IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Long term umemployment rises 300 percent 2000 -> 2003
..among the middle-aged college-degreed (raises hand).

[link|http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib198|http://www.epinet.or...issuebriefs_ib198]

Any wonder why I'm so mad I could eat steel? Any wonder why I'm fucking pissed that the Indians and Chinese are stealing our jobs? What will YOU say when it's YOUR turn, oh my Xers?

See the stats below - the worst possible thing to be in these good States is white, middle-aged, male, and educated - total victory for PC! Kill off the most productive class of humans ever known, that has produced almost everyone of any significance from Hero to Dylan - absolute suicide.

[image|http://www.epinet.org/issuebriefs/198/table2.gif||||]
-drl
Expand Edited by deSitter March 7, 2004, 01:39:36 PM EST
New They're not stealing your jobs.
It's not their fault that your generation has a lifestyle expectation that demands a certain income that demands a certain salary for skills that can be more profitably procured elsewhere.

This is business; are you some kind of left-wing protectionist pinko?

Welcome to global capitalism and to being one of the have-nots.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
New H word again
This is reality. We get our government to acknowledge a simple fact - business is life as much as school or marriage or what-the-fuck-ever. Punish the fuck out of businesses that don't hire Americans to do American jobs. Make them bleed green until they desist.

If anyone had any balls they'd toss the jackoff MBAs out on their collective asses, get back behind "make it here buy it here and PISS on the world" and the fucking rest of you could eat our damn dust. We'll team with the Russians and the other East Europeans and the rest of you can play PC catch-up for a few centuries.
-drl
New Never happen.
If there's one thing that's more important to American business than America, it's the bottom line.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
New Salary is not negotiable
One cannot improve their odds of getting hired by accepting 20k a year for IT.
________________
oop.ismad.com
New Exactly
There is never any opportunity to negotiate - it's damned insane. You can't even offer to work for free or on a trial basis. Does this tell you something? The work isn't worth doing and has no negotiable value.
-drl
New Adam Smith takes vacations
________________
oop.ismad.com
New Of course they aren't stealing our jobs
we are wrong for wanting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Only problem is that those things come with a high price tag, and require a lot of money to earn a degree to qualify for any job that pays enough to aquire life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Oh no, they are not taking our jobs away from us. The corporations are doing that, taking our jobs away, and giving them to for foreigners willing to work for slave labor of $2USD/hr or cheaper, way below our US minimum wage. In no way is the job market fair in that respect. No way for a US worker to compete with that kind of salary when minimum wage is $5.50USD/hr over here. Also H1B Visa workers are willing to work for $5.50USD/hr and L1 Visa workers can work for less than that if they are given room and board.

The foreign workers do not even care that US workers are losing their jobs so the foreign workers can work them. No pity, no compasion, no feelings whatsoever for the US worker. Their degrees are cheaper to earn as their economy is lower than ours, they can also live cheaper than us over in their country. Our only crime is that we as US Citizens, were born in the wrong country. We grew up believing the American Dream that if you worked hard enough you would be rewarded with a good paying job for the rest of your life. Which, as it turns out, is a really really big lie and is more like the American Nightmare.

Oh yeah, I feel really comfortable that all the work is going to the lowest bidders. From what I have seen, they have had low quality, low productivity, low job satisfaction, and low morale. Also they put malware into code that they write.

Offshoring Malware:
[link|http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,84723,00.html|http://www.computerw...801,84723,00.html]

Poor quality helpdesks:
[link|http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5110933.html|http://zdnet.com.com...03_2-5110933.html]

Cheaper labor may equal hidden expenses:
[link|http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/16/BUGTR32G6L1.DTL|http://sfgate.com/cg...6/BUGTR32G6L1.DTL]

Offshoring is a nightmare:
[link|http://comment.cio.com/comments/14247.html|http://comment.cio.c...mments/14247.html]

Ask the lawyers, they know the risks of Offshoring:
[link|http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/management/itspending/story/0,10801,86746,00.html|http://www.computerw...801,86746,00.html]

Face it, Offshoring is not as good as it is cracked up to be. Cheaper is not always better. Business is one thing, not researching all the risks involved is just plain stupid if you ask me.



"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

New Correction.
giving them to for foreigners willing to work for slave labor of $2USD/hr or cheaper


In many parts of the world, $2USD/hr is not slave labor. In fact, it's a lot of money.
"I'll stop calling this crew 'Orwellian' when they stop using 1984 as an operations manual." - J. Bradford DeLong
New In other parts of the world

In many parts of the world, $2USD/hr is not slave labor. In fact, it's a lot of money.


