|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.cisco > April 2004 > OT Outsourcing Opponents - Buy American
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT Outsourcing Opponents - Buy American
|
|
|
| Quite a thread you fellows had here. Let me clarify a few things for you.
1. I am not mentally disturbed and I consider that statement libelous, but
considering the source I'll let it go.
2. I have a very dark sense of humor. I lived realities most of you have
only seen on TV.
3. I am a registered Democrat, but after this election I will drop the
party affiliation since I think that both political parties are thouroughly
corrupt and are nothing but puppets for multi-national corporations (MNCs).
4. I think that the current Republican administration is corrupt and inept
and GWB is a joke who acts only as a front for serious corporate players. I
believe the agenda they pursue will leave America without a middle class
and they as global citizens will chase profits wherever cheap labor and new
consumer markets can be developed. I believe it is essentional for Bush and
friends to be removed from office for this country to remain a decent place
to live.
4. I was laid off from a $140K job with a global integrator (they changed
the business plan) a year ago in January. I now manage three NYC bars, run
a small webdesign business, and a dog walking business (the latter has
become a necessary to maintain some balance and sanity without paying for
it). I was intially angry but after having researched and learned about :
- Globalization & Free Trade without Fair Trade Provisions
- Wealth Distribution
- the MNC/Political Relationship
- the potential harm offshore outsourcing could bring to Americans
- the abuse of the middle and lower classes in this country
- the trained and reinforced gullibility running rampant in this country
you might say I am very concerned and mildly pissed.
5. NYC99 was, and is, a place where I store research and if I have time
express an opinion or two. Most of it is cut and paste, although, I admit,
I haven't done that great a job of clarifying the layout. As you can
imagine I don't have that much time to devote to it and it is not a revune
stream by any strech of the imagination.
6. Whatever titles I had within the technology vertical I was a "fixer." If
there was a problem within a process (at whatever level0, or a particularly
difficult customer on a large project, or a project that had to be shot
from the hip with no planning, or a project for which we had no experience
or resources with the appropriate skill sets, or just plain disaster
recovery, I got it to figure out and execute. I was quite successful over a
long period of time. My approach to "what happened to all the big projects
and where did the headhunters go" was based on prior experience and
methodoligies.
7. I believe Offshore Outsourcing is a indicator of a larger cancer in our
society and needs to be dealt with before middleclass politcal abilites are
totally decimated by poverty (poverty defined relative to higher income
levels as in a two class economic society).
8. I think that Economists hold an undeserved position in our decision
making process. Their value as historians is unquestioned but their
validity as unbiased forecastors has yet to be proven.
9. I have discovered their is a fine line between fair use and copyright
infringement hence the lack of consistency with links and full reprints. At
this point in time I am publishing random ideas I come across relative to
my current pursuits. I use a news aggregator
(http://www.bradsoft.com/feeddemon/index.asp)to cover about 600 amateur and
commercial sources and store a lot of info there now.
10. I sincerely believe that if you aren't concerned about what is
happening in the U.S. these days you really aren't paying attention or have
been so thouroughly conditioned by think-tank framing you are probably
beyond help.
/* ------------ */
From: Bernie (Bernie@weekend.com)
Subject: Re: OT Outsourcing Opponents - Buy American
View: Complete Thread (21 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.certification.cisco
Date: 2004-01-08 23:59:09 PST
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:11:03 -0800, "Sierraman" <riposa@sti.net> wrote:
>"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> news:ttaovvkf5ed91j57gbbtb3f8v
jik24b0eg@4ax.com...
>
>How is it I got beat?
When you fail to answer substantially all of someone's response, as
you did in the initial thread with Nrf (might I remind you that no one
was "ganging up" on you back then), then you are failing to defend
your position. It is a silent admission that the other person is
correct in their views, or at least it is an admission that you don't
know how to respond.
>I didn't know it was some kind of competition?
If you weren't treating it like a competition, then why did you make
this statement to Nrf:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:58:55 -0800, "Sierraman" <riposa@sti.net> wrote:
>You will
>drown in these links for sure.
>Again,
>not whining, it started as a troll. There are plenty of folks who don't take
>you guys as gospel, So-Cal didn't. There are others out there who can see
>through it but they choose not to speak, but rather to read. That's fine as
>long as they get the whole picture. Since you guys have been dropping bombs
>now for weeks in favor of outsourcing,
Correct that. No one has said that we *should* move jobs. Nrf and I
have defended the right of companies to *choose* to do so if it was in
their best interest. The fact that many companies think it is in
their best interest to move certain jobs speaks for itself.
>now for a change they can read the
>other side. I was glad to provide that.
>
>Wrong again. They don't cost money,
Tell me what this asks for if it isn't money...salt?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/b...y/07out.html?th
>they simple ask to log in with user name
>and password like a member, but most of them are free. Many of the big city
>papers use this method.
The NY Times isn't a big city paper?
>The author doesn't state they are no longer
>available but that he posted the original article in case the article
>expires.
In the case of this particular post by Jim titled "Excellent Examples
of How Globalization Hurts Workers And Families And Benefits The
Priviledged" he only quoted a very small part of two larger articles
from the NY Times, both of which you would have to pay to get. He did
not post the original articles, just cited a small part. Given the
track record of taking neutral articles and trying to make them into
anti-outsourcing articles I'd like to read the entire originals before
I automatically assume that the NY Times is saying that Globalization
hurts the workers and benefits the privileged. I am given the choice
of taking Jim' word for it or spending six buck for the two originals.
>Articles expire very quickly on the web, but many are last year,
>even last month. Stop spinning.
Many of the Yahoo articles have expired have they not? Some of the NY
Times articles are now pay articles are they not? And Jim didn't
paste every article in it's entirety did he? I have given you some
examples to verify my statements. If those statements were not 100%
factual, then you can freely accuse me of spinning it.
> There is a suspicious lack
>
>To the contrary, it is very well backed up in almost every instance with
>links.
...."in almost every instance". So you admit in some instances it is
not backed up with links. That is my point.
> I
>
>Who's context? Yours?
If I had written the cited article it would have been my context. But
having read the original article that is being claimed to support
anti-outsourcing, my reading comprehension skills tell me what the
context is. If an article presents both sides of an issue, the
context is fairly neutral. If I cherry pick one side from the article,
like Jim does in many instances that is taking it out of context. And
so you don't accuse me of doing the same, I have simply pointed out
the parts that Jim did not highlight to show that the original
articles were actually balanced. So his highlight plus mine would
complete the picture.
>
>For me personally, it's everyone views from the author to the writers of the
>articles.
And most of the article writers were not opponents of outsourcing as I
have clearly shown. Some were, but most weren't. Those that were
generally didn't have much data and resorted to fear mongering.
> Virtually everything is posted and
>
>Now I know that you are not an idiot. So to clarify for the readers here,
>the author admits he borrowed that quote from someone else. It's humor! Duh?
Maybe, or maybe he is giving credit to the person that coined the
phrase. I certainly wouldn't call myself angry and disturbed if there
wasn't some kernel of truth to it, even if it was a joke.
>
>Jim's site dude.
The site you listed...you knew what I meant.
>
>That was for the first article and the rest is humor. To the contrary, he
>has put together maybe the most comprehensive site for articles that oppose
>outsourcing on the web. Before you laugh, let's see you find a similar
>webpage with even half this many articles in favor of outsourcing. Don't
>even try because you won't find one.
Actually reading many of the articles that he took out of context is
good enough for me.
So here is the page I submit that is in favor of outsourcing with the
caveat that all of Jim's comments and cut-and-paste jobs are
overlooked:
http://www.nyc99.com/weblog/cat_american_jobs.html
>
>Actually he sounds like a democratic or independent conservative. Regardless
>that doesn't mean it's not the truth.
Nor does retitling articles to anti-Bush vitriol lend me to believe he
is attempting to represent the truth.
>
>Again, it was humor? Double duh?
You have read the whole site and you don't think he is angry?
> There is
>
>Funny, you could not produce a site with even a quarter of the articles he
>has put together. Again, don't even try because you will not find one.
I submit this one excepting Jim's own commentary.
http://www.nyc99.com/weblog/cat_american_jobs.html
> There is little more than the opinions of the
>
>Wrong, he did a nice job of of adding small summaries before some articles
>and in other cases he posted the whole article just in case the link went
>bad. Smart thinking on his part.
I especially like this summary for the very pro-outsourcing articles:
"Indian Efforts To Steal American Middleclass Prosperity"
Yeah, I'd say Jim did a nice job of summing up what was said in the
Indian Economic Times articles that followed...
>
>Look who is namecalling now?
Ok, either he can't read the articles at above a fourth grade reading
comprehension level (to see that they aren't anti-outsourcing) or he
is deliberately trying to deceive people. You can pick which.
And if you want to complain about the discussion taking a nasty turn,
look in the mirror. From the *VERY* beginning you hurled accusations
of ulterior motives at anyone that disagreed with your
anti-outsourcing stance. Nor did you stop when you were asked to
respect the rules of courteous discussion. In fact you specifically
responded with another accusation of corporate greed!! But even after
all that, I still haven't called you any names have I? But you have
now called me a few names as well as continue to accuse me of having
ulterior motives. So are you really trying to take the moral high
ground?
