shipped overseas.
Liz, cynical on the first of February
Wendy
"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
> In article <bvif45$mbm$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Wendy <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Multinationals want to work
> >outside the law. This is how they go about it.
>
> Personally, I don't think they attach morals to it one way or another. If
> they could get cheaper labor in a country with more stringent employment
> rules, they'd still do it. It's all about money in the end.
Exactly, they are without morals - the drive for profit supercedes their
sense of responsibility towards the people they employ. Employment rules
have a cost and they'll do anything to avoid paying the price.
Wendy
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
Wendy <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Employment rules have a cost and they'll do anything to avoid paying the
>price.
Right now, sure they will. CEOs and the levels underneath them aren't paid
to think about individual workers and the conditions in which they live.
For public companies, the Board of Directors can put tremendous pressure on
the executive team to slash the budget, whatever it takes, in the grand
tradition of putting the stockholders first. Pre-globalization, and pre-
dot-com bust, they had to maintain a careful balance between keeping costs
down and spending enough to attract and keep talented people. There's no
need for that balance anymore; but the old system is still in place, with
zero incentive for those involved to change it.
I could get angry about it. When it finally affects me, I'm sure I will get
angry about it. Right now, though, there isn't a damn thing I can do about
it - and I'm not sure what I'd want anybody else to do. I don't think it's
possible to tell a company they cannot outsource work - not in the uber-
capitalist USA, anyway - but it seems to me that unrestricted outsourcing
of higher and higher paying jobs is an unsustainable economic model. I just
don't know how to solve the problem - you can't legislate social consciousness
into CEOs and Boards of Directors. (And truthfully, I'd be afraid of whose
brand of social consciousness would end up being legislated.)
Liz
Geri and sometimes Brian
>think we'd get along pretty well, Geri, if we lived close enough to meet in
>real life! :-)
Indeed! :-)
Geri and sometimes Brian
I call it making money. If you have a corporation, your job is to make money
for yourself and your stockholders, preferably legally.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>sense of responsibility towards the people they employ. Employment rules
>have a cost and they'll do anything to avoid paying the price.
>
Wendy
"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
> Right now, sure they will. CEOs and the levels underneath them aren't
paid
> to think about individual workers and the conditions in which they live.
> For public companies, the Board of Directors can put tremendous pressure
on
> the executive team to slash the budget, whatever it takes, in the grand
> tradition of putting the stockholders first.
One of the fundamental flaws of capitalism.
Pre-globalization, and pre-
> dot-com bust, they had to maintain a careful balance between keeping costs
> down and spending enough to attract and keep talented people. There's no
> need for that balance anymore; but the old system is still in place, with
> zero incentive for those involved to change it.
It's also true that when a company works within the confines of one country,
government can take an interest and labour can organise to counterbalance
the selfishness of stockholder greed.
Strong international laws are increasingly essential.
> I could get angry about it.
I already am, and I suspect that it's not an insignificant factor in the
increase of other sorts of terrorism we're seeing.
When it finally affects me, I'm sure I will get
> angry about it.
How can you not get angry when you see child labour in third world companies
going into the products you buy, guerilla tactics being taken against any
trades union activities, bribery of officials in third world countires,
cooking the books to mislead the public at large, a lack of concern for the
environment we all have to live in, and destroying the stability of nations
in the pursuit of profit for the few?
Right now, though, there isn't a damn thing I can do about
> it - and I'm not sure what I'd want anybody else to do.
Everyone has some power. We have the power to choose carefully what we buy
and who we vote for at the very least.
I don't think it's
> possible to tell a company they cannot outsource work - not in the uber-
> capitalist USA, anyway - but it seems to me that unrestricted outsourcing
> of higher and higher paying jobs is an unsustainable economic model.
It seems ludicrous to wait for collapse before people wake up and smell the
coffee.
I just
> don't know how to solve the problem - you can't legislate social
consciousness
> into CEOs and Boards of Directors. (And truthfully, I'd be afraid of
whose
> brand of social consciousness would end up being legislated.)
But not to apply any controls gives them license to use and abuse and they
will.
Wendy
Wendy
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> >Whereas I see it as corporate terrorism.
>
> I call it making money. If you have a corporation, your job is to make
money
> for yourself and your stockholders, preferably legally.
Preferably?!
Wendy
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
Wendy <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
>news:bvjvib$2pm$1...@pcls4.std.com...