In other parts of the world, maybe, but in the US you can hardly live on it. Remember we have to compete with people who earn $2USD/hr and there is no way we can live on that little bit of money here. Just paying for gas will make you go into debt not to mention auto insurance on that kind of salary.

Snicker, slightly OT, but, "Eurotrip" had a good joke on a bellboy opening up his own hotel for 5 US cents in Eastern Europe after getting a tip of a nickle from the US teenagers. Got to love that currency exchange. :)



"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

New If $2 is a princely sum in Brownpeepulistan...
...it matters not one jot what it's worth in the USA.

Corporatism is what made the USA (and Western Europe, and Japan, and Australia) what it is today. Problem is, corporatism - transglobal corporatism - eats its young, to whit: you.

Understand this: all that matters is the bottom line, and if it's legal (or even probably legal) it's ethical.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
New Precisely.
Corporatism is what made the USA (and Western Europe, and Japan, and Australia) what it is today. Problem is, corporatism - transglobal corporatism - eats its young, to whit: you.

Capitalism is the demon.

(Aside: You accused me in another thread of having the view that the French are all cheese eating surrender monkeys. I do not now, nor have I ever held that view. In fact, since we announced our intention to enter an illegal war for the sake of Cheney's Halliburton stock, I've had two flags flying on the posts in my front yard: One the French flag, the other the flag of the U.S. flying uspide down).
bcnu,
Mikem

I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
New Rejoinder!
No I didn't - re-read, carefully.

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=144805|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=144805]

I said, "And you wouldn't exist as a nation if it weren't for the French, but they're still all cheese-eating surrender monkeys to you."

That's clearly not a singular "you", but rather a plural "you" - i.e. I was speaking to the American people as a whole, rather than the somewhat better-than-average (by and large) sample who inhabit this community.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
New I beg to differ
ethics is relative, it is possible to have something legal but not ethical. Like not paying an employee for overtime pay, perfectly legal, but unethical. Perhaps management sees it as ethical, but to the employee it is unethical. The same thing for firing an employee who has worked at the company for 4 years because he/she will start earning a pension next year, legal but not ethical. Legal under states that have an "At-Will" employment law. The same as creating bogus evidence of an employee's wrong-doing to get rid of them, legal but unethical. Also monitoring the employee's workplace and computer, legal but unethical and an invasion of privacy.



"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

New Monitoring employees
Also monitoring the employee's workplace and computer, legal but unethical and an invasion of privacy.
Not sure I buy this one. For one thing, an employer can be held liable for the conduct of it's employee's. The employer owns the computer you use at work, pays the isp, and pays you for work. Where does privacy enter into that picture?
New When it's done in secret
If you tell the employees "We're watching you, be reasonable" - that is fine. If you spy on them, that is not.

Has to be spelled out clearly.
-drl
New There are laws and issues on that very thing
[link|http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Workplace/|http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Workplace/]

In 1993 a bill was passed:
[link|http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Workplace/s984_consumer_workplace_priv.bill|http://www.eff.org/P...rkplace_priv.bill]

There is an Electronic Communications Privacy Act as well, how it relates to workplace computer monitoring is here:
[link|http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Workplace/galkin_workpriv_122895.article|http://www.eff.org/P...iv_122895.article]

In fact, it does not matter what Corp USA thinks, there are laws against this sort of abuse. So they own the equipment? Big deal. So they are responsible for employee use of it? Big deal.

According to this article:
"The effects of computerized performance monitoring: An ethical perspective"
Hawk, Stephen R. Journal of Business Ethics. Dordrecht: Dec 1994. Vol. 13, Iss. 12; pg. 949, 9 pgs


Few issues in the information system profession have generated as much controversy as computerized performance monitoring (CPM). Employers under increasing pressure to boost productivity have adopted these systems with the hope that the increased feedback and control they provide will lead to increased productivity. Despite the limited evidence concerning the impact of CPM on work quantity and quality (Grant and Higgins, 1991; Marx and Sherizen, 1986), many employers appear to be convinced of the benefits of this technology. According to one estimate, approximately 6 million workers in the United States have some or all of their work evaluated through computerized performance reports (Office of Technology Assessment [OTA], 1987). A more recent survey found that 73 out of 186 firms representing a variety of industries relied on some form of CPM (Rule and Brantley, 1992). Although there is need to better understand the effects of CPM on productivity, concerned scholars appear to be most interested in the harmful effects of CPM on monitored workers. Because of these presumed effects, many knowledgeable observers have raised questions about the ethics of CPM usage.