> He has an anti-outsourcing site and
>
>
>
>Again, I never said outsourcing is all bad, neither does he. You have to put
>that in context with the everything else. While the author admits this is a
>upside, the downsides outweigh the good.
I don't recall Jim one time saying that there is an upside. Perhaps
you can point me to the exact quote where Jim elaborates on the
upsides of outsourcing. No, I am not asking you to quote from the
articles that Jim cites, but rather where Jim himself says anything
positive about outsourcing.
>
>The deficit? We know who is responsible for that.
But not outsourcing right?
>
>Do you think I am an idiot? you guys do have personal financial agendas.
>Don't be telling fibs.
I assume that since you accuse first and are unwilling to listen to
anything else, that you are ready to prove that we are lying? Why
even bother trying to reason with anybody if you assume anyone who
disagrees with you has ulterior motives and is lying about them?
If there is any financial agenda here, it is that a stronger economy
benefits most people more than it hurts. You feel that the path to a
stronger economy is one way, I think it is another. Why are you
unable to leave it at that? Is it just remotely possible that you
might be wrong about the way to a stronger economy? And if you are
wrong, would it be fair for me to claim that you know you are wrong
and you are lying about it for ill-gotten gain? Or is it remotely
possible that you are right about the way to a stronger economy, and I
am wrong but wrong with good, honest intentions?
>
>Again for the readers. This was a line he borrowed from some humor from
>another article. He is using it for humor. He quite sane actually. He seems
>to dead on it! He supports (Buy American) too. Do you?
No. I support quality at a fair price. I don't buy from one vendor
just because they employ certain people.
>
>How do you know that? You don't know where the experts are.
But I do know activism when I see it. It is interesting that Jim DID
NOT link to any of the premier economists that he demonizes, even
though they are clearly experts on the issue. So don't you find it
remotely suspicious that the clear-cut experts are not linked to, but
the activist are? You mentioned Fox news who claims to be fair and
objective. If it was Fox news reporting, they would give a voice to
the economist and the activist alike.
> What was
>
>There is some hope. It's possible that outsourcing may kill itself in the
>long run then we won't have to.
Ok, I was waiting for a chance to ask you what would happen if you
killed outsourcing legislatively. Do you think that would stop it?
So what is next, a rule that stops an American company from hiring
their own contractors overseas? Then would it become a law that says
American companies cannot set up shell companies overseas? The only
Pandora's box here is the box that will be opened when legislative
action starts.
Basically to stop the practice of hiring low cost foreign contract
workers who live overseas (in whatever form it may take), you would
have to ban American companies from having any operations overseas at
all. Are you ready to enter into a new age of isolationism? You do
know what would happen don't you? Suddenly our brands would die off
in the world markets. Might I remind you that economic isolation,
wage fixing, etc. results in things like the collapse of the Soviet
Union.
And you know as well as I do that the average consumer isn't going to
do enough boycotting to kill outsourcing. Maybe it drops off, but it
isn't going to get killed.
>BTW, the article from Indiana about a
>democratic governor who killed a 15 million outsourcing agenda, my cousin
>spoke to the governor and state senators about this. He also lost his job to
>outsourcing. He has his ear close to the ground on this one.
>
>
>That depends on who is getting hurt and what the effects were.
I said "in general". Please answer the question.
>
>Dummy, it's never silly when 4000 people lose their jobs.
1) I'll ignore the first part of that and re-ask the question. Is it
bad when 4000 helpdesk jobs leave and 4000 higher paying R&D jobs come
here? Remember you said "never." It is silly to only count one half
of the equation whether you are counting apples or jobs. Didn't you
take algebra in school?
2) Only 947 jobs are actually being lost for sure. The others may or
may not. So I would at least hope that if you are going to be against
outsourcing, you would at least be a fan of reporting accurately.
>
>Again, this is about the big picture, does outsourcing hurt Americans more
>then help.
Interesting you make this point. I have been asking you about the big
picture since the beginning. When it serves you, you want to talk
about the one person that is hurt to avoid dealing with the big
picture. Then later when I respond to a point made about smaller
cases, you again switch to talking about the big picture. The term
for that is moving the goalposts.
>Right now it hurts, since thousands upon thousands have lost
>their jobs and are on the run.
Refer to the source of those thousands of job losses. Jim's site has
references that state that the vast majority was not due to
outsourcing, but rather the economic troubles that began in 2001.
>Many Americans have given up looking for
>jobs. One girl actually did 1200 interviews before she quit looking for
>work. You guys have been on the inside too long and don't what it's like to
>be without a job for months, even years. It's that bad for many middleclass
>Americans who are playing the musical chairs of going from one job to
>another. And if they are doing that then that's good actually because many
>have given up on looking for jobs. For many temp jobs and even so called
>permanent positions often have little security, no benifits, healthcare and
>so on. The middleclass is reeling. Only an idiot would say that Americans
>are better off then they have even been before. Get a grip guys. Yeah, the
>creme that skims the profits off the top from outsourcing are doing better
>then they ever have before while the people they have laid off get screwed.
And how much of this is due to outsourcing? Most of it is due to the
economic troubles that began in 2001 long before the "outsourcing
problems."
>
>This probably has more to do with showing that outsourcing is not such a
>great thing and Dell is no idiot. His forsight may be 20/20.
Don't avoid the question. I'll repeat it. When even *one* job moves
overseas, the anti-outsourcing advocates make sure that we know the
name, rank, and serial number of the person that lost their job, how
long they were unemployed, how many children they have, etc. When a
job comes back, or when foreign companies like Siemens move jobs here,
the anti-outsourcing people conveniently avoid telling anyone how many
jobs or how Americans benefitted? It is fuzzy accounting, and I want
to know why it is happening from such "objective" people like Jim.
You *say* he presents both sides of the argument. How come he doesn't
present the most obvious "pro" side of the argument which includes the
numbers of Americans that are benefitting from foreign companies that
oursource to America? A while back, I was easily able to find some
articles that explained how many European R&D positions were coming to
the US because of socialistic government policies in places like
Germany. Jim's site sure didn't have any mention of those things. If
he was being fair, objective, and honest he would have.
> You can bet they were counted to the last job when
>
>That what you say.
I gave you examples. So are you accusing me of fabricating the
pro-outsourcing quotes from the articles that were claimed to be
anti-outsourcing by Jim?
If I didn't fabricate the quotes then you must admit that many of the
source articles are not so anti-outsourcing as they would appear from
Jim's testimony.
>The author is basically an opponent, but admits that some
>outsourcing is good, but as a whole, it's a bad trend.
Which author? Unless you spent the six dollars to verify what the
authors' said here (for reference it is the two NY Times articles
listed under "Excellent Examples of How Globalization Hurts Workers
And Families And Benefits The Priviledged"), you cannot claim whether
the authors were opponents or proponents. And as I said before, I
learned quickly that Jim doesn't report accurately the tenor of the
articles he cites.
>You guys can't accept
>that. You seem to want readers to think that you guys are correct that
>outsourcing is good for the most part, but the opponents are just a bunch of
>hard core rednecks who think all outsourcing is bad.
And when Jim dismisses "all the economists who say America is
benefitting", what is he doing to his opponents views?
>To the contrary many
>senators and congressman, even our presidental candidates are against
>outsourcing.
Yes. So are many of those same types also neutral or for a company's
right to outsource? There are always people that will take different
stances. There were politicians that were against civil rights...it
didn't make them right about the issue, and thank God they didn't win
those battles. Not that these are the same issues, but it serves to
show that just because a small movement exists in politics to stop
something, it doesn't mean that movement is fighting for the right
cause.
>You act as if some KKK group is behind this anti-outsourcing
>movement. There are many highly educated people all over this country who
>oppose outsourcing. Are you saying they are idiots? It's not just me saying
>it. Maybe in this newsgroup, but life exists outside this newsgroup.
Touche. Are the economists idiots? One side is wrong, there is no
avoiding that realization.
> What I can find about one of the articles is this "An article
>
>I don't agree with that for the moment.
You don't agree with the data? I guess those people that compiled the
numbers must also be skimming CEO payoff.
So you honestly ignore the data that disagrees with your point of
view, but the data you can twist to your own cause you will listen to?
That is not objective at all. So apparently you will only quote gross
losses, you won't quote gross gains, and you certainly won't listen to
net gains/losses if it shows a gain. And that is exactly why Jim and
people promoting this cause only list individual job losses...because
only by not looking at the big picture does the partial picture show
that outsourcing in general is bad.
>
>Doesn't have too.
It doesn't? Wouldn't you want to know if these were due to
outsourcing if you are going to connect this article to outsourcing?
>Although that would be nice to have more info, if 44,000
>jobs were lost then that is 44,000 out of work. That is not a good thing,
>that's a bad thing. That'a lot and I am sure that destroyed a lot lives
>temporary.
Yes, when the economy goes bad it is a bad thing. No one said it
wasn't. But don't change the subject...we are talking about what
outsourcing is or is not doing to America. So if you want to use this
as evidence, you need to connect outsourcing to it in some way.
> My company alone could
>
>Well, learning more and more about how you think all the time.
How so? I am presenting that my company had to cut about 60,000 jobs
just to survive, and most of that was in Canada. If your company
reported a 19.2 billion dollar loss in one quarter, your company would
have cut jobs too!!! And as I said, that was the economic downturn of
telecom, which has been well documented as to the causes and effect.
That is not outsourcing.
