Home > Archive > Cobol > April 2004 > IF they can't write english don't answer
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 |
IF they can't write english don't answer
|
|
| ShadowFox 2004-04-02, 10:30 pm |
| Guy's if they can't write in English dont' respond to the post. I have lost
many jobs to the non usa programmers who don't speak the language and can't
read the code let's not help them stick it to us.......................
rememmber if the transistor was a national secret the transistor radio would
have been made in the good ole U.S.A.
| |
| Michael Mattias 2004-04-03, 8:30 am |
| "ShadowFox" <me@email.com> wrote in message
news:NYobc.165326$Cb.1659753@attbi_s51...
> Guy's
-10 Improper use of possesive form; plural form required.
- 2 Comma missing following salutation
>if they can't write in English dont'
-6 apostrophe misplaced in contraction
>respond to the post. I have lost many jobs to the non usa programmers
-5 "USA" is an acronym and should be capitalized
-4 should use hyphen between 'non' and 'USA'
-8 'non-USA' is not required adjective form
-10 singular article 'the' used when referring to plural ('programmers')
>who don't speak the language and can't read the code let's not help them
stick it to us
-10 End of phrase or sentence following 'word 'code' not terminated by
semicolon or period and start of new sentence
> rememmber if the transistor was a national secret the transistor radio
would
-6 spelling error ('remember')
> have been made in the good ole U.S.A.
- colloquial form 'ole' inappropriate here (warning only).
Thank you for your timely reminder to be on the lookout for those lacking
skills in written English.
MCM
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-04-03, 9:30 am |
| In article <_pybc.50021$KB1.47401@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
Michael Mattias <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Thank you for your timely reminder to be on the lookout for those lacking
>skills in written English.
Hoi! There are many of strangenesses found in the speakings to be heard
in such places... you are knowing of language called 'Cockney'?
DD
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2004-04-03, 10:30 am |
| I am thinking that you have smacked him down much goodly. Thank you,
Mr. Mattias, for providing schooling for his little protectionist behind.
In article <_pybc.50021$KB1.47401@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
"Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
> "ShadowFox" <me@email.com> wrote in message
> news:NYobc.165326$Cb.1659753@attbi_s51...
> -10 Improper use of possesive form; plural form required.
> - 2 Comma missing following salutation
>
> -6 apostrophe misplaced in contraction
>
> -5 "USA" is an acronym and should be capitalized
> -4 should use hyphen between 'non' and 'USA'
> -8 'non-USA' is not required adjective form
> -10 singular article 'the' used when referring to plural ('programmers')
>
> stick it to us
> -10 End of phrase or sentence following 'word 'code' not terminated by
> semicolon or period and start of new sentence
>
> would
> -6 spelling error ('remember')
>
> - colloquial form 'ole' inappropriate here (warning only).
>
> Thank you for your timely reminder to be on the lookout for those lacking
> skills in written English.
>
> MCM
| |
| SkippyPB 2004-04-03, 12:30 pm |
| On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:50:02 GMT, "Michael Mattias"
<michael.mattias@gte.net> enlightened us:
>"ShadowFox" <me@email.com> wrote in message
>news:NYobc.165326$Cb.1659753@attbi_s51...
> -10 Improper use of possesive form; plural form required.
>- 2 Comma missing following salutation
>
>-6 apostrophe misplaced in contraction
>
> -5 "USA" is an acronym and should be capitalized
>-4 should use hyphen between 'non' and 'USA'
>-8 'non-USA' is not required adjective form
>-10 singular article 'the' used when referring to plural ('programmers')
>
>stick it to us
>-10 End of phrase or sentence following 'word 'code' not terminated by
>semicolon or period and start of new sentence
>
>would
>-6 spelling error ('remember')
>
>- colloquial form 'ole' inappropriate here (warning only).
>
>Thank you for your timely reminder to be on the lookout for those lacking
>skills in written English.
>
>MCM
>
>
You shouldn't have responded to him/her/it. Shame on you Michael for
helping "them ferigners" out ;)
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and
statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and
protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without
fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or
help them develop their own."
Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address, President Bush
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/fea..._on_the_record/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Hugh Candlin 2004-04-03, 2:30 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:c4mcpo$d4n$1@panix1.panix.com...
> In article <_pybc.50021$KB1.47401@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
> Michael Mattias <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Hoi! There are many of strangenesses found in the speakings to be heard
> in such places... you are knowing of language called 'Cockney'?
Cockney isn't a language. Or a dialect. It is a method.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-04-03, 5:30 pm |
| In article <tHDbc.16728$vo5.515560@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Hugh Candlin <no@spam.com> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:c4mcpo$d4n$1@panix1.panix.com...
>
>Cockney isn't a language. Or a dialect. It is a method.
This reminds me of what a lad I knew said, decades back, upon reading a
booklet of advertising-copy which had been attached to a bottle of a
Mexican beverage:
'Mezcal... a myth, a mystique, a way of life.'
DD
| |
| Ross Klatte 2004-04-03, 11:30 pm |
| >Subject: Re: IF they can't write english don't answer
>From: SkippyPB swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com
>Date: 2004-04-03 11:07 Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <19ot6014qh1an6ftk12odua55flhj3fc30@4ax.com>
>
>On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:50:02 GMT, "Michael Mattias"
><michael.mattias@gte.net> enlightened us:
>
>
>You shouldn't have responded to him/her/it. Shame on you Michael for
>helping "them ferigners" out ;)
I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Are you saying:
(1) Off-shoring does not exist?
(2) No U.S. jobs have been lost to off-shoring?
(3) Those U.S. citizens who remain employed in I.T. have done so because of
their massively superior intelligence and diligence?
(4) Every U.S. citizen who has been fired from an I.T. job has been so because
of his obviously inferior intelligence or diligence?
(5) Any statement which could have emanated from racism should immediately
be angrily rejected, based on that possibility, without regard to any truth
it
might contain?
If you agree with any of those points, you are not thinking clearly.
The facts are clear:
U.S. companies are moving all I.T. jobs off-shore as fast they are able.
Not all the Indians are smarter, but they are all cheaper. Not all the
Americans are stupider, but they are all more expensive.
The motivation is simple economics--it has absolutely nothing to do
with racism or patriotism, and it has little to do with competency.
Perhaps you meant to say that any person who cannot write with correct
spelling and punctuation should be ignored? (Excluding, of course, those
who acquired their deficiency by accident of birth.) I think that criterion
would eliminate 90 percent of everyone in I.T.
People who have held onto their jobs--primarily because they are
self-employed or because their employer does not have enough
know-how to find a suitable replacement overseas--invariably believe
that they have kept their jobs because they are brilliant. This is not
true. No matter how brilliant you are, there are, let me assure you,
at least ten people more brilliant than you among the two or three billion
people in Asia. You guys are like turkeys in the turkey farm that
go around high-fiving each other when the axe chops off some
other turkey's head for Thanksgiving dinner, supposing that they
have cleverly outwitted the turkey farmer.
Instead of English critiques, please address the point raised:
American I.T. jobs are being lost to India, Pakistan, and China. This
situation is not good for the individuals who lose their jobs. Sooner
or later, it is not good for the governments who live off the taxes
paid by those individuals.
P.S. Your "possesive" does not poses enough "s"'s.
Ross
Vontay, Virginia
http://community.webshots.com/user/ross_klatte
http://www.geocities.com/foundlingfather/
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2004-04-04, 1:30 am |
| In article <20040403221105.16223.00000466@mb-m23.aol.com>,
klatteross@aol.commmm (Ross Klatte) wrote:
>
> I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
> Are you saying:
> (1) Off-shoring does not exist?
> (2) No U.S. jobs have been lost to off-shoring?
> (3) Those U.S. citizens who remain employed in I.T. have done so because of
> their massively superior intelligence and diligence?
> (4) Every U.S. citizen who has been fired from an I.T. job has been so
> because
> of his obviously inferior intelligence or diligence?
> (5) Any statement which could have emanated from racism should immediately
> be angrily rejected, based on that possibility, without regard to any
> truth
> it
> might contain?
No, No, No, No and No.
> If you agree with any of those points, you are not thinking clearly.