There is an ethical issue here besides invasion of privacy.


ETHICS AND COMPUTERIZED PERFORMANCE MONITORING

Even CPM's critics agree that this technology could be used humanely (Nussbaum and duRivage, 1986; Westin, 1986). This suggests that the choices employers make in how they use CPM ultimately determine the degree to which a particular system represents a humane or inhumane use of this technology. Many decisions must be made beyond the basic choice of whether or not to use a computerized performance monitor. What will the CPM measure? What information is to be reported and how will it be presented? Who will receive CPM output? What means are provided to employees to allow their input into the use of CPM data? These choices, or design alternatives, will largely determine the effects of a CPM on monitored workers (Marx and Sherizen, 1986). It would therefore appear to be more useful to examine the ethical considerations surrounding these more detailed design decisions rather than CPM in general. Before examining the potential problems surrounding various design alternatives, we first need to clarify the relationship between CPM and ethics. Ethical theory provides the basis for evaluating the morality of a given CPM. Two dominant ethical theories, Utilitarianism and Kantianism (Beauchamp and Bowie, 1993), both provide some insight into this issue.

Utilitarianism suggests that the morality of acts can be judged on the basis of their consequences. An action would be judged ethical to the extent that it results in the greatest good for all concerned parties. Business owners, employees, customers, and society in genera may all benefit from CPM. The profits returned to business owners could be increased if CPM improved the efficiency and quality of work performed by monitored employees. Employees could potentially benefit if such profitability resulted in increased wages or employment stability. Customers could benefit if monitoring brought about improvements in service/product quality, or lower prices. Finally, society in general could benefit from an increased efficiency and effectiveness of its workforce. These benefits, of course, need to be weighed against the potential harms resulting from CPM usage. The literature clearly presumes that monitored employees bear the brunt of CPM's harms. As noted earlier, research indicates that CPM causes stress and health problems, that it creates the potential for unfair performance evaluations, and that it is an invasion of privacy (OTA, 1987). Utilitarianism suggests that decisions surrounding CPM need to evaluate both the benefits and harms and choose the option that results in the greatest net good.

Kantian ethical theory suggests that the inherent features of an action mate it right or wrong. This perspective places importance on the intrinsic worth of individuals, emphasizing the obligation of business to respect the right of privacy, the dignity and the autonomy of their employees. For this reason, under the Kantian approach, monitoring systems would be judged to be unethical to the extent that implementing them breached these obligations. Consider, for example, a CPM system used to report on minute to minute actions of an employee. Whether or not the benefits to the employer of such a system outweighed the costs to the employee, a Kantian would reject the monitoring as morally objectionable if she concluded that it violates the employee's right of privacy, offends his dignity, or undermines his autonomy.


So now you know the viewpoints of two ethical models on this issue.

The measures of the monitoring:


Reliance on CPM data for employee evaluation was measured using a procedure outlined by Hoffman (1960). Subjects were asked to estimate the weight their supervisors placed on CPM data during their performance evaluation relative to weights given other data sources (e.g. qualitative, non-computerized data). Scores on this measure can vary from 0 to 100 indicating a range of use from none to complete reliance on CPM data. Task coverage was measured using Grant and Higgins' (1991) instrument. This instrument asks subjects to indicate whether or not the computer keeps records on each of seven performance dimensions. Example dimensions are counting transactions, counting mistakes and recording terminal idle time. The task coverage score was determined by summing those dimensions for which the computer kept records. Three 5-point items were used to measure discussion of monitoring output (e.g. "to what extent do you have the ability to challenge the correctness of the monitoring information?", very little to very much). Frequency with which CPM output was received by supervisors and employees were each measured by a single item asking how often computer output which summarized the employee's performance was received by the supervisor and employee respectively. Each was measured on a five-point scale (never to daily).

Health problems was measured by presenting subjects with eight health complaints and asking them to place a check mark next to those problems they had experienced routinely during the past year. These items represent those complaints found by Smith et al. (1981) to be significantly different for monitored and non-monitored workers (e.g. headaches, stiff or sore wrists, and severe fatigue and exhaustion). A scale was constructed by adding up the number of checked health problems. Stress was measured using four 5-point items developed by Chalykoff and Kochan (1989). (e.g. "I experience tension on the job"--strongly disagree to strongly agree). Evaluation satisfaction was measured by using four 5-point items developed for this study. An example item is "the extent to which work quantity is only one of a well-rounded set of performance criteria"--very dissatisfied to very satisfied.