And it certainly isn't courteous of you to comment on what I think
about it. You really don't know, do you? I had no part in any of the
decisions. I saw tons of friends go. I survived, and I have
experienced all the symptoms of "war survivors syndrome" (not to
belittle *real* war survivors), which included lots of guilt over
surviving, tremendous stress, resentment toward management, and
periods of depression. But if it makes you feel better to think I was
happy about the whole thing, then by all means...I have figured out
that you are going to tell me everything about myself whether or not I
said it or agree with it.
> A later article clarifies that the vast majority of
>
>Again, humor.
Retitling articles is humor? If his page is humor, then he has a
really, really dark sense of dry humor.
> The real article presents both sides of the issue.
>
>I can't believe that would even say that there are two sides, as if your
>views would even allow it.
What are my views? I have stated many times that I am neutral on
outsourcing yet supportive of capitalism and free-market. You
yourself noted earlier that I was very centrist on the issue--afraid
to take a stance, etc. I have never said we need to ship every job
out. But I do support the right of a company to do so.
Not only that, I have freely admitted that some people have a
different view though I believe it is a misguided view. So let me ask
you this--you obviously believe my view is wrong...am I simply
misguided, or does holding a different view necessarily make me a bad
person with bad motives?
> It has
>
>Key word, pushed off. Again, it's a free country and Americans should be
>able to live as they see fit. The Amish do.
You *are* free to do so. But I am also free to not subsidize your
choices if I don't want to. Freedom is a two way street. So if you
cannot farm and live at the standard of living you want, is that
"pushing you off"? No.
Time and change is an unforgiving force. It isn't malicious, it just
"is". Just because you used to be able to make a *good* living as a
farmer doesn't mean it will always be that way. And if times change,
it doesn't mean that there is someone rubbing their hands together
figuring out how to make all the farmers miserable. Times change, and
we either put all our effort to combatting change and making time stop
or we put our effort toward adjusting. Sure America could have
subsidized all the farmers, prevented industrialization, etc....but at
what cost? And would it have even worked?
> In the end, the workforce has managed to move
>
>Instead of adapting, it might self destruct or the backlash movement might
>be able to curb the madness.
>
> Yet the India challenge also
>
>That's great for the top 1 percent.
Don't put words in the author's mouth just because you don't like what
he is saying. That is a Jim-ism. He regularly extrapolates
statements so far out of context they aren't on the same planet
anymore. Take the connection between cyber-crime and outsourcing for
example. Are you sure you want to engage in the same tactics?
Read the quote again. It says nothing about only the top 1 percent
benefitting. It says America will benefit.
>Again middleclass will suffer and the
>lower class will probably be homeless by then. You guys forget that simple
>folks needs those boring redundent jobs. Not everybody can afford to go to
>school and suceed. Many folks don't have the brains or work ethics either.
>These jobs are still needed here for the masses, especially farmers. Not all
>farmers are dummies either. My uncle ran a farm and he had a college degree
>in AG.
Even you don't believe every job in these categories are going
overseas.
>
>That's not the only thing Bush has been givng away. Discretinary spending
>under Reagen was 14%. Under Clinton it was 1%, under Bush I believe it is
>around 35% or more, more then any other President in history.
>
>Good for Dell.
What are the numbers though?
>
>Weak minds are be taken in by you guys too.
Maybe. But we aren't trying to scare anyone into forming an opinion.
Fear mongering is how you get the masses to swarm about an issue they
don't understand. Using reason and historical evidence and discussing
principles of capitalism is largely ineffective at gathering the
masses. So if we are pandering to "weak minds" you must admit that we
are doing a lousy job of it. And the fact that I am pointing this
out, means we are knowingly doing a lousy job of it. And that might
lead you to the conclusion that we aren't actually trying to pander to
the masses.
>The blind lead the blind and
>fall into the ditch.
Who are you referring to? The economists?
>I have read everything you guys have printed but I took
>the time to research what others have said. Most people are just busy going
>about their lives and could care less, don't have the time, and it's too
>devisive an issue for them to understand. I say good for those who have
>looked at both sides of the issue.
>
>I read the whole webpage in one night. I listed anything on the page that I
>think someone might be interested in. It's true that the page is a mix of
>articles but there is clearly more outsourcing then anything else, although
>I haven't counted. I think this is the case.
Why did you list it when we are talking about outsourcing, if you knew
it wasn't about outsourcing?
> An earlier article
>
>My cousin has his ear close to the ground on this one.
>
>The bottom line seems to be true.
What bottom line? That people who disagree are bad people with bad
motives?
>
>Any dummy knows the middleclass is already hurting from layoffs due to
>outsourcing.
Umm...the primary cause of layoffs was the bad economy. As for
outsourcing, sure it has caused further job losses. But until you
count the number of jobs that come in due to outsourcing by foreign
companies, you cannot say that the aggregate is hurting due to
outsourcing.
>
>Read the title. If we create small businesses here to stimulate the economy
>then why would we outsouce them? The point here is that it is spreading like
>a cancer.
Yes, that is my point. You would have us read the titles only (many
of which are Jim's creation) and then make conclusions. If I start a
new business (assume it is still relatively small), I cannot outsource
my payroll to another domestic company that specializes in doing
payroll? You are saying that I must muddle through it myself or worse
hire someone to do it even though I will end up paying them full time
for part time work? How is that good for America?
>
>There you go again with that outsourcing as a whole is a bad thing. I never
>said that.
Um, that is fairly synonymous with "outsourcing in general is bad"
which you *DID* say. As nrf pointed out, "as a whole" means the bad
outweighs the good when all things are considered. Are you saying you
didn't say that now?
>
>You are a dummy on this one.
I am the dummy for not assuming that outsourcing is causing cyber
crime. Yeah right. Nice try.
>This shows like a few others he posted that
>outsourcing can open up new security threats.
No it didn't. The crime in particular that was reported here was
nothing more than good 'ol fashioned blackmail and extorsion. The
article did not clarify whether the people were actually able to
follow through with their threats or not. So we really don't even
know if the criminals even knew how to operate a computer much less
hack into a network. I am not ready to jump to the conclusion that
layoffs create criminals. Again, criminals are criminals whether they
had a job once upon a time or not. Events are not responsible for a
person's lack of morals.
So honestly.... If you were scanning CNN (not for outsourcing
articles) and came across this article and read it outside the context
of an outsourcing debate, would you really have assumed that the
perpetrators were nothing more than disgruntled outsource victims?
>Did you read the one hidden
>backdoors? Again, outsourcing can open up a whole new pandora box for
>security threats. I am glad he added this one in as well as hidden doors.
The keyword is "can". That is why some jobs shouldn't be outsourced.
But it should be established what the exact security threats are and
what the risks are before it is assumed that any job can lead to
security threats if outsourced.
>
>
>Is it so far fetched? ah..
Yes it is. There is no evidence that the scam was perpetrated by
someone that had any high-tech know-how. See above.
>
>Give me a break will you? Do you have your head in the sand? We all know all
>to well about the effect on the economy as a whole and how that has affected
>living standards for Americans.
So are you saying that outsourcing cased the telecom bubble in 2001?
Yes, the economy took a downturn, you are correct. But unless you
want to go out on a very long limb which is supported by no credible
resource, you cannot blame the downturn on outsourcing. So no, it has
not been established that outsourcing will result in a lower standard
of living in the long run.
> The article doesn't make that claim. As for
>
>Well, someone should raise it. Several parties say they will curtail
>outsourcing. How do you like those potatos?
That is fine. It will be settled on its own merit (hopefully). And
even if they say they will, how do you know they aren't just pandering
for votes? How many times have you heard things like "no new taxes"?
>
>Again to the readers, this is Bernies way of discrediting the webpage as a
>whole. The guy is quite sane and stated that he posted that as humor.
You are so fond of pointing out when you assume someone is lying. At
least I wait until it is undisputable before I point out that someone
is lying. He never said that he posted that as a joke. Please
provide me with that quote. Perhaps I am mistaken, so if you do have
the quote provide it and I will happily retract my statement.
>Actually Jim offers nice summaries and provides some great links. Don't just
>believe Bernie and NRF, these guys are in the high income bracket, read
>everything on both sides of the issues and decide for yourselves.
How come you keep assuming what I make? Do you really have any reason
to believe I am in the high income bracket (other than because you
don't like what I say)? So just help us all out here and state for
the record that you have simply chosen to make up everything you claim
to know about me.
>
>You do that to me all the time.
I do? I simply quote from the same resources that Jim pretends to
ignore in the articles he cites when they say something that he
doesn't like.
>
>Dummy, I said I don't have the time to spend hours taking on three or four
>admins.
What admins? Are you telling me what my job is again? And I thought
you previously said I had a high intelligence....now I am a dummy.
Cute.
>I am not lazy, far from it. I am the only one that has had the balls
>to even post and respond to the original link from shaq-diesel for the most
>part. I think there has been about what, 8 guys total. I spent quite a bit
>of time reading and finding the links. More then I can say for a lot of dead
>heads who just program routers and could care less about what is going on in
>the economy.
Who are you referring to now?
>Some techies don't even speak good english or have enough
>comprehension to even understand what the hell is happening out there. You
>should of thought a little before you spit that one out.
>
>My cousin is on this one. I talk to him when time permits.
>
>Good, needs some humor. Jim has some. How about you?