>
>
>I already am, and I suspect that it's not an insignificant factor in the
>increase of other sorts of terrorism we're seeing.
I assume you're talking about standards of living here, and not outsourcing in
particular.
>
> When it finally affects me, I'm sure I will get
>> angry about it.
>
>How can you not get angry when you see child labour in third world companies
>going into the products you buy, guerilla tactics being taken against any
>trades union activities, bribery of officials in third world countires,
>cooking the books to mislead the public at large, a lack of concern for the
>environment we all have to live in, and destroying the stability of nations
>in the pursuit of profit for the few?
Yikes. I put it badly.
When I said "I could get angry about it," what I mean is that I could sit
here and think about it and get myself upset at this very moment. I have
good friends who have been directly affected by the issue of outsourcing
software jobs, one of whom has given up the industry entirely.
However, I would like to separate, if possible, the general issue of
outsourcing with exploitative labor. While outsourcing does drop a job in
the US in favor of paying someone less to do the same thing in another
country, it's not always at an exploitative wage. When comparing cost of
living, the wages paid are often pretty equivalent. That's not to say
that there isn't horrible exploitation; but I think that's a subset of
outsourcing, and not the whole issue. (And I may be mistaken; but I believe
there are regulations, at least about the most egregious examples?)
> Right now, though, there isn't a damn thing I can do about
>> it - and I'm not sure what I'd want anybody else to do.
>
>Everyone has some power. We have the power to choose carefully what we buy
>and who we vote for at the very least.
Yes. And I do both of these things. But - to invoke some step-parenting
language here! - I try to remember my circle of control.
When I'm sick, or tired, or especially hormonal (which seems to happen a lot
these days!), I can lie awake at night worrying about things like this, about
what will happen to the world and what kind of species humanity thinks it is.
(Not to mention who the hell am I to be bringing a child into this mess.)
But that is not only useless, it's counterproductive - how can I do anything
about anything if I'm constantly exhausted and fighting things in my head
I can't affect? I can learn about what I spend my money on, and I can get
out and vote, and I can share my concerns with people who will listen. But
making myself constantly nuts over it gets me worse than nowhere - it renders
me powerless.
> I don't think it's
>> possible to tell a company they cannot outsource work - not in the uber-
>> capitalist USA, anyway - but it seems to me that unrestricted outsourcing
>> of higher and higher paying jobs is an unsustainable economic model.
>
>It seems ludicrous to wait for collapse before people wake up and smell the
>coffee.
Welcome to the human race. When has *anything* changed on a global scale
without it directly affecting a critical mass of the population? Objects
at rest tend to stay at rest. The expanding affect of outsourcing actually
gives me a little hope that things *will* change. If your neighbor files for
bankruptcy - well, he should've thought ahead, shouldn't he? If *you* have
to do it - hey! This system has some problems, doesn't it?
> I just
>> don't know how to solve the problem - you can't legislate social
>consciousness
>> into CEOs and Boards of Directors. (And truthfully, I'd be afraid of
>whose
>> brand of social consciousness would end up being legislated.)
>
>But not to apply any controls gives them license to use and abuse and they
>will.
This is true. But as I said - whose controls? The US in particular doesn't
have a terribly good record choosing standards that actually make a
difference. (To raise another hot point - abstinence-only education, anyone?)
If I were Jane's theoretical Queen of the World, I know some of the things
I'd do. I also suspect most of the voters in this country would disagree
with me.
Liz
(BTW, I fundamentally agree with you, Wendy. And if I seem like I'm arguing -
well, much to my horror I find I'm a lot like my dad as I get older. ;-))
Geri and sometimes Brian
>money
>> for yourself and your stockholders, preferably legally.
>
>Preferably?!
>
~~Geri~~
"The song "Omaha" by Counting Crows has nothing to do with the city. If you
need to talk about music, hum the Husker fight song and eat your steak."
--Nebraska Tourism Bureau
Wendy
"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
> >I already am, and I suspect that it's not an insignificant factor in the
> >increase of other sorts of terrorism we're seeing.
>
> I assume you're talking about standards of living here, and not
outsourcing in
> particular.
You assume wrong then, what I'm talking about is corporate terrorism and
corporate greed of which outsourcing is but another example, not standards
of living at all.
> Yikes. I put it badly.
