Live data from Hacker News

Neutron Bomb

cringely.com

21–30 of 40 posts

Re: Neutron Bomb

#21
post #6
post #2

IBM is shipping jobs overseas because ... wait for it ... (1) the complete cost of employing an American, including taxes, regulations, compliance, etc., is much higher than employing an Indian national. That's it. That's the complete list. Question: when we raise taxes by 40% [ http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/08/ya_know_plus_or_minu... ] to close the budget gap, and start taxing employers even more for universa…

This is either misleading or just confused. India funds roughly 25% of health care costs through the government, and has lower employment costs, yet you imply that if we were to incrementally approach their health-care system, the difference in employment costs would widen. Edit: incidentally I agree with your point that IBM's issue is as simple as lower employment costs, but I'd suggest it's lower because Indians ha…

They do indeed have a lower cost of living, roughly 1/5 of an Americans, and almost 1/8th of a British person.

When Indians all expect to have 13000BTU air conditioners in their houses, all expect to have luxury SUV's, high-speed broadband with $2,000 laptops and $4,000 desktops and maybe a few cheaper ones for the kids (if they don't play video games) and maybe a few games consoles (because all kids play some sort of video games), and don't forget the $600 cell phones with $3000 contracts . . .

Of course their cost of living is cheaper, people there actually walk to their work. I've never seen a person in economic problems walk to their work in a western country, despite it saving them almost two hours wages a day.

Re: Neutron Bomb

#22
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is either misleading or just confused. India funds roughly 25% of health care costs through the government, and has lower employment costs, yet you imply that if we were to incrementally approach their health-care system, the difference in employment costs would widen. Edit: incidentally I agree with your point that IBM's issue is as simple as lower employment costs, but I'd suggest it's lower because Indians ha…

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…

The British government is a disaster at efficiency, the French system is outright appalling and has one of the best health care systems in the world. By this progression, if the US had universal health care you would pay a penny and live forever.

Re: Neutron Bomb

#23
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The ultimate end is more likely a new equilibrium, in which the difference between the cost of living in the BRIC is closer to the industrialized Western world than it is now. Also, don't forget productivity gains are fueled by new technologies, and the US are still way ahead of the competition in research.

Re: Neutron Bomb

#24
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is either misleading or just confused. India funds roughly 25% of health care costs through the government, and has lower employment costs, yet you imply that if we were to incrementally approach their health-care system, the difference in employment costs would widen. Edit: incidentally I agree with your point that IBM's issue is as simple as lower employment costs, but I'd suggest it's lower because Indians ha…

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…

Take a look at the VA health care system: it's best in class on almost every imaginable metric, including cost. Totally government run. It's time to realise that governmental organizations can be just as efficient or inefficient as private ones. Name me a government organization as badly managed as GM!

Re: Neutron Bomb

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The ultimate end is more likely a new equilibrium, in which the difference between the cost of living in the BRIC is closer to the industrialized Western world than it is now. Also, don't forget productivity gains are fueled by new technologies, and the US are still way ahead of the competition in research.

I don't understand your point.

There's not a huge barrier to new discoveries in the US being utilized in other countries, and our only advantage in conducting research is infrastructure for distributing money. Over the next ten years, that could be closed by a cash-rich nation that wanted to (China).

Re: Neutron Bomb

#26
Here is the problem with this debate. On one hand, people say, "We need more H1B visas to handle the engineering workload in the U.S. There aren't enough skilled americans." They also say, "We must make engineering more attractive to Americans. Stop focusing on sports, et al and focus on creating brilliant minds."

Similarly, groups argue that outsourcing jobs is acceptable, another that it is not.

The problem is that we cannot have both. You cannot convince students in america to invest 6 figures into their education if they know those jobs will be filled with immigrants or shipped overseas. If there is no opportunity for jobs or an income that can absorb the investment in the education, then students will not enter that profession.

Technology employers in America argue that limiting H1B visas is stiffling creativity and the ability of companies in the U.S. to innovate. If this is the case, rather than paying individuals from other countries less to do the same job, pay locals more to do the same job. Give them more of an incentive to enter the work force. Value the work appropriately to the difficulty and investment level needed to complete the task. Being an engineer is difficult. Not everyone in the world, can, or wants to do it. There has to be an incentive to perform these difficult tasks.

