Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Neutron Bomb

cringely.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 40 posts

Re: Neutron Bomb

#11

Post by dkarl »

biohacker42 wrote: post #4

This is a fascinating view into how Bob thinks. This article, right up until the conclusion is excellent. It lays out in great detail how the ever rising health care costs are hurting companies. It also in detail explains how the car companies were only focused on the short term and that ended up bankrupting them. But IBM takes the long view and that's why they are still in business. And Bob concludes that the proble…

He's saying that what's good for IBM -- a long-term plan to outsource work and replace Americans with foreign workers -- is bad for the US and bad for US workers. So the problem for companies is short-term thinking, and the problem for US workers is that intelligent long-term corporate planning leads to some combination of outsourcing and importing foreign workers.

Re: Neutron Bomb

#12

Post by astine »

tjic wrote: post #3

> Companies like IBM that take this position [i.e. buying the most affordable engineering talent they can, even if it's off shore ] are hurting America. B.S. If you can purchase one apple for $1 or an identical apple for $10, failing to buy the $10 apple is (a) smart; (b) maximizes societal utility. It's spending money uselessly that destroys valu.

Man, those are some cheap apples... oh, you mean fruit.

Re: Neutron Bomb

#13

Post by andreyf »

swombat wrote: post #7
tjic wrote: post #3

> Companies like IBM that take this position [i.e. buying the most affordable engineering talent they can, even if it's off shore ] are hurting America. B.S. If you can purchase one apple for $1 or an identical apple for $10, failing to buy the $10 apple is (a) smart; (b) maximizes societal utility. It's spending money uselessly that destroys valu.

I think Cringely is talking about a kind of vicious cycle where since you buy your apples for 1/10th the price, you fire 90% of your workforce. If everyone does this, and if there aren't new jobs to take in that redundant workforce, you could end up in a death spiral where you find that even though your apples are dirt cheap, there's no one left to buy your expensive apple tarts. So you drive yourself out of business…

That said, a case could be made that these assumptions are correct - what's your argument against them?

There are tons of new jobs, and a whole new middle class - in India and China. Corporations do not share your nationalistic interests - IBM doesn't owe America anything. If Germany were to have won WW2, IBM would now be a great German company. As America's broken system of government slowly bleeds this nation to death, IBM will have no remorse over becoming a company focused on India/China.

Re: Neutron Bomb

#14

Post by mds »

andreyf wrote: post #13
swombat wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Cringely is talking about a kind of vicious cycle where since you buy your apples for 1/10th the price, you fire 90% of your workforce. If everyone does this, and if there aren't new jobs to take in that redundant workforce, you could end up in a death spiral where you find that even though your apples are dirt cheap, there's no one left to buy your expensive apple tarts. So you drive yourself out of business…

That said, a case could be made that these assumptions are correct - what's your argument against them? There are tons of new jobs, and a whole new middle class - in India and China. Corporations do not share your nationalistic interests - IBM doesn't owe America anything. If Germany were to have won WW2, IBM would now be a great German company. As America's broken system of government slowly bleeds this nation to de…

That is certainly not an argument that IBM's actions are not "hurting America"

Re: Neutron Bomb

#15

Post by req2 »

mds wrote: post #14
andreyf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That said, a case could be made that these assumptions are correct - what's your argument against them? There are tons of new jobs, and a whole new middle class - in India and China. Corporations do not share your nationalistic interests - IBM doesn't owe America anything. If Germany were to have won WW2, IBM would now be a great German company. As America's broken system of government slowly bleeds this nation to de…

That is certainly not an argument that IBM's actions are not "hurting America"

But if IBM doesn't "hurt America", it will "hurt the world".

Re: Neutron Bomb

#16

Post by randallsquared »

dreish wrote: post #9
randallsquared wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you cannot fail to have noticed how much Americans currently spend on health care, and how moving from private industry to state industry consistently increases the amount spent (at least in the US!)? Now, a case could be made that health care is an exception, largely because it's so heavily regulated already as to be effectively a poorly-run state industry with private profits. However, taking any other count…

I don't think you get to just make assertions like that without any facts. Medicare, which is already a government-run health insurance plan, and one whose customers are so satisfied they are militantly protective of it, has lower administrative costs than private insurance companies: http://wallstreetpit.com/7500-does-medicare-actually-have-hi...

I don't have specific data on Medicare, but you aren't exactly arguing against what I said, I notice. One would expect the beneficiaries of a government program to be militantly protective of it, and the less efficient, the more so -- no one hires lobbyists to reduce money or services they're getting.

Re: Neutron Bomb

#17

Post by dreish »

randallsquared wrote: post #16
dreish wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you get to just make assertions like that without any facts. Medicare, which is already a government-run health insurance plan, and one whose customers are so satisfied they are militantly protective of it, has lower administrative costs than private insurance companies: http://wallstreetpit.com/7500-does-medicare-actually-have-hi...

I don't have specific data on Medicare, but you aren't exactly arguing against what I said, I notice. One would expect the beneficiaries of a government program to be militantly protective of it, and the less efficient, the more so -- no one hires lobbyists to reduce money or services they're getting.

I am if you read the link, which is actually a good survey of what turns out to be a somewhat complicated question, due to the differing populations served. I don't think it's fully settled, but I think the assertion "Medicare has lower administrative costs that private insurance" has a much better shot at surviving than the negative of that assertion.

The government is unbeatably efficient at writing checks. I don't know where you get this notion that somehow the government would be an inefficient purveyor of health insurance. It simply isn't true.

Re: Neutron Bomb

#18

Post by randallsquared »

dreish wrote: post #17
randallsquared wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have specific data on Medicare, but you aren't exactly arguing against what I said, I notice. One would expect the beneficiaries of a government program to be militantly protective of it, and the less efficient, the more so -- no one hires lobbyists to reduce money or services they're getting.

I am if you read the link, which is actually a good survey of what turns out to be a somewhat complicated question, due to the differing populations served. I don't think it's fully settled, but I think the assertion "Medicare has lower administrative costs that private insurance" has a much better shot at surviving than the negative of that assertion. The government is unbeatably efficient at writing checks. I don't…

The government is unbeatably efficient at writing checks.

I think we have different ideas about what economic efficiency entails. I'm not sure that "efficiency" at wasting money is a good thing, nor is it usually what is meant in the context of providing services. (I have not yet had an opportunity to read your link, however, so perhaps this is answered in it).

Re: Neutron Bomb

#19

Post by biohacker42 »

dkarl wrote: post #11
biohacker42 wrote: post #4

This is a fascinating view into how Bob thinks. This article, right up until the conclusion is excellent. It lays out in great detail how the ever rising health care costs are hurting companies. It also in detail explains how the car companies were only focused on the short term and that ended up bankrupting them. But IBM takes the long view and that's why they are still in business. And Bob concludes that the proble…

He's saying that what's good for IBM -- a long-term plan to outsource work and replace Americans with foreign workers -- is bad for the US and bad for US workers. So the problem for companies is short-term thinking, and the problem for US workers is that intelligent long-term corporate planning leads to some combination of outsourcing and importing foreign workers.

OK that makes more sense then what I thought he meant. But it doesn't make that much sense when you consider that the ultimate end is economic collapse.

If corporations just put up with what ever conditions we force on them, in the short therm great, but in the long term we're screwed.

Re: Neutron Bomb

#20

Post by gloob »

req2 wrote: post #15
mds wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is certainly not an argument that IBM's actions are not "hurting America"

But if IBM doesn't "hurt America", it will "hurt the world".

I would suspect that many Americans would be willing to make such a sacrifice.
Post reply on HN