Political humor is not just for good 'ol fashioned laughs. You know
that.
>
>Yes, I have been following this one with my cousin. I won't go into detail
>as I am running out of time as we speak.
>
>Not so misguided. What in about two years from now. Mark my words.
Will do.
>
>Again, another 1000 workers are on the run again. Were are not cattle you
>know? Just keep hurding us from one coral to another.
If the corral you were leaving was a helpdesk and the corral you were
going to was an R&D position would you complain? There is an entire
half of the picture that is missing when you only talk about lost
jobs.
>
>You admit that someone is fighting over it? I bet you would like everybody
>to go to sleep over the issue of outsourcing.
Does it matter what I would like? Again, my feelings are irrelevant.
>
>Let it be known that some of my best friends are Indians and they seem to be
>some of the nicest people, at least the ones I have met are extremely kind
>and friendly.
So the ones that live here, right? But not the ones who live there?
Am I reading this right? So tell me, when (or if) you pray at night,
does God care that you are an American? Maybe you don't believe in
God--that's fine if you don't--I'm just asking a question.
>
>I need to read that one again. I will check it out.
>
>
>I lost faith in your ability to be objective too.
When did you lose it? It seems to me that you never had any faith in
anyone who had a different opinion. After all, from the very
beginning, you lobbed accusations of ulterior motives, mostly at Nrf.
>Sometimes this kind of
>stuff just goes round and round. Sometimes you just have to let things lay
>where they lay. I know that is what I will have to do anyway with you and
>NRF. After all my intention was not to make converts out of you guys but
>rather I was more interested in reading posts from a more rounded debate.
>Since I am the only one responding I too have grown a bit weary. I am happy
>to read what I have found, no problem. I have also been fair in that I have
>read everything you guys have posted and have considered your thoughts on
>the issues. It's too bad some of the more articulate and educated opponents
>of outsourcing have not come forth, but they may not be in this forum. I
>have no problem with that. The original troll by shaq-diesel did hook me,
>but others didn't bite. No big deal.
>
>SM
>
--Bernie
| |
| Netwerkz 2004-04-06, 11:25 pm |
| [snipped every damn thing]
That was interesting .... right up until the 200th
line! My eyes hurt after that.
Can someone make this post into a 5 part
FAQ and Response  just kidding.
Who'da thunk that those "migrant" workers
were on to something all along ???
Pretty soon ..... I'll be right out there with them
on the corner waiting for work to come in a pick-up
truck - headed to a construction site to build houses for those
that can still afford to buy one, or headed to a field for picking cotton,
picking tobacco, picking fruit, picking my nose... etc.
I have no faith in (american) government that things
could be changed even if people want it to at this point.
Hell.... I know i will never see social security (although
I seem to pay out the waaazoo for it).
Anyway.... i found all this stuff interesting and just wanted
to babble a little.
I'm done ...... I have to go start looking for the best
corners to hang out on now - I have to go change!
| |
| Ivan Ostres 2004-04-07, 5:25 am |
| In article <jGJcc.208409$po.1040580@attbi_s52>, Netwerkz101@comcast.net
says...
> [snipped every damn thing]
>
> That was interesting .... right up until the 200th
> line! My eyes hurt after that.
> Can someone make this post into a 5 part
> FAQ and Response just kidding.
>
> Who'da thunk that those "migrant" workers
> were on to something all along ???
>
> Pretty soon ..... I'll be right out there with them
> on the corner waiting for work to come in a pick-up
> truck - headed to a construction site to build houses for those
> that can still afford to buy one, or headed to a field for picking cotton,
> picking tobacco, picking fruit, picking my nose... etc.
>
> I have no faith in (american) government that things
> could be changed even if people want it to at this point.
> Hell.... I know i will never see social security (although
> I seem to pay out the waaazoo for it).
>
> Anyway.... i found all this stuff interesting and just wanted
> to babble a little.
>
> I'm done ...... I have to go start looking for the best
> corners to hang out on now - I have to go change!
>
>
>
Ah, poor, poor Americans... :-)
--
Ivan
| |
|
| On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:09:50 +0200, Ivan Ostres wrote:
> In article <jGJcc.208409$po.1040580@attbi_s52>, Netwerkz101@comcast.net
> says...
>
> Ah, poor, poor Americans... :-)
of course, a lot of old school neo-conservatives believe that war is a
legitimate tool for economic expansion and a cure for unemployment - ah,
poor, poor, world...
| |
|
|
"Jim" <jim@NOSPAMnyc99.com> wrote in message
news:1frcdz7h58124$.f34cdvcd7wqt.dlg@40tude.net...
> Quite a thread you fellows had here. Let me clarify a few things for you.
>
> 1. I am not mentally disturbed and I consider that statement libelous, but
> considering the source I'll let it go.
>
> 2. I have a very dark sense of humor. I lived realities most of you have
> only seen on TV.
>
> 3. I am a registered Democrat, but after this election I will drop the
> party affiliation since I think that both political parties are
thouroughly
> corrupt and are nothing but puppets for multi-national corporations
(MNCs).
>
> 4. I think that the current Republican administration is corrupt and inept
> and GWB is a joke who acts only as a front for serious corporate players.
I
> believe the agenda they pursue will leave America without a middle class
> and they as global citizens will chase profits wherever cheap labor and
new
> consumer markets can be developed. I believe it is essentional for Bush
and
> friends to be removed from office for this country to remain a decent
place
> to live.
>
> 4. I was laid off from a $140K job with a global integrator (they changed
> the business plan) a year ago in January. I now manage three NYC bars, run
> a small webdesign business, and a dog walking business (the latter has
> become a necessary to maintain some balance and sanity without paying for
> it). I was intially angry but after having researched and learned about :
This is where you and I have to fundamentally part company. I'm sorry to
have to be blunt, but you made more money than a lot of doctors make. It's
very hard to sympathisize with somebody losing a salary like that,
particularly somebody who didn't go through the grueling years of training
that a doctor did. Again, I don't want to be harsh, nobody is entitled to
a 6-figure job. Nobody. If you want to make that kind of money, you have
to go out and earn it.
>
> - Globalization & Free Trade without Fair Trade Provisions
> - Wealth Distribution
> - the MNC/Political Relationship
> - the potential harm offshore outsourcing could bring to Americans
> - the abuse of the middle and lower classes in this country
> - the trained and reinforced gullibility running rampant in this country
>
> you might say I am very concerned and mildly pissed.
>
> 5. NYC99 was, and is, a place where I store research and if I have time
> express an opinion or two. Most of it is cut and paste, although, I admit,
> I haven't done that great a job of clarifying the layout. As you can
> imagine I don't have that much time to devote to it and it is not a revune
> stream by any strech of the imagination.
>
> 6. Whatever titles I had within the technology vertical I was a "fixer."
If
> there was a problem within a process (at whatever level0, or a
particularly
> difficult customer on a large project, or a project that had to be shot
> from the hip with no planning, or a project for which we had no experience
> or resources with the appropriate skill sets, or just plain disaster
> recovery, I got it to figure out and execute. I was quite successful over
a
> long period of time. My approach to "what happened to all the big projects
> and where did the headhunters go" was based on prior experience and
> methodoligies.
>
> 7. I believe Offshore Outsourcing is a indicator of a larger cancer in our
> society and needs to be dealt with before middleclass politcal abilites
are
> totally decimated by poverty (poverty defined relative to higher income
> levels as in a two class economic society).
Poverty? You were making 140k a year and now you're in poverty? If you
were making that kind of money and you don't now have substantial savings
and wealth built up, I think there's something else going on....
>
> 8. I think that Economists hold an undeserved position in our decision
> making process. Their value as historians is unquestioned but their
> validity as unbiased forecastors has yet to be proven.
>
> 9. I have discovered their is a fine line between fair use and copyright
> infringement hence the lack of consistency with links and full reprints.
At
> this point in time I am publishing random ideas I come across relative to
> my current pursuits. I use a news aggregator
> (http://www.bradsoft.com/feeddemon/index.asp)to cover about 600 amateur
and
> commercial sources and store a lot of info there now.
>
> 10. I sincerely believe that if you aren't concerned about what is
> happening in the U.S. these days you really aren't paying attention or
have
> been so thouroughly conditioned by think-tank framing you are probably
> beyond help.
I think the real truth is that the tech industry enjoyed an unbelievable,
once-in-a-lifetime boom - a bizarro world where tech guys could make more
money than doctors. It was a great ride while it lasted, but now it's over
and it's time to get back to the real world. I think that a lot of tech
workers just got spoiled by the money-for-nothing mentality of it all and
just can't operate in a world where they have to work harder for less money.
>
>
>
> /* ------------ */
> From: Bernie (Bernie@weekend.com)
> Subject: Re: OT Outsourcing Opponents - Buy American
> View: Complete Thread (21 articles)
> Original Format
> Newsgroups: alt.certification.cisco
> Date: 2004-01-08 23:59:09 PST
>
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:11:03 -0800, "Sierraman" <riposa@sti.net> wrote:
>
political[color=blue]
>
> When you fail to answer substantially all of someone's response, as
> you did in the initial thread with Nrf (might I remind you that no one
> was "ganging up" on you back then), then you are failing to defend
> your position. It is a silent admission that the other person is
> correct in their views, or at least it is an admission that you don't
> know how to respond.