> The facts are clear:
> U.S. companies are moving all I.T. jobs off-shore as fast they are able.
> Not all the Indians are smarter, but they are all cheaper. Not all the
> Americans are stupider, but they are all more expensive.
> The motivation is simple economics--it has absolutely nothing to do
> with racism or patriotism, and it has little to do with competency.
>
> Perhaps you meant to say that any person who cannot write with correct
> spelling and punctuation should be ignored? (Excluding, of course, those
> who acquired their deficiency by accident of birth.) I think that criterion
> would eliminate 90 percent of everyone in I.T.
>
> People who have held onto their jobs--primarily because they are
> self-employed or because their employer does not have enough
> know-how to find a suitable replacement overseas--invariably believe
> that they have kept their jobs because they are brilliant. This is not
> true. No matter how brilliant you are, there are, let me assure you,
> at least ten people more brilliant than you among the two or three billion
> people in Asia. You guys are like turkeys in the turkey farm that
> go around high-fiving each other when the axe chops off some
> other turkey's head for Thanksgiving dinner, supposing that they
> have cleverly outwitted the turkey farmer.
>
> Instead of English critiques, please address the point raised:
> American I.T. jobs are being lost to India, Pakistan, and China. This
> situation is not good for the individuals who lose their jobs. Sooner
> or later, it is not good for the governments who live off the taxes
> paid by those individuals.
If you only look at one side of the issue, the evil of outsourcing seems
obvious.
If you look at the other side: that other nations outsource to the USA
as well; and that people, freed of the need to perform the easily
outsourced tasks, can address themselves to even greater things.
There is always some discomfort for individuals -- just imagine how
badly the makers of buggy whips felt as the era of the auto emerged.
Would you rather give up the ease of your auto, or would you rather the
buggy whip manufacturers retooled, retrained and learned how to make
steering wheel covers?
| |
| Julian 2004-04-04, 1:30 pm |
| ShadowFox wrote:
> Guy's if they can't write in English dont' respond to the post. I have lost
> many jobs to the non usa programmers who don't speak the language and can't
> read the code let's not help them stick it to us.......................
> rememmber if the transistor was a national secret the transistor radio would
> have been made in the good ole U.S.A.
>
>
Without the Sumerians, you wouldn't be able to write and read... So,
if I get you, you prefer doing badly a job because you're American
rather than letting someone else (non-American) doing it better than
you do ?
Is my English right ? I speak french :s (don't tell my mom...)
| |
|
|
> If you look at the other side: that other nations outsource to the USA
> as well; and that people, freed of the need to perform the easily
> outsourced tasks, can address themselves to even greater things.
What a load of Republican crap. Show me ONE I.T. job (Cobol, mainframe, Java,
client-server whatever) that has been "insourced" from India, China,
Russia or even Europe to the USA.
> There is always some discomfort for individuals -- just imagine how
> badly the makers of buggy whips felt as the era of the auto emerged.
> Would you rather give up the ease of your auto, or would you rather the
> buggy whip manufacturers retooled, retrained and learned how to make
> steering wheel covers?
Another load of Republican crap. That what's they said 10 years
ago when manufacturing jobs were went out of the country. Now
all those retooled, retrained people are having their retooled,
retrained jobs outsourced again.
Would you like fries with that retooled job?
| |
|
| "Hugh Candlin" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
news:tHDbc.16728$vo5.515560@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Cockney isn't a language. Or a dialect. It is a method.
>
It's a method for confusion.
I used to have a mate, now  ly passed away, who used to talk about Clients
& Accounts as Punters & Dosh
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2004-04-04, 3:30 pm |
| In article <b6ednQHBFPDWr-3dRVn_vQ@giganews.com>,
"Mike" <NoSpam@NoMoSpam.ORG> wrote:
>
> Show me ONE I.T. job (Cobol, mainframe, Java,
> client-server whatever) that has been "insourced" from India, China,
> Russia or even Europe to the USA.
I can show you far more than one, the area of Operating Systems. The
entire worldwide IT world has a sick obsession with the mediocre
products of a certain company from Redmond, Washington. The number of
jobs created trying to support, maintain and enhance this U.S. product,
both at Microsoft and third-party vendors is quite significant. As is
the money flowing INTO the U.S. to feed said monster.