>
> When I said "I could get angry about it," what I mean is that I could sit
> here and think about it and get myself upset at this very moment. I have
> good friends who have been directly affected by the issue of outsourcing
> software jobs, one of whom has given up the industry entirely.
Okay, I'm sorry. I have to work at not being angry a lot of the time. I'm
in IT too, as are many of my friends, but for me it's about principle.
> However, I would like to separate, if possible, the general issue of
> outsourcing with exploitative labor. While outsourcing does drop a job in
> the US in favor of paying someone less to do the same thing in another
> country, it's not always at an exploitative wage. When comparing cost of
> living, the wages paid are often pretty equivalent.
No, it may not be, but the cost of employing someone is vastly greater than
their salary. People use the line that children in sweatshops making Adidas
are earning money to keep food on the table for their family as
justification for allowing companies to exploit those children. Would they
do that if the factories were in America? Is outsourcing really so
different?
That's not to say
> that there isn't horrible exploitation; but I think that's a subset of
> outsourcing, and not the whole issue. (And I may be mistaken; but I
believe
> there are regulations, at least about the most egregious examples?)
In principle, it doesn't at first seem a bad thing to share the wealth with
other countries, but there are similarities with other more egregious
examples. Do we really want multinationals to be above the law and
uncontrollable by government and by the standards we have set for human
rights and employment rights in the western world?
> When I'm sick, or tired, or especially hormonal (which seems to happen a
lot
> these days!),
Hey, that happens to me too, but for very different reasons.
I can lie awake at night worrying about things like this, about
> what will happen to the world and what kind of species humanity thinks it
is.
> (Not to mention who the hell am I to be bringing a child into this mess.)
> But that is not only useless, it's counterproductive - how can I do
anything
> about anything if I'm constantly exhausted and fighting things in my head
> I can't affect? I can learn about what I spend my money on, and I can get
> out and vote, and I can share my concerns with people who will listen.
But
> making myself constantly nuts over it gets me worse than nowhere - it
renders
> me powerless.
If there is one thing that made me even more passionate and idealistic about
the way the world ought to be, it was bringing a new life into it.
> Welcome to the human race. When has *anything* changed on a global scale
> without it directly affecting a critical mass of the population? Objects
> at rest tend to stay at rest. The expanding affect of outsourcing
actually
> gives me a little hope that things *will* change. If your neighbor files
for
> bankruptcy - well, he should've thought ahead, shouldn't he? If *you*
have
> to do it - hey! This system has some problems, doesn't it?
Indeed.
> This is true. But as I said - whose controls?
International ones.
The US in particular doesn't
> have a terribly good record choosing standards that actually make a
> difference. (To raise another hot point - abstinence-only education,
anyone?)
You'll have to clarify that one for me, I'm not sure what you're referring
to.
Wendy
Wendy
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> >> I call it making money. If you have a corporation, your job is to make
> >money
> >> for yourself and your stockholders, preferably legally.
> >
> >Preferably?!
> >
> Yep.
In my book, if it's illegal than there's no preferrably about it.
Wendy
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
Wendy <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
>news:bvlpo0$fkb$1...@pcls4.std.com...
>outsourcing in
>> particular.
>
>You assume wrong then, what I'm talking about is corporate terrorism and
>corporate greed of which outsourcing is but another example, not standards
>of living at all.
But is it really so black-and-white? Are all corporations greedy terrorists?
And where is the dividing line?
I think these decisions fall along a continuum. There is a big company based
in Massachusetts that, some years ago, blackmailed the government into giving
it a tax break by threatening to move a bunch of jobs out of state. The
government gave in, and the jobs started moving anyway, due to a "No, really,
we *can't* afford to keep these people here" loophole. Should the state have
given in to this company? I sure don't think so; what was going to happen was
pretty obvious to anybody with half a brain. Should the company have kept the
jobs in-state? Well...I honestly don't know. They can pay lower wages in
Tennessee because the cost of living is lower, and they get just as good a
talent pool. But boy, did it suck for the people here.
To me, I guess the line is drawn when they're utilizing countries where the
standard of living is really horrible, and people ARE grateful to get fifty
cents a day because it means they might get bread this week. That's
unconscionable, I agree. But to pay someone in, for example, India ten times
the average middle-class salary doesn't seem so unethical. Sucks for me,
sure; but I can't agree that's exploitative.