>
>
> If you weren't treating it like a competition, then why did you make
> this statement to Nrf:
>
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:58:55 -0800, "Sierraman" <riposa@sti.net> wrote:
>
take[color=blue]
as[color=blue]
bombs[color=blue]
>
> Correct that. No one has said that we *should* move jobs. Nrf and I
> have defended the right of companies to *choose* to do so if it was in
> their best interest. The fact that many companies think it is in
> their best interest to move certain jobs speaks for itself.
>
contribute[color=blue]
html[color=blue]
>
> Tell me what this asks for if it isn't money...salt?:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/b...y/07out.html?th
>
city[color=blue]
>
> The NY Times isn't a big city paper?
>
>
> In the case of this particular post by Jim titled "Excellent Examples
> of How Globalization Hurts Workers And Families And Benefits The
> Priviledged" he only quoted a very small part of two larger articles
> from the NY Times, both of which you would have to pay to get. He did
> not post the original articles, just cited a small part. Given the
> track record of taking neutral articles and trying to make them into
> anti-outsourcing articles I'd like to read the entire originals before
> I automatically assume that the NY Times is saying that Globalization
> hurts the workers and benefits the privileged. I am given the choice
> of taking Jim' word for it or spending six buck for the two originals.
>
>
> Many of the Yahoo articles have expired have they not? Some of the NY
> Times articles are now pay articles are they not? And Jim didn't
> paste every article in it's entirety did he? I have given you some
> examples to verify my statements. If those statements were not 100%
> factual, then you can freely accuse me of spinning it.
>
>
> ..."in almost every instance". So you admit in some instances it is
> not backed up with links. That is my point.
>
>
> If I had written the cited article it would have been my context. But
> having read the original article that is being claimed to support
> anti-outsourcing, my reading comprehension skills tell me what the
> context is. If an article presents both sides of an issue, the
> context is fairly neutral. If I cherry pick one side from the article,
> like Jim does in many instances that is taking it out of context. And
> so you don't accuse me of doing the same, I have simply pointed out
> the parts that Jim did not highlight to show that the original
> articles were actually balanced. So his highlight plus mine would
> complete the picture.
>
extremely[color=blue]
outsourcing.[color=blue]
the[color=blue]
>
> And most of the article writers were not opponents of outsourcing as I
> have clearly shown. Some were, but most weren't. Those that were
> generally didn't have much data and resorted to fear mongering.
>
Duh?[color=blue]
>
> Maybe, or maybe he is giving credit to the person that coined the
> phrase. I certainly wouldn't call myself angry and disturbed if there
> wasn't some kernel of truth to it, even if it was a joke.
>
to[color=blue]
free[color=blue]
>
> The site you listed...you knew what I meant.
>
oppose[color=blue]
>
> Actually reading many of the articles that he took out of context is
> good enough for me.
>
> So here is the page I submit that is in favor of outsourcing with the
> caveat that all of Jim's comments and cut-and-paste jobs are
> overlooked:
> http://www.nyc99.com/weblog/cat_american_jobs.html
>
Regardless[color=blue]
>
> Nor does retitling articles to anti-Bush vitriol lend me to believe he
> is attempting to represent the truth.
>
>
> You have read the whole site and you don't think he is angry?
>
he[color=blue]
>
> I submit this one excepting Jim's own commentary.
> http://www.nyc99.com/weblog/cat_american_jobs.html
>
articles[color=blue]
>
> I especially like this summary for the very pro-outsourcing articles:
> "Indian Efforts To Steal American Middleclass Prosperity"
>
> Yeah, I'd say Jim did a nice job of summing up what was said in the
> Indian Economic Times articles that followed...
>
>
> Ok, either he can't read the articles at above a fourth grade reading
> comprehension level (to see that they aren't anti-outsourcing) or he
> is deliberately trying to deceive people. You can pick which.
>
> And if you want to complain about the discussion taking a nasty turn,
> look in the mirror. From the *VERY* beginning you hurled accusations
> of ulterior motives at anyone that disagreed with your
> anti-outsourcing stance. Nor did you stop when you were asked to
> respect the rules of courteous discussion. In fact you specifically
> responded with another accusation of corporate greed!! But even after
> all that, I still haven't called you any names have I? But you have
> now called me a few names as well as continue to accuse me of having
> ulterior motives. So are you really trying to take the moral high
> ground?
>
put[color=blue]
a[color=blue]
>
> I don't recall Jim one time saying that there is an upside. Perhaps
> you can point me to the exact quote where Jim elaborates on the
> upsides of outsourcing. No, I am not asking you to quote from the
> articles that Jim cites, but rather where Jim himself says anything
> positive about outsourcing.
>
>
> But not outsourcing right?
>
>
> I assume that since you accuse first and are unwilling to listen to
> anything else, that you are ready to prove that we are lying? Why
> even bother trying to reason with anybody if you assume anyone who
> disagrees with you has ulterior motives and is lying about them?
>
> If there is any financial agenda here, it is that a stronger economy
> benefits most people more than it hurts. You feel that the path to a
> stronger economy is one way, I think it is another. Why are you
> unable to leave it at that? Is it just remotely possible that you
> might be wrong about the way to a stronger economy? And if you are
> wrong, would it be fair for me to claim that you know you are wrong
> and you are lying about it for ill-gotten gain? Or is it remotely
> possible that you are right about the way to a stronger economy, and I
> am wrong but wrong with good, honest intentions?
>
seems[color=blue]
>
> No. I support quality at a fair price. I don't buy from one vendor
> just because they employ certain people.
>
>
> But I do know activism when I see it. It is interesting that Jim DID
> NOT link to any of the premier economists that he demonizes, even
> though they are clearly experts on the issue. So don't you find it
> remotely suspicious that the clear-cut experts are not linked to, but
> the activist are? You mentioned Fox news who claims to be fair and
> objective. If it was Fox news reporting, they would give a voice to
> the economist and the activist alike.
>
>
> Ok, I was waiting for a chance to ask you what would happen if you
> killed outsourcing legislatively. Do you think that would stop it?
> So what is next, a rule that stops an American company from hiring
> their own contractors overseas? Then would it become a law that says
> American companies cannot set up shell companies overseas? The only
> Pandora's box here is the box that will be opened when legislative
> action starts.
>
> Basically to stop the practice of hiring low cost foreign contract
> workers who live overseas (in whatever form it may take), you would
> have to ban American companies from having any operations overseas at
> all. Are you ready to enter into a new age of isolationism? You do
> know what would happen don't you? Suddenly our brands would die off
> in the world markets. Might I remind you that economic isolation,
> wage fixing, etc. results in things like the collapse of the Soviet
> Union.
>
> And you know as well as I do that the average consumer isn't going to
> do enough boycotting to kill outsourcing. Maybe it drops off, but it
> isn't going to get killed.
>
to[color=blue]
>
> I said "in general". Please answer the question.
>
>
> 1) I'll ignore the first part of that and re-ask the question. Is it
> bad when 4000 helpdesk jobs leave and 4000 higher paying R&D jobs come
> here? Remember you said "never." It is silly to only count one half
> of the equation whether you are counting apples or jobs. Didn't you
> take algebra in school?
>
> 2) Only 947 jobs are actually being lost for sure. The others may or
> may not. So I would at least hope that if you are going to be against
> outsourcing, you would at least be a fan of reporting accurately.
>
Business[color=blue]
more[color=blue]
>
> Interesting you make this point. I have been asking you about the big
> picture since the beginning. When it serves you, you want to talk
> about the one person that is hurt to avoid dealing with the big
> picture. Then later when I respond to a point made about smaller
> cases, you again switch to talking about the big picture. The term
> for that is moving the goalposts.
>
>
> Refer to the source of those thousands of job losses. Jim's site has
> references that state that the vast majority was not due to
> outsourcing, but rather the economic troubles that began in 2001.
>
to[color=blue]
middleclass[color=blue]
many[color=blue]
and[color=blue]
the[color=blue]
better[color=blue]
screwed.[color=blue]
>
> And how much of this is due to outsourcing? Most of it is due to the
> economic troubles that began in 2001 long before the "outsourcing
> problems."
>
>
> Don't avoid the question. I'll repeat it. When even *one* job moves
> overseas, the anti-outsourcing advocates make sure that we know the
> name, rank, and serial number of the person that lost their job, how
> long they were unemployed, how many children they have, etc. When a
> job comes back, or when foreign companies like Siemens move jobs here,
> the anti-outsourcing people conveniently avoid telling anyone how many
> jobs or how Americans benefitted? It is fuzzy accounting, and I want
> to know why it is happening from such "objective" people like Jim.
> You *say* he presents both sides of the argument. How come he doesn't
> present the most obvious "pro" side of the argument which includes the
> numbers of Americans that are benefitting from foreign companies that
> oursource to America? A while back, I was easily able to find some
> articles that explained how many European R&D positions were coming to
> the US because of socialistic government policies in places like
> Germany. Jim's site sure didn't have any mention of those things. If
> he was being fair, objective, and honest he would have.
>
>
> I gave you examples. So are you accusing me of fabricating the
> pro-outsourcing quotes from the articles that were claimed to be
> anti-outsourcing by Jim?
>
> If I didn't fabricate the quotes then you must admit that many of the
> source articles are not so anti-outsourcing as they would appear from
> Jim's testimony.