The reason that we need to curb H1B visas and the outsourcing of jobs is precisely for the same reasons that the employers say we need to increase them. We need to curb them because we need america to remain more competitive.

There is a difference between America remaining more competitive and American corporations remaining more competitive. The former means american citizens and our nation remains strong. The later does not. If, for example, we continue to increase H1B's and off-shoring of technical work, then the logical conclusion is that there are no longer any native born americans to fill these positions. If this is the case, then America -- the nation -- is vulnerable to those countries with citizens and patriots to foreign entities who do have those skills.

This will leave America at an extreme disadvantage in the long run.

If engineers, who, arguably produce much more value to society than athletes or even CEOs were to earn as much money, the professions would be more popular. Instead, we have individuals who could make lasting changes to the benefit of our infrastructure, our technology, and our culture are entering other fields because they are more lucrative and are more appreciated by our society.

If we continue to outsource the jobs, it is a big sign that those who perform these tasks are not really appreciated. Engineers are not appreciated in America. They are appreciated in other countries. Compare our culture to Germany. Germany appreciates technology savants and the result is evident in their current account. Relatively speaking, they are the richest nation in the world.

And America is the poorest.

Re: Neutron Bomb

#27
post #20
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a big difference between "hurting America" and "hurting Americans".

Maximizing societal value may mean moving industry to places where the government is less of an impediment to efficient value creation. In the long (and usually, short) run, that's good for people. But it may mean that American jobs move to India, and American workers can a) follow their jobs, b) create new jobs by starting a new company in America (and deal with whatever caused their old job to leave), or c) whine and moan until someone gives them a handout.

Move, build, or cry about it. Doesn't sound like anyone's really being hurt. It's not like IBM is stabbing their workers, they're just telling them that they can work somewhere else, or get another job. Seems fair enough to me.

Re: Neutron Bomb

#28
post #7
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…

Buying apples for 1/10 the price isn't the part of the cycle that is most concerning. Nor is the part about firing 9/10 of the workforce -- although that assumes the company is operating at near 0% margins, and that the employment needs of the company scale linearly with total sales in dollars. Neither of these two are that common.

The thing that concerns me most is the lack of new jobs that absorb the redundant workforce. However, my concerns are probably somewhat unorthodox in that I think this represents a number of ideological problems rooted in both the employees and the employers.

The best way to encompass all of these is by the following truism: you are only capable of one specialization, give or take, in a given lifetime. And what we've been defining as specialization has been narrowing as rapidly as specializations have been getting deeper and more involved.

To play off of the analogy above, our society would look at these people, assert that it has no further need for "apple preparation specialists," and discard this class of people into the bin of history. At best, they go through retraining in some new specialization, but that takes a long time, and they are considered entry-level in their new specialization at the end.

It is this mentality where you get the laundry-list of "key proficiencies." The unwritten assumption is that all jobs are still a matter of rote memorization and repeated execution of steps, and as the years of experience with a particular technology accrue, the unconscious memorization of these steps improves.

The problem with this approach is that it is completely wrong. We do not account for people's ability to deductively reason, and we therefore do not account for the parts of the new skillset they'll know without being told by someone. The tragedy is that people believe they can't: employers, recruiters, and even the employees. This last part is the most tragic. The rank-and-file employees who believe this philosophy are so common that I become animatedly excited when I meet one who doesn't.

So, yeah. I think it goes deeper than just saying there aren't any jobs; we should really be deeply analyzing what assumptions about the nature of skill and work ethic we've been falsely believing all this time. So far, most of the analysis I've seen has just been repetition of these assumptions, with calls that we psuh forward initatives that work around them.

Re: Neutron Bomb

#29
post #17

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…

[deleted]

Re: Neutron Bomb

#30
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.

Problem isn't that IBM is evil. Problem is that IBM has been left in the dust but still trys to pretend it's a leader.

IBM is irrelevant. Don't go to work for them.

Post reply on HN