>No, it may not be, but the cost of employing someone is vastly greater than
>their salary. People use the line that children in sweatshops making Adidas
>are earning money to keep food on the table for their family as
>justification for allowing companies to exploit those children. Would they
>do that if the factories were in America? Is outsourcing really so
>different?
As I said above, I think it depends. Employing adults in India at an
extremely good local wage is not the same as Adidas using children in
sweatshops. That's why it's a standard-of-living issue for me.
>In principle, it doesn't at first seem a bad thing to share the wealth with
>other countries, but there are similarities with other more egregious
>examples. Do we really want multinationals to be above the law and
>uncontrollable by government and by the standards we have set for human
>rights and employment rights in the western world?
I agree, and as I said earlier I'd likely support an effort to set minimum
standards for the countries to which we outsource. As far as employment
rights go - they differ drastically even in the Western world. My company
wins awards in the U.S. for its maternity benefits, and they're a joke
compared with what employees in Great Britain and Canada can choose from.
>If there is one thing that made me even more passionate and idealistic about
>the way the world ought to be, it was bringing a new life into it.
You'd probably be surprised, after all this, at how idealistic I am. ;-) I
am more liberal than Jane, actually (I was only 3% Bush!). But I have come
to view U.S. society as the Titanic - it can turn, but boy does it take a long
time. And it might have to rip a hole in its side before it gets there.
>> This is true. But as I said - whose controls?
>
>International ones.
Hey, I'm in the land of "screw the Kyoto treaty," remember? The U.S. may
someday get on the international bandwagon, but I'm betting not in my lifetime.
(And no, that doesn't mean we should stop pushing for it.)
>The US in particular doesn't
>> have a terribly good record choosing standards that actually make a
>> difference. (To raise another hot point - abstinence-only education,
>anyone?)
>
>You'll have to clarify that one for me, I'm not sure what you're referring
>to.
A personal pet peeve of mine, also as I think of raising my own child: many
studies have shown abstinence-only sex education doesn't work, yet the
government still throws money at it. Thank you for using my tax dollars so
wisely </sarcasm>. It's a "standard" they cling to that has no basis in
fact.
Liz
Vicki Robinson
>>How can you not get angry when you see child labour in third world companies
>>going into the products you buy, guerilla tactics being taken against any
>>trades union activities, bribery of officials in third world countires,
>>cooking the books to mislead the public at large, a lack of concern for the
>>environment we all have to live in, and destroying the stability of nations
>>in the pursuit of profit for the few?
>
>However, I would like to separate, if possible, the general issue of
>outsourcing with exploitative labor. While outsourcing does drop a job in
>the US in favor of paying someone less to do the same thing in another
>country, it's not always at an exploitative wage. When comparing cost of
>living, the wages paid are often pretty equivalent. That's not to say
>that there isn't horrible exploitation; but I think that's a subset of
>outsourcing, and not the whole issue. (And I may be mistaken; but I believe
>there are regulations, at least about the most egregious examples?)
And eventually, the society whose children are being exploited will
have attained a general standard of living that will enable it to say
"No more. None of us is so poor anymore that we *must* send our
children to work in dangerous conditions" just as we did in the US and
Europe at the end of the 19th Century.
I don't believe that any country in the future will be as wealthy as
the US is, and that includes the US, but there will also be either no
Third World standards of living or the Third World will be shrinking
rapidly. Everyone on Earth will eventually have a lower-middle-class
standard of living; it will fall in the US, Canada and Europe and rise
in Asia and Africa. Outsourcing will be moot at that point.
It's going to take a few generations, though.
Vicki
--
Just to think I used to worry about things like that.
Used to worry 'bout rich and skinny
'til I wound up poor and fat.
-Delbert McClinton
Geri and sometimes Brian
>the way the world ought to be, it was bringing a new life into it.
For completely different reasons than yours, this is partially why I chose
never to do so.
>> This is true. But as I said - whose controls?
>
>International ones.
Negatory on that. We don't need a bunch of socialists and banana republics
telling our businesses what to do.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>to view U.S. society as the Titanic - it can turn, but boy does it take a
>long
>time.
This was somewhat of a fallacy perpetuated by the Cameron movie.
>And it might have to rip a hole in its side before it gets there.
Actually a series of small holes.
jane
Now see, that's exactly what I think we need.
jane