Measures of the following three non-CPM job characteristics were also included in the questionnaire; hours of computer use, task repetitiveness and task analyzability. Task analyzability refers to the degree to which there are well-know straightforward procedures that govern the performance of a task. Hours of computer use, task repetitiveness and task analyzability tend to increase the likelihood of monitoring (OTA, 1986). Because these job characteristics are also likely to affect stress and health problems, (Gardner et al., 1988). we need to control for them when examining the effects of CPM. Unless they are accounted for, the results will tend overstate the effects of CPM. Hours of computer use measured by asking subjects to estimate how many hours per day (on average) they worked on a computer terminal. Task repetitiveness and task analyzability were measured using an instrument developed by Withey et al. (1983). Three 5-point items measured task repetitiveness (e.g. "people in this unit do about the same job in the same way most of the time", strongly disagree or strongly agree). Three items measured task analyzability (e.g. "there is a clearly known way to do the major types of work I normally encounter", strongly disagree to strongly agree).


Monitoring can lead to health issues according to this study.

Now tell me again as to how it is ethical? I've just cited an article that shows that not only is it unethical, but it can lead to health issues in the employees.



"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

New Re-read my post in context of what matters to Corp USA.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
New What Corp USA thinks is irrelevant
Corp USA does not make the laws and regulations of the country. Corp USA does not vote in government officals. Corp USA also does not always follow its own code of ethics. Corp USA also does not always do what is best for the economy or country or citizens.

Bah all the more reason why I want to start up my own business, I am tired of working for crooks, cheats, and other unethical people in Corp USA.



"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Expand Edited by orion March 10, 2004, 11:33:46 AM EST
New You're quite charmingly naive, Norman.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
New You are quite close-minded Peter
seeing only the viewpoint of the USA Corps and not the workers, government, ethical models, law, and how it effects the USA economy. I see the bigger picture, and all you see is what the USA Corps see.

I see the USA Corps' viewpoint, but I do not agree with it.



"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

New Point = missed.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
New Point == Null
There was no point, the point is moot.



"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

New ?
Explain yourself. Tell me what my point was, and why it is moot.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
New Let us review, shall we?

If $2 is a princely sum in Brownpeepulistan...
...it matters not one jot what it's worth in the USA.


Oh yes it does, for foreign exchange rates, and what the USA Corporation pays. It matters very much, you've said so yourself as you said it saves the USA Corps money. Hence that point of it not mattering what it is worth in the USA is moot.


Corporatism is what made the USA (and Western Europe, and Japan, and Australia) what it is today. Problem is, corporatism - transglobal corporatism - eats its young, to whit: you.


Invalid term, Capitalism/Consumerism made the USA, etc what it is today. Labor helped to create that capital. The labor is paid money to help grow the economy by consuming things. Hence you have consumerism, cut out the consumer by sending their jobs to another country, and you have damaged the USA Economy. This is the start of a downward spiral as money is no longer in the hands of the consumer, which used to provide the labor. Three guesses what that does to the USA economy? So what happens when the top 10% of the economy has the wealth/capital and the other 90% does not? See where this is going? The only reason for past sucess of Capitalism was due to consumers consuming, getting money into the hands of the people. Hence Capitalism/Consumerism is what made the USA, etc what it is today. No point there as your point is invalid.


Understand this: all that matters is the bottom line, and if it's legal (or even probably legal) it's ethical.


If all that matters is the bottom line, then I guess the USA Corps are ignoring labor laws, their code of ethics, and other laws, and doing what they can to boost money for the company? If so, this is not only unethical, it is illegal. In this situation you end up with an evil corporation that will get caught eventually. Once again, an invalid point. Also something could be legal but unethical, I already covered that. That was the first thing we learned in Business Management, taking the same classes I am taking would show you that. What you are talking about is Classical Management which is a dinosaur that is going away and being replaced by Organizational Management. You need to update your information.