>
>
> Which author? Unless you spent the six dollars to verify what the
> authors' said here (for reference it is the two NY Times articles
> listed under "Excellent Examples of How Globalization Hurts Workers
> And Families And Benefits The Priviledged"), you cannot claim whether
> the authors were opponents or proponents. And as I said before, I
> learned quickly that Jim doesn't report accurately the tenor of the
> articles he cites.
>
of[color=blue]
>
> And when Jim dismisses "all the economists who say America is
> benefitting", what is he doing to his opponents views?
>
>
> Yes. So are many of those same types also neutral or for a company's
> right to outsource? There are always people that will take different
> stances. There were politicians that were against civil rights...it
> didn't make them right about the issue, and thank God they didn't win
> those battles. Not that these are the same issues, but it serves to
> show that just because a small movement exists in politics to stop
> something, it doesn't mean that movement is fighting for the right
> cause.
>
saying[color=blue]
>
> Touche. Are the economists idiots? One side is wrong, there is no
> avoiding that realization.
>
>
> You don't agree with the data? I guess those people that compiled the
> numbers must also be skimming CEO payoff.
>
> So you honestly ignore the data that disagrees with your point of
> view, but the data you can twist to your own cause you will listen to?
> That is not objective at all. So apparently you will only quote gross
> losses, you won't quote gross gains, and you certainly won't listen to
> net gains/losses if it shows a gain. And that is exactly why Jim and
> people promoting this cause only list individual job losses...because
> only by not looking at the big picture does the partial picture show
> that outsourcing in general is bad.
>
>
> It doesn't? Wouldn't you want to know if these were due to
> outsourcing if you are going to connect this article to outsourcing?
>
>
> Yes, when the economy goes bad it is a bad thing. No one said it
> wasn't. But don't change the subject...we are talking about what
> outsourcing is or is not doing to America. So if you want to use this
> as evidence, you need to connect outsourcing to it in some way.
>
>
> How so? I am presenting that my company had to cut about 60,000 jobs
> just to survive, and most of that was in Canada. If your company
> reported a 19.2 billion dollar loss in one quarter, your company would
> have cut jobs too!!! And as I said, that was the economic downturn of
> telecom, which has been well documented as to the causes and effect.
> That is not outsourcing.
>
> And it certainly isn't courteous of you to comment on what I think
> about it. You really don't know, do you? I had no part in any of the
> decisions. I saw tons of friends go. I survived, and I have
> experienced all the symptoms of "war survivors syndrome" (not to
> belittle *real* war survivors), which included lots of guilt over
> surviving, tremendous stress, resentment toward management, and
> periods of depression. But if it makes you feel better to think I was
> happy about the whole thing, then by all means...I have figured out
> that you are going to tell me everything about myself whether or not I
> said it or agree with it.
>
>
> Retitling articles is humor? If his page is humor, then he has a
> really, really dark sense of dry humor.
>
>
> What are my views? I have stated many times that I am neutral on
> outsourcing yet supportive of capitalism and free-market. You
> yourself noted earlier that I was very centrist on the issue--afraid
> to take a stance, etc. I have never said we need to ship every job
> out. But I do support the right of a company to do so.
>
> Not only that, I have freely admitted that some people have a
> different view though I believe it is a misguided view. So let me ask
> you this--you obviously believe my view is wrong...am I simply
> misguided, or does holding a different view necessarily make me a bad
> person with bad motives?
>
>
> You *are* free to do so. But I am also free to not subsidize your
> choices if I don't want to. Freedom is a two way street. So if you
> cannot farm and live at the standard of living you want, is that
> "pushing you off"? No.
>
> Time and change is an unforgiving force. It isn't malicious, it just
> "is". Just because you used to be able to make a *good* living as a
> farmer doesn't mean it will always be that way. And if times change,
> it doesn't mean that there is someone rubbing their hands together
> figuring out how to make all the farmers miserable. Times change, and
> we either put all our effort to combatting change and making time stop
> or we put our effort toward adjusting. Sure America could have
> subsidized all the farmers, prevented industrialization, etc....but at
> what cost? And would it have even worked?
>
might[color=blue]
>
> Don't put words in the author's mouth just because you don't like what
> he is saying. That is a Jim-ism. He regularly extrapolates
> statements so far out of context they aren't on the same planet
> anymore. Take the connection between cyber-crime and outsourcing for
> example. Are you sure you want to engage in the same tactics?
>
> Read the quote again. It says nothing about only the top 1 percent
> benefitting. It says America will benefit.
>
simple[color=blue]
to[color=blue]
either.[color=blue]
all[color=blue]
degree[color=blue]
>
> Even you don't believe every job in these categories are going
> overseas.
>
>
> What are the numbers though?
>
>
> Maybe. But we aren't trying to scare anyone into forming an opinion.
> Fear mongering is how you get the masses to swarm about an issue they
> don't understand. Using reason and historical evidence and discussing
> principles of capitalism is largely ineffective at gathering the
> masses. So if we are pandering to "weak minds" you must admit that we
> are doing a lousy job of it. And the fact that I am pointing this
> out, means we are knowingly doing a lousy job of it. And that might
> lead you to the conclusion that we aren't actually trying to pander to
> the masses.
>
>
> Who are you referring to? The economists?
>
going[color=blue]
The Feds[color=blue]
I[color=blue]
although[color=blue]
>
> Why did you list it when we are talking about outsourcing, if you knew
> it wasn't about outsourcing?
>
>
> What bottom line? That people who disagree are bad people with bad
> motives?
>
>
> Umm...the primary cause of layoffs was the bad economy. As for
> outsourcing, sure it has caused further job losses. But until you
> count the number of jobs that come in due to outsourcing by foreign
> companies, you cannot say that the aggregate is hurting due to
> outsourcing.
>
economy[color=blue]
like[color=blue]
>
> Yes, that is my point. You would have us read the titles only (many
> of which are Jim's creation) and then make conclusions. If I start a
> new business (assume it is still relatively small), I cannot outsource
> my payroll to another domestic company that specializes in doing
> payroll? You are saying that I must muddle through it myself or worse
> hire someone to do it even though I will end up paying them full time
> for part time work? How is that good for America?
>
never[color=blue]
>
> Um, that is fairly synonymous with "outsourcing in general is bad"
> which you *DID* say. As nrf pointed out, "as a whole" means the bad
> outweighs the good when all things are considered. Are you saying you
> didn't say that now?
>
>
> I am the dummy for not assuming that outsourcing is causing cyber
> crime. Yeah right. Nice try.
>
>
> No it didn't. The crime in particular that was reported here was
> nothing more than good 'ol fashioned blackmail and extorsion. The
> article did not clarify whether the people were actually able to
> follow through with their threats or not. So we really don't even
> know if the criminals even knew how to operate a computer much less
> hack into a network. I am not ready to jump to the conclusion that
> layoffs create criminals. Again, criminals are criminals whether they
> had a job once upon a time or not. Events are not responsible for a
> person's lack of morals.
>
> So honestly.... If you were scanning CNN (not for outsourcing
> articles) and came across this article and read it outside the context
> of an outsourcing debate, would you really have assumed that the
> perpetrators were nothing more than disgruntled outsource victims?
>
>
> The keyword is "can". That is why some jobs shouldn't be outsourced.
> But it should be established what the exact security threats are and
> what the risks are before it is assumed that any job can lead to
> security threats if outsourced.
>
>
> Yes it is. There is no evidence that the scam was perpetrated by
> someone that had any high-tech know-how. See above.
>
Issue[color=blue]
all[color=blue]
affected[color=blue]
>
> So are you saying that outsourcing cased the telecom bubble in 2001?
> Yes, the economy took a downturn, you are correct. But unless you
> want to go out on a very long limb which is supported by no credible
> resource, you cannot blame the downturn on outsourcing. So no, it has
> not been established that outsourcing will result in a lower standard
> of living in the long run.
>
>
> That is fine. It will be settled on its own merit (hopefully). And
> even if they say they will, how do you know they aren't just pandering
> for votes? How many times have you heard things like "no new taxes"?
>
a[color=blue]
>
> You are so fond of pointing out when you assume someone is lying. At
> least I wait until it is undisputable before I point out that someone
> is lying. He never said that he posted that as a joke. Please
> provide me with that quote. Perhaps I am mistaken, so if you do have
> the quote provide it and I will happily retract my statement.
>
just[color=blue]
>
> How come you keep assuming what I make? Do you really have any reason
> to believe I am in the high income bracket (other than because you
> don't like what I say)? So just help us all out here and state for
> the record that you have simply chosen to make up everything you claim
> to know about me.
>
>
> I do? I simply quote from the same resources that Jim pretends to
> ignore in the articles he cites when they say something that he
> doesn't like.
>
four[color=blue]
>
> What admins? Are you telling me what my job is again? And I thought
> you previously said I had a high intelligence....now I am a dummy.
> Cute.
>
most[color=blue]
bit[color=blue]
dead[color=blue]
in[color=blue]
>
> Who are you referring to now?
>
You[color=blue]
>
> Political humor is not just for good 'ol fashioned laughs. You know
> that.
>
detail[color=blue]
>
> Will do.
>
>
> If the corral you were leaving was a helpdesk and the corral you were
> going to was an R&D position would you complain? There is an entire
> half of the picture that is missing when you only talk about lost
> jobs.