There are, of course, many more. And not just in the IT world. The
U.S. is a great producer of things that the world wants from advanced
medicine to zoological research -- bunches of jobs in other areas are
"in-sourced" to the U.S.
>
> That what's they said 10 years
> ago when manufacturing jobs were went out of the country. Now
> all those retooled, retrained people are having their retooled,
> retrained jobs outsourced again.
>
> Would you like fries with that retooled job?
I've followed a few different career paths in my life. While always a
hobbyist with computers, I came late to programming as a career. Prior
to that I have waited/cooked/tended bar, worked in a factory, drove long
haul trucks, stevedored and soldiered.
I can say with no doubt, that the most depressing, mind-numbing work I
ever did was to manufacture ice cream in Safeway's El Paso factory.
Manufacturing would have been fine if my alternative was scratching a
living out of dirt (but agriculture is another topic). But with other
options available, it was the bottom of the sewer.
I say good riddance to the manufacturing jobs -- and I hope the third
world countries that received those jobs manage to use them to boost
their collective living conditions out of subsistence farming and then
into so-called "knowledge jobs" -- as India has in the last generation.
Ideally, all manufacturing would be performed by machines, saving humans
for better, happier pursuits -- but time and infrastructure are needed
for that, the industrial revolution is still young in many parts of the
world.
Fries are far preferable to the factory.
So if manufacturing is so damn great, why do you work in IT?
> What a load of Republican crap.
> Another load of Republican crap.
You seem obsessed with party labels -- why do you suppose I am a
Republican? (I'm not) Or that my ideas are some from of Republican
excretion? (They aren't)
Who was it that made NAFTA and GATT realities?
Oh, hell, I can't resist:
A rising tide lifts all boats...have a nice day!
| |
| Richard 2004-04-04, 4:30 pm |
| klatteross@aol.commmm (Ross Klatte) wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
> Are you saying:
Actually the exact point he made is quite clear to those who look at
the message in a rational way.
> (1) Off-shoring does not exist?
> (2) No U.S. jobs have been lost to off-shoring?
> (3) Those U.S. citizens who remain employed in I.T. have done so because of
> their massively superior intelligence and diligence?
> (4) Every U.S. citizen who has been fired from an I.T. job has been so because
> of his obviously inferior intelligence or diligence?
> (5) Any statement which could have emanated from racism should immediately
> be angrily rejected, based on that possibility, without regard to any truth
> it
> might contain?
> If you agree with any of those points, you are not thinking clearly.
Excuse me, but I think that it is you that has demonstrated unclear
thinking.
> The facts are clear:
> U.S. companies are moving all I.T. jobs off-shore as fast they are able.
_ALL_ IT Jobs ? All ? I have told you a million times, don't
exagerate.
> Not all the Indians are smarter, but they are all cheaper. Not all the
> Americans are stupider, but they are all more expensive.
> The motivation is simple economics--it has absolutely nothing to do
> with racism or patriotism, and it has little to do with competency.
It also has a lot to do with timezones. International companies
receive calls at any time from all parts of the world, beause of
timezone differences and because people may be requiring support in
the evenings.
It makes sense to have one 24 hour call center working in shifts
rather than several centers using overtime. Where this is located is
entirely based on economics, including communications costs.
> Perhaps you meant to say that any person who cannot write with correct
> spelling and punctuation should be ignored?
Oh, you _do_ understand, excellent. It was the point made by the
original poster (see subject line).
> Instead of English critiques, please address the point raised:
> American I.T. jobs are being lost to India, Pakistan, and China. This
> situation is not good for the individuals who lose their jobs. Sooner
> or later, it is not good for the governments who live off the taxes
> paid by those individuals.
American companies are selling products around the world, and are
pressing for more trade through the ITO. It seems unreasonable that
America should be protectionist about their jobs while telling other
countries to be less protectionist.
| |
| JerryMouse 2004-04-04, 5:30 pm |
| Mike wrote:
>
> What a load of Republican crap. Show me ONE I.T. job (Cobol,
> mainframe, Java, client-server whatever) that has been "insourced"
> from India, China,
> Russia or even Europe to the USA.