Some reading material for you:
[link|http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0809105543/qid=1078960779/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_11_2/026-3081265-2589249|http://www.amazon.co...6-3081265-2589249]
[link|http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0712656871/qid=1078960732/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_11_2/026-3081265-2589249|http://www.amazon.co...6-3081265-2589249]
[link|http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1881052869/qid=1078960681/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_10_4/026-3081265-2589249|http://www.amazon.co...6-3081265-2589249]

US Amazon links for people in the USA interested in the new Business Management:
[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0809125277/103-8324986-9935818?v=glance|http://www.amazon.co...-9935818?v=glance]
[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385260954/103-8324986-9935818?v=glance|http://www.amazon.co...-9935818?v=glance]
[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1881052869/103-8324986-9935818?v=glance|http://www.amazon.co...-9935818?v=glance]

These books talk about team work, empowerment, mentoring, leadership, total quality management, facilitation, developing a code of ethics and sticking to it, etc. The bottom line is not always about how much money an organization can make, one has to look at the bigger picture. If all an organization cared about was money, they would eventually go out of business by ignoring the other aspects of the business.

Globalization is not an easy thing to master, there are many barriers one must overcome. You just learned that the USA has a different definition of secular than the UK has, imagine what else is different? One has to overcome language, cultural, religious, and governmental issues before doing a sucessful global business, most USA Businesses are not prepared for this. Just because people speak the same language does not necessarily mean that these issues are automatically dealt with.

Take for example a Help Desk in India, almost everyone I've spoken to who has called a Help Desk that is based in India has told me about their poor communication, lack of understanding, lack of quality, etc. Is Dell, HP, etc really better off by using cheaper labor? I say this because when they start losing customers or customers do not return to buy newer products, how are they going to make any money?

Read about Dell's woes here:
[link|http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5110933.html|http://zdnet.com.com...03_2-5110933.html]

Now I ask you, did they have these woes when the Help Desk was located in the USA?

Seems to be a lot of people seeing this problem:
[link|http://comment.cio.com/comments/14247.html|http://comment.cio.c...mments/14247.html]



Speaking about the Bottom Line:
[link|http://www.ovum.com/go/content/c,39608|http://www.ovum.com/go/content/c,39608]


When any investment is not delivering a sufficient economic return to your organisation you should be looking at more than reducing its cost, you should be questioning its fundamental value. If it turns out to have less value than you forecast for it, then you may have the option of cutting it out altogether.

Of course you can\ufffdt even start this exercise until you start measuring the economic returns as well as the costs of IT. Simply passing chunks of your business to India or Russia will not resolve any underlying value issues that your organisation may have. It will simply shift those issues further away from the core of your business, and may ultimately make them even more difficult to resolve.


Consider that it might be making things more difficult to resolve. Which in turn can come back and bite the USA Company later.

I submit to you that Offshoring may have hidden costs and may not be cheaper than hiring USA Citizens:
[link|http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/16/BUGTR32G6L1.DTL|http://sfgate.com/cg...6/BUGTR32G6L1.DTL]

It just boggles the mind that the USA Corporations did little to no research over the effect that Offshoring will have on their business. Hence you can now see why your points are either invalid or moot.



"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

New Re: Let us review, shall we? - Yes, lets
\r\n\r\n
If $2 is a princely sum in Brownpeepulistan...
\r\n\r\n
...it matters not one jot what it's worth in the USA.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Oh yes it does, for foreign exchange rates, and what the USA Corporation pays. It matters very much, you've said so yourself as you said it saves the USA Corps money. Hence that point of it not mattering what it is worth in the USA is moot.
\r\n\r\n

Of course, since the context of the original discussion of the value of two bucks had to do with what the workers needed to live on, your point is irrelevant to the original point. Don't be so ethnocentric.

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Corporatism is what made the USA (and Western Europe, and Japan, and Australia) what it is today. Problem is, corporatism - transglobal corporatism - eats its young, to whit: you.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Invalid term, Capitalism/Consumerism made the USA, etc what it is today. Labor helped to create that capital. The labor is paid money to help grow the economy by consuming things. Hence you have consumerism, cut out the consumer by sending their jobs to another country, and you have damaged the USA Economy. This is the start of a downward spiral as money is no longer in the hands of the consumer, which used to provide the labor. Three guesses what that does to the USA economy? So what happens when the top 10% of the economy has the wealth/capital and the other 90% does not? See where this is going? The only reason for past sucess of Capitalism was due to consumers consuming, getting money into the hands of the people. Hence Capitalism/Consumerism is what made the USA, etc what it is today. No point there as your point is invalid.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Understand this: all that matters is the bottom line, and if it's legal (or even probably legal) it's ethical.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
If all that matters is the bottom line, then I guess the USA Corps are ignoring labor laws, their code of ethics, and other laws, and doing what they can to boost money for the company? If so, this is not only unethical, it is illegal. In this situation you end up with an evil corporation that will get caught eventually. Once again, an invalid point. Also something could be legal but unethical, I already covered that. That was the first thing we learned in Business Management, taking the same classes I am taking would show you that. What you are talking about is Classical Management which is a dinosaur that is going away and being replaced by Organizational Management. You need to update your information.
\r\n\r\n