>
everybody[color=blue]
>
> Does it matter what I would like? Again, my feelings are irrelevant.
>
be[color=blue]
kind[color=blue]
>
> So the ones that live here, right? But not the ones who live there?
> Am I reading this right? So tell me, when (or if) you pray at night,
> does God care that you are an American? Maybe you don't believe in
> God--that's fine if you don't--I'm just asking a question.
>
>
> When did you lose it? It seems to me that you never had any faith in
> anyone who had a different opinion. After all, from the very
> beginning, you lobbed accusations of ulterior motives, mostly at Nrf.
>
lay[color=blue]
happy[color=blue]
have[color=blue]
opponents[color=blue]
>
>
> --Bernie
| |
| $_@_.%_ 2004-04-08, 2:25 am |
|
"nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote in message-id:
<Bx4dc.89295$gA5.1125245@attbi_s03>[color=blue]
>
>
>"Jim" <jim@NOSPAMnyc99.com> wrote in message
>news:1frcdz7h58124$.f34cdvcd7wqt.dlg@40tude.net...
>thouroughly
>(MNCs).
>I
>new
>and
>place
>
>
>This is where you and I have to fundamentally part company. I'm sorry to
>have to be blunt, but you made more money than a lot of doctors make. It's
>very hard to sympathisize with somebody losing a salary like that,
>particularly somebody who didn't go through the grueling years of training
>that a doctor did. Again, I don't want to be harsh, nobody is entitled to
>a 6-figure job. Nobody. If you want to make that kind of money, you have
>to go out and earn it.
>
>If
>particularly
>a
>are
>
>Poverty? You were making 140k a year and now you're in poverty? If you
>were making that kind of money and you don't now have substantial savings
>and wealth built up, I think there's something else going on....
>
>At
>and
>have
>
>I think the real truth is that the tech industry enjoyed an unbelievable,
>once-in-a-lifetime boom - a bizarro world where tech guys could make more
>money than doctors. It was a great ride while it lasted, but now it's over
>and it's time to get back to the real world. I think that a lot of tech
>workers just got spoiled by the money-for-nothing mentality of it all and
>just can't operate in a world where they have to work harder for less money.
>
>political
>take
>as
>bombs
>contribute
>html
>city
>extremely
>outsourcing.
>the
>Duh?
>to
>free
>oppose
>Regardless
>he
>articles
>put
>a
>seems
>to
>Business
>more
>to
>middleclass
>many
>and
>the
>better
>screwed.
>of
>saying
>might
>simple
>to
>either.
>all
>degree
>going
>The Feds
>I
>although
>economy
>like
>never
>Issue
>all
>affected
>a
>just
>four
>most
>bit
>dead
>in
>You
>detail
>everybody
>be
>kind
>lay
>happy
>have
>opponents
Doctors generally deal with only one entity whereas an IT worker can
potentially effect thousands, tell me why exactly do you think that an IT
employee should _not_ make as much as a doctor?
| |
| Hansang Bae 2004-04-08, 2:25 am |
| In article <A25dc.1517$QQ6.204@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, $_@_.%_ says...
> Doctors generally deal with only one entity whereas an IT worker can
> potentially effect thousands, tell me why exactly do you think that an IT
> employee should _not_ make as much as a doctor?
Are you for real??? How about
a. Because doctors must sacrifice 14 to 20 years of their life before
they can practice medicine. An IT guy can "setup shop" after high
school.
b. Because they can kill people if they screw up. And no, normal IT
people are *NOT* in charge of hospital systems that directly affect
people's lives.
c. Because it is *SEVERAL* orders of magnitude more difficult to become
a doctor. It's not even a fair comparison. My two roommates were med
students. I would equate two months of their study to what is required
to become a CCIE (from academic demand and not experience).
I'm with nrf. People in technology got spoiled during the dot com
madness. I don't know what people were thinking back then.
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
| $_@_.%_ 2004-04-08, 5:24 am |
|
Hansang Bae <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message-id:
<MPG.1adeb30191f32b2a989cba@news-server.nyc.rr.com>
>
>In article <A25dc.1517$QQ6.204@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, $_@_.%_ says...
>
>Are you for real??? How about
>a. Because doctors must sacrifice 14 to 20 years of their life before
>they can practice medicine. An IT guy can "setup shop" after high
>school.
>b. Because they can kill people if they screw up. And no, normal IT
>people are *NOT* in charge of hospital systems that directly affect
>people's lives.
>c. Because it is *SEVERAL* orders of magnitude more difficult to become
>a doctor. It's not even a fair comparison. My two roommates were med
>students. I would equate two months of their study to what is required
>to become a CCIE (from academic demand and not experience).
>
>I'm with nrf. People in technology got spoiled during the dot com
>madness. I don't know what people were thinking back then.
>
>--
>
>hsb
>
>"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
>*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
> ******************************
******************************
********
>Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
>reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
> ******************************
******************************
********
You are not looking at it from the perspective of the person who will
be paying the employee..
| |
| Netwerkz 2004-04-08, 5:24 am |
| Good old fashioned capitalism.
You deserve whatever salary you settle for.
If you were offered a six figure salary for a job
you were making a lot less at, you'd probably take it.
Laws of supply and demand.
1995-1998 were some good years if you were in the IT
frield. The demand for knowledgeable people far exceeded
the supply available. Salaries skyrocketed and people were
jumping from job to job, making more $ with each leap. Well,
it was only natural for two things to happen. More CIS graduates,
more MCSE's, more CCNx's, etc - people becoming skilled and
salaries level off. The boom is over and now comes the bust. Dot-coms
begin to fail and jobs begin to be lost.
And remember - all that happened _before_ 9/11 and all this outsourcing
news came about. Oh well..... it was fun....wasn't it?
Let's face it .... we want it. We want it now, and we don't want to
have to work hard for it!
- Generaliztion of American society.
But.....that is not going to happen anymore.
I see things only getting worse .... but that just means
I have to change my attitude... I just have to change.
| |
| Hansang Bae 2004-04-08, 5:24 am |
| In article <qX7dc.11899$1y1.4590@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, $_@_.%_ says...
> You are not looking at it from the perspective of the person who will
> be paying the employee..
But that further supports my position. Network admins are a dime a
dozen. Doctors are not.
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
| $_@_.%_ 2004-04-08, 6:25 am |
|
Hansang Bae <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message-id:
<MPG.1aded7f0edfa5372989cbb@news-server.nyc.rr.com>
>
>In article <qX7dc.11899$1y1.4590@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, $_@_.%_ says...
>
>
>But that further supports my position. Network admins are a dime a
>dozen. Doctors are not.
>
>
>--
>
>hsb
>
>"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
>*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
> ******************************
******************************
********
>Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
>reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
> ******************************
******************************
********
But if a network admin messes up the entire organization can reel from
the effects, it is a great responsiblility, not to mention the fact that
'it' personnel have access to the most vital data the organization may have.
These things justify greater salaries for this great responsibility.
| |
| $_@_.%_ 2004-04-08, 6:25 am |
|
"Netwerkz" <Netwerkz101@comcast.net> wrote in message-id:
<uY7dc.214257$_w.2074800@attbi_s53>
>
>Good old fashioned capitalism.
> You deserve whatever salary you settle for.
> If you were offered a six figure salary for a job
> you were making a lot less at, you'd probably take it.
>
>Laws of supply and demand.
> 1995-1998 were some good years if you were in the IT
> frield. The demand for knowledgeable people far exceeded
> the supply available. Salaries skyrocketed and people were
> jumping from job to job, making more $ with each leap. Well,
> it was only natural for two things to happen. More CIS graduates,
> more MCSE's, more CCNx's, etc - people becoming skilled and
> salaries level off. The boom is over and now comes the bust. Dot-coms
> begin to fail and jobs begin to be lost.
>
> And remember - all that happened _before_ 9/11 and all this outsourcing
> news came about. Oh well..... it was fun....wasn't it?
>
>Let's face it .... we want it. We want it now, and we don't want to
>have to work hard for it!
> - Generaliztion of American society.
>
>But.....that is not going to happen anymore.
>I see things only getting worse .... but that just means
>I have to change my attitude... I just have to change.
The techs from the 90's have a skill set that is unique, alot of initial
rollouts, it policy development, y2k programming, the conversion from
broadband to baseband, etc.. you make an excellent point here but the
experience gained in the 90's is a powerfull asset when competing for
jobs with newer paper techs. I like your writing style are you a journalist?
| |
| Ivan Ostres 2004-04-08, 6:25 am |
| In article <MPG.1aded7f0edfa5372989cbb@news-server.nyc.rr.com>,
uonr@alp.ee.pbz says...
> In article <qX7dc.11899$1y1.4590@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, $_@_.%_ says...
>
>
> But that further supports my position. Network admins are a dime a
> dozen. Doctors are not.
>
This should be reply to one of the older posts, not this one.
The idea was that doctors should have bigger salary because if they do
something wrong, their patients die. That is just a part of the truth.
If you're looking like that, bus drivers should have even bigger salary
because if he does something wrong, he could kill all passengers in the
bus. Does that means he should get bigger salary than doctors?
I am aware that becoming a doctor is very hard thing (my girlfriend is a
md) but becoming a real good Engineer is not easy too. How much your
free time do you spend learning stuff? I do that every day at least few
hours. So, it's not black and white...