Here's one. I had a programmer doing COBOL development work telecommuting
from Israel . I recently replaced him with a local (although, strictly
speaking, Israel is not India, China, Russia, or Europe). But look at the
big picture:
First, in the past few years, foreign-owned companies have hired almost ten
times as many workers in the U.S. as American companies have hired abroad
(1.8 million vs 200,000 were the last figures I saw).
Second, labor, like anything else, is an ingredient in every product or
service. Any company, domestic or foreign, owes a duty to its stockholders,
its customers, and its employees to produce the best product it can. By
buying "raw materials" at the best possible price, it furthers that goal.
ALL forms of protectionism are evil, be they tariffs on goods and raw
materials or restrictions on the use of labor.
This IS a Republican mantra, but that does not diminish its truth.
>
>
> Another load of Republican crap. That what's they said 10 years
> ago when manufacturing jobs were went out of the country. Now
> all those retooled, retrained people are having their retooled,
> retrained jobs outsourced again.
Nonsense. Manufacturing output in the U.S. has increased every year back
into the dim past. We just make different things (and more of them). There
are fewer people employed in manufacturing and by every objective standard,
that's good.
>
> Would you like fries with that retooled job?
Interestingly, the company with the largest revenue in the U.S. is not a
manufacturer. And, no, its not a bank, an insurance or financial company, a
health provider, a law firm, part of transportation, or involved in
agriculture - just to name a few huge industries that don't MAKE something.
| |
|
| JerryMouse wrote:
> This IS a Republican mantra, but that does not diminish its truth.
That's got to be "quote of the w " or something... :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Richard 2004-04-04, 7:30 pm |
| Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote
>
> A rising tide lifts all boats...
Except those stuck in the mud.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-04-04, 8:30 pm |
| In article <EsSdnWsRC6Er9-3dRVn-gg@giganews.com>,
JerryMouse <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Second, labor, like anything else, is an ingredient in every product or
>service. Any company, domestic or foreign, owes a duty to its stockholders,
>its customers, and its employees to produce the best product it can. By
>buying "raw materials" at the best possible price, it furthers that goal.
Hmmmmmm... this'un's always puzzled me. Why is it that a company which
ss to obtain the most work for the least money is seen as 'doing good
business' while a worker who ss to obtain the most money for the least
work is seen as 'doing bad business'?
DD
| |
| Last Boy Scout 2004-04-04, 9:30 pm |
| On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 11:05:28 -0500, "Mike" <NoSpam@NoMoSpam.ORG> wrote:
Cisco announced some deal a while back to supply China with netwroking
infra structure.
>
>
>What a load of Republican crap. Show me ONE I.T. job (Cobol, mainframe, Java,
>client-server whatever) that has been "insourced" from India, China,
>Russia or even Europe to the USA.
>
>
>Another load of Republican crap. That what's they said 10 years
>ago when manufacturing jobs were went out of the country. Now
>all those retooled, retrained people are having their retooled,
>retrained jobs outsourced again.
>
>Would you like fries with that retooled job?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| bevyn quiding 2004-04-04, 9:30 pm |
| "Mike" <NoSpam@NoMoSpam.ORG> wrote in message news:<b6ednQHBFPDWr-3dRVn_vQ@giganews.com>...
>
> What a load of Republican crap. Show me ONE I.T. job (Cobol, mainframe, Java,
> client-server whatever) that has been "insourced" from India, China,
> Russia or even Europe to the USA.
marshall software aquired by american company.
new zealand developers made redundant.
also india, china, russia and europe all use software coded in america
therefore create jobs in the american economy so in a sense could be
construed as insourcing jobs.
regards
| |
| Last Boy Scout 2004-04-04, 9:30 pm |
| On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 15:06:18 -0500, "JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com>
wrote:
>Second, labor, like anything else, is an ingredient in every product or
>service. Any company, domestic or foreign, owes a duty to its stockholders,
>its customers, and its employees to produce the best product it can. By
>buying