Try applying those lessons in the Real World, and see how far it takes you. Also, you're making a bad assumption: that this is something that can be fixed by process (classical vs. organisational management). It's not. It's a problem with the people in the bureaucratic structure, not the structure itself. This is a problem that's going to require a generational change, and that's a ways off yet.

\r\n\r\n

<snip>

\r\n\r\n
These books talk about team work, empowerment, mentoring, leadership, total quality management, facilitation, developing a code of ethics and sticking to it, etc. The bottom line is not always about how much money an organization can make, one has to look at the bigger picture. If all an organization cared about was money, they would eventually go out of business by ignoring the other aspects of the business.
\r\n\r\n

Actually, the problem is not necessarily management (or not only management). Part of the problem is ownership. If you as a manager sacrifice some dough to realise other social goals, the owners will take your job away from you. It might take some time, but it will happen.

\r\n\r\n

In the "good old days", most owners (ie- capitalists) lived and worked in the same community as their factory. This meant they couldn't ignore the common weal for too long, as eventually the locals would have a necktie party for them if they did. However, when the owner (say, shareholder in Nike) is a third of the world away in one direction or the other from the factory (NA or Western Europe to Indonesia) you don't have to worry about the Indonesians taking your head off, because they can't get to you. It's also a lot easier to ignore some of the more obvious societal ills associated with your business when it's safely out of sight. For example, I saw a picture once of what had happened to the children of a woman who'd been trying to organise a union at a factory in Indonesia. They killed them in front of her by "removing the lower jawbones of the children with a machete" before they killed her. There were three of them, and they ranged in ages from four to eight. The factory was in needle trade; undoubtedly there are many thousands of garments made in that factory circulating in the West.

\r\n\r\n
Globalization is not an easy thing to master, there are many barriers one must overcome. You just learned that the USA has a different definition of secular than the UK has, imagine what else is different? One has to overcome language, cultural, religious, and governmental issues before doing a sucessful global business, most USA Businesses are not prepared for this. Just because people speak the same language does not necessarily mean that these issues are automatically dealt with.
\r\n\r\n

Actually, most transnational corporations originated in the US. For the sake of clarity: a multinational corporation has operations in many countries, while a transnational corporation is owned in many companies. The difference is patterns of operation vs. patterns of ownership. Once a firm has become transnational, it will no longer feel any loyalty to its country of origin, as the owners will have many different national loyalties. Instead, history seems to be showing that such firms end up transferring all their loyalty to the almighty buck.

\r\n\r\n
Take for example a Help Desk in India, almost everyone I've spoken to who has called a Help Desk that is based in India has told me about their poor communication, lack of understanding, lack of quality, etc. Is Dell, HP, etc really better off by using cheaper labor? I say this because when they start losing customers or customers do not return to buy newer products, how are they going to make any money?
\r\n\r\n

I would imagine they'll do it by selling computers. They might be pissing off various people, but that doesn't seem to be affecting their sales too much, does it?

\r\n\r\n
Speaking about the Bottom Line:
\r\n\r\n
[link|http://www.ovum.com/go/content/c,39608|http://www.ovum.com/go/content/c,39608]
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
When any investment is not delivering a sufficient economic return to your organisation you should be looking at more than reducing its cost, you should be questioning its fundamental value. If it turns out to have less value than you forecast for it, then you may have the option of cutting it out altogether.
\r\n\r\n
Of course you can\ufffdt even start this exercise until you start measuring the economic returns as well as the costs of IT. Simply passing chunks of your business to India or Russia will not resolve any underlying value issues that your organisation may have. It will simply shift those issues further away from the core of your business, and may ultimately make them even more difficult to resolve.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Consider that it might be making things more difficult to resolve. Which in turn can come back and bite the USA Company later.
\r\n\r\n

OTOH, it might save them a boatload of dough, permitting them to realise a greater ROI, which will make their owners happy. This is a Might Be; not a great way to run an analysis. Let me put it another way: if you tell an owner "We might find it creates some customer issues if we do this, but we'll save X million dollars a year in labour costs, which should result in a 5% increase in your annual dividend," what do you think said stockholder is going to say?