--
Ivan
| |
| Johnny Routin 2004-04-08, 9:24 am |
| > This is where you and I have to fundamentally part company. I'm sorry to
> have to be blunt, but you made more money than a lot of doctors make.
It's
> very hard to sympathisize with somebody losing a salary like that,
> particularly somebody who didn't go through the grueling years of training
> that a doctor did. Again, I don't want to be harsh, nobody is entitled
to
> a 6-figure job. Nobody. If you want to make that kind of money, you have
Well said... I was wondering if I was the only one to notice the irony of
someone who was in the top 5-10% of income earners in the US is suddenly
taking up the cause of poor and middle class Americans. I guess once that
income level is lost and one goes backwards towards middle class they
suddenly take up the cause of the class they are about to join. Well,
welcome to my world Jim... the world of the working middle class slob... but
one day I hope to be rich like you! That's what makes America great...
anyone can make it to the big time... but if some people have their way
we'll reward those who work hard and are successful by taking what they have
and giving it to others who don't work hard... oh wait... isn't that
communism?
JR
--
Johnny Routin
©¿©
-
"nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Bx4dc.89295$gA5.1125245@attbi_s03...
>
> "Jim" <jim@NOSPAMnyc99.com> wrote in message
> news:1frcdz7h58124$.f34cdvcd7wqt.dlg@40tude.net...
you.[color=blue]
but[color=blue]
> thouroughly
> (MNCs).
inept[color=blue]
players.[color=blue]
> I
> new
> and
> place
changed[color=blue]
run[color=blue]
for[color=blue]
>
>
> This is where you and I have to fundamentally part company. I'm sorry to
> have to be blunt, but you made more money than a lot of doctors make.
It's
> very hard to sympathisize with somebody losing a salary like that,
> particularly somebody who didn't go through the grueling years of training
> that a doctor did. Again, I don't want to be harsh, nobody is entitled
to
> a 6-figure job. Nobody. If you want to make that kind of money, you have
> to go out and earn it.
>
country[color=blue]
admit,[color=blue]
revune[color=blue]
> If
> particularly
experience[color=blue]
over[color=blue]
> a
projects[color=blue]
our[color=blue]
> are
>
> Poverty? You were making 140k a year and now you're in poverty? If you
> were making that kind of money and you don't now have substantial savings
> and wealth built up, I think there's something else going on....
>
> At
to[color=blue]
> and
> have
>
> I think the real truth is that the tech industry enjoyed an unbelievable,
> once-in-a-lifetime boom - a bizarro world where tech guys could make more
> money than doctors. It was a great ride while it lasted, but now it's
over
> and it's time to get back to the real world. I think that a lot of tech
> workers just got spoiled by the money-for-nothing mentality of it all and
> just can't operate in a world where they have to work harder for less
money.
>
wrote:[color=blue]
> political
the[color=blue]
So[color=blue]
> take
see[color=blue]
fine[color=blue]
> as
> bombs
> contribute
> html
> city
with[color=blue]
article[color=blue]
were[color=blue]
> extremely
> outsourcing.
of[color=blue]
> the
here,[color=blue]
> Duh?
time[color=blue]
> to
> free
he[color=blue]
> oppose
Don't[color=blue]
is[color=blue]
> Regardless
> he
> articles
went[color=blue]
supported[color=blue]
has[color=blue]
around[color=blue]
to[color=blue]
> put
is[color=blue]
> a
agendas.[color=blue]
> seems
the[color=blue]
cousin[color=blue]
job[color=blue]
> to
many,[color=blue]
that[color=blue]
going[color=blue]
> Business
> more
like[color=blue]
> to
> middleclass
> many
called[color=blue]
> and
Americans[color=blue]
> the
> better
> screwed.
a[color=blue]
accurately[color=blue]
And[color=blue]
do[color=blue]
bunch[color=blue]
> of
who[color=blue]
> saying
almost[color=blue]
despite[color=blue]
thing,[color=blue]
your[color=blue]
be[color=blue]
with[color=blue]
> might
> simple
> to
> either.
Not[color=blue]
> all
> degree
alleges[color=blue]
spending[color=blue]
is[color=blue]
the[color=blue]
> going
too[color=blue]
> The Feds
that[color=blue]
> I
of[color=blue]
> although
that[color=blue]
> economy
> like
> never
of[color=blue]
doors.[color=blue]
> Issue
know[color=blue]
> all
> affected
and[color=blue]
as[color=blue]
> a
> just
> four
> most
> bit
> dead
on[color=blue]
> in
> You
back[color=blue]
with[color=blue]
> detail
cheaper[color=blue]
you[color=blue]
> everybody
to[color=blue]
> be
> kind
in[color=blue]
of[color=blue]
and[color=blue]
me[color=blue]
> lay
and[color=blue]
but[color=blue]
debate.[color=blue]
> happy
> have
on[color=blue]
> opponents
I[color=blue]
me,[color=blue]
>
>
| |
|
| On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 04:28:17 GMT, nrf wrote:
> This is where you and I have to fundamentally part company. I'm sorry to
> have to be blunt, but you made more money than a lot of doctors make. It's
> very hard to sympathisize with somebody losing a salary like that,
> particularly somebody who didn't go through the grueling years of training
> that a doctor did. Again, I don't want to be harsh, nobody is entitled to
> a 6-figure job. Nobody. If you want to make that kind of money, you have
> to go out and earn it.
> I think the real truth is that the tech industry enjoyed an unbelievable,
> once-in-a-lifetime boom - a bizarro world where tech guys could make more
> money than doctors. It was a great ride while it lasted, but now it's over
> and it's time to get back to the real world. I think that a lot of tech
> workers just got spoiled by the money-for-nothing mentality of it all and
> just can't operate in a world where they have to work harder for less money.
I guess that $140K part rocked your world. It is solid but not that much
around here. The disaster recovery engagement I ran for a $500 million
business after they lost 3 floors in the WTC on 9/11 thought I was worth a
lot more than that. I managed over $25 million worth of national and global
service delivery contracts and received 5 pay raises in 2002. as for long
grueling hours I am self taught and started as a Clipper Programmer before
getting into Network Admin then management. I've worked with plenty of
Doctors and your argument holds no weight with me. I know how to pull
together and run multiple enormous complex technology projects. However, I
doubt that I will work in that feild agin by choice.
I don't need anybody's sympathy as I have always made my own way. What
really irritates me is that a very small group of people are making an
enormous amount of money selling out American workers. In the next few
years they will sell out Indian workers when they move to another source of
cheaper labor and new markets. They feel no responsibility towards the
people who made it possible. Fair Trade and Free Trade are two different
things and the wealth being derived from US Economic growth is being
hoarded by those at the top of the food chain while cutting back on wages,
benefits, and social safety nets. This is rapidly becoming a two class
society and I don't like it. My grandchldren deserve more. You deserve
more. What good are your certifications going to be if MNCs aren't reeled
in and the work you are preparing yourself for is being done in Thailand
while all hands-on is being done by their US based couterparts on H-1B and
L-1 visas working for overseas wages with a living allowance? What if the
UC Berkley Report is right and 10% of the US workforce stops or pays much
lower taxes? Who's going to pay for your childrens' schools and healthcare?
This is a lot bigger than the end of high wages in I.T. Hell, I.T. is just
a small part of this movement offshore, it just happens to be the first.
Enough, I won't pollute this group any further, there are many other forums
for this type of discussion. My weblog is available and I highly recommend:
http://outsourcedamerica.blogspot.com/
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/
http://www.isyourjobgoingoffshore.com/
http://maxspeak.org/mt/
http://www.in-the-e-zone.com/cgi-bi....cgi/index.html
http://www.businesspundit.com/
| |
| Hansang Bae 2004-04-08, 1:25 pm |
| In article <12wiqkau25ik7.nq9d8s126303.dlg@40tude.net>,
nospam@nospam.com says...
> I guess that $140K part rocked your world.
Knowing nrf, it didn't rock his world. Trust me!
[snip]
> I don't need anybody's sympathy as I have always made my own way.
Actually, it sounded that way from your very first post. You sounded
bitter, but not gun-toting mad about losing your position.
> What
> really irritates me is that a very small group of people are making an
> enormous amount of money selling out American workers.
That's been the case for quite some time if you think about it.
Afterall, why did the unions come about? I'm not condoning it, but it
is reality.
> In the next few
> years they will sell out Indian workers when they move to another source of
> cheaper labor and new markets. They feel no responsibility towards the
> people who made it possible
But that's the crux of the argument. Do MNCs have a moral obligation to
protect the local workers interest? But if they are MNCs do they not
have the same responsibility to its overseas workers? Does this mean
that Nortel can whack every job in the US?
[snip]
> Enough, I won't pollute this group any further, there are many other forums
> for this type of discussion.
But these debates (w/o resorting to flames) are healthy for everyone.
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Netwerkz 2004-04-08, 5:25 pm |
| [snipped]
>
> The techs from the 90's have a skill set that is unique, alot of initial
> rollouts, it policy development, y2k programming, the conversion from
> broadband to baseband, etc.. you make an excellent point here but the
> experience gained in the 90's is a powerfull asset when competing for
> jobs with newer paper techs. I like your writing style are you a
journalist?
>
No ...... I'm just an average, spoiled, American IT worker
that fits the generalization i spoke of in my last post - trying
to find a way to adapt to the new two-class system that seems
to be | | |