\r\n\r\n
I submit to you that Offshoring may have hidden costs and may not be cheaper than hiring USA Citizens:
\r\n\r\n

Or it may not. That has to be examined on a case by case basis. Sweeping generalisations in one way or another are equally invalid.

\r\n\r\n
It just boggles the mind that the USA Corporations did little to no research over the effect that Offshoring will have on their business. Hence you can now see why your points are either invalid or moot.
\r\n\r\n

The fact that some management didn't do their due diligence doesn't have anything to do with Peter's point. Some companies didn't do their research... and others did. That's irrelevant to Peter's point. Peter's point is that expecting a massive bureaucracy like a major transnational to behave in any way other than maximising profit is like expecting a block of lead to float.

\r\n\r\n

In the final analysis, this is a cultural problem. YOU might think that way, MOST AMERICANS might think that way, but neither you nor most of your fellow citizens have any influence on how these decisions are made. What do you think is the inevitable result when most people don't vote? When most of those that do vote vote the way they're told to by TV? The inevitable result is the guy with the most money wins, not the guy with the good ideas. Since all that money comes from transnational corporations (which have no intrinsic loyalty to neither any nation nor any governmental system), the people that DO make those decisions are going to make the decisions they're paid to make so that they too can keep their jobs.

--\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\r\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\r\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Norm, this link might help
Yje job creation of our rising economy is happeneing as planned, just not here in the US
read the whole link
[link|http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37516|http://www.worldnetd...?ARTICLE_ID=37516]
President Bush and his advisers are puzzled and worried.

Economic liftoff took place right on schedule in July when the tax cuts took effect. In the last six months of 2003, the economy blazed along on a growth path of 6 percent. But where are the jobs?

Last week's jobs report, with hundreds of thousands giving up the search for work, and manufacturing jobs disappearing for the 43rd straight month, jolted the White House. What is going on?

They're calling it a jobless recovery. Wrong. Millions of jobs are being created. They're just not being created here in the United States.

The reasons can be traced to these four acronyms: NAFTA, GATT, WTO, PNTR. These are the trade treaties and global institutions that have permitted the historic substitution of foreign labor for American labor, to the enrichment of the transnational companies that look upon the Congress as a wholly owned subsidiary.

Numbers do not lie. In 2003, America exported $1 trillion in goods and services. Almost 10 percent of GDP. Excellent. By the Clinton-Bush I rule \ufffd $1 billion in exports creates 20,000 jobs \ufffd that $1 trillion worth of exports created 20 million jobs. Exports are good for America.

The problem? We imported $1.5 trillion in goods and services. That created or supported 30 million jobs abroad. But even this understates the case. For foreign workers can be hired at a fraction of the cost of a U.S. worker. Our $1.5 trillion in imports is probably supporting 150,000,000 jobs abroad.

thanx,
bill

when I was young I envisioned myself as the embodiment of Trinity, Now I realize I have turned into the Bambino
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Peter is right, you missed the point
Go back a couple of posts. In [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=145250|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=145250] you say, Corp USA does not make the laws and regulations of the country. Which prompted Peter's response that you are charmingly naive.

As long as politicians are easily influenced and voters are hard to mobilize, for all intents and purposes, corporate USA does make the laws and regulations of this country. And they have been doing it quite openly.

Not as openly, perhaps, as in the 1800's when you could simply purchase a Senate seat. But not very subtly for all that.

That said, the even more basic point is the one that Peter made in [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=144971|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=144971]. The mercantile philosophy, no matter how much you dislike aspects of it, made possible our way of life. The rise of corporations in the 1800's made mercantilism reach farther than it could ever have dreamed of doing before. Before that reorganization of our society, most people were born on the farm, slaved on the farm, and died on the farm. Starvation was a constant threat and an inevitable limit. (See Thomas Malthus.)

Our economic reorganization, together with improvements in technology (particularly food production technology) have allowed us to transcend what was considered possible and earn the average person a standard of living that would be the envy of past ages. However the way in which we did it is through a system that is utterly ruthless in pursuing internal priorities for efficiency. Compared to mass famine, admittedly, our current economic order is generousity itself. But our success has made us lose sight of such comparisons.

Complaining about it is fairly useless. It is with us, and it isn't fundamentally changing. (And if it did, you probably wouldn't like the change.)

You may not like or agree with that view. But it is not trivially wrong just because someone out there doesn't like the realities of how the current system works.

Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
New The shortest, clearest summary ever. Thank you.
--

...what happened to intelligence of this country?
-- Sen. Kerry.
New One little tiny correction for you...
(And when it does, you probably won't like the change.)


I've been thinking about W&D again, Ben...
"I'll stop calling this crew 'Orwellian' when they stop using 1984 as an operations manual." - J. Bradford DeLong
Expand Edited by inthane-chan March 10, 2004, 04:38:08 PM EST
New I'm not sure how that one will play out...
Hence I am not willing to stamp any prediction of the future with an illusion of certainty.

Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
New That is the flip side of being in a "protected class".
The employment rules to protect employees against age discrimination are, all things being equal, the very cause of them being less likely to be hired.
Alex

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom ... the argument of tyrants ... the creed of slaves. -- William Pitt, addressing the British House of Commons (1783)
New Bullsh*t
Sorry Alex, but as a former proletarian you should know better.

What we are in fact seeing is Marx' prediction of capitalism consuming itself come true.

The only "protected class" I'm part of is the raw resources of capable, active, and willing raw goddamn mental, spiritual, and bodily goddamn HUMAN-FUCKING-HORSEPOWER to help us all get along, and I'm being told I'm not worth a shit. I fucking solved Einstein's main probem on my own goddamn dime and my own goddamn time with FUCKING ANY HELP AT ALL - I AM FUCKING WORTH A SHIT, and my GODDAMN COUNTRY IS FUCKED UP BEYOND RECOGNITION to take people like me and throw them away like so much garbage to satisfy the needs of the idiot mass.

-drl
New Note the quotes around protected class.
In theory, if you are an employee and you discriminated against because of your age by your employer, you have the right bring in the Feds down on your employer. It is something that a young employee, say 30 years old, cannot do.

Now, say you are looking at two potential employees, one 30 and one 50 of apparently comparable relevant skills. Who's got the edge? Do you want to risk potential legal problems with the older prospect? Choices can always be justified for intangible reasons.
Alex

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom ... the argument of tyrants ... the creed of slaves. -- William Pitt, addressing the British House of Commons (1783)
     Long term umemployment rises 300 percent 2000 -> 2003 - (deSitter) - (33)
         They're not stealing your jobs. - (pwhysall) - (29)
             H word again - (deSitter) - (1)
                 Never happen. - (pwhysall)
             Salary is not negotiable - (tablizer) - (2)
                 Exactly - (deSitter) - (1)
                     Adam Smith takes vacations -NT - (tablizer)
             Of course they aren't stealing our jobs - (orion) - (23)
                 Correction. - (inthane-chan) - (22)
                     In other parts of the world - (orion) - (21)
                         If $2 is a princely sum in Brownpeepulistan... - (pwhysall) - (20)
                             Precisely. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                 Rejoinder! - (pwhysall)
                             I beg to differ - (orion) - (17)
                                 Monitoring employees - (ChrisR) - (2)
                                     When it's done in secret - (deSitter)
                                     There are laws and issues on that very thing - (orion)
                                 Re-read my post in context of what matters to Corp USA. -NT - (pwhysall) - (13)
                                     What Corp USA thinks is irrelevant - (orion) - (12)
                                         You're quite charmingly naive, Norman. -NT - (pwhysall) - (11)
                                             You are quite close-minded Peter - (orion) - (10)
                                                 Point = missed. -NT - (pwhysall) - (5)
                                                     Point == Null - (orion) - (4)
                                                         ? - (pwhysall) - (3)
                                                             Let us review, shall we? - (orion) - (2)
                                                                 Re: Let us review, shall we? - Yes, lets - (jake123)
                                                                 Norm, this link might help - (boxley)
                                                 Peter is right, you missed the point - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                                     The shortest, clearest summary ever. Thank you. -NT - (Arkadiy)
                                                     One little tiny correction for you... - (inthane-chan) - (1)
                                                         I'm not sure how that one will play out... - (ben_tilly)
         That is the flip side of being in a "protected class". - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
             Bullsh*t - (deSitter) - (1)
                 Note the quotes around protected class. - (a6l6e6x)

I agree with everything you said except "lol".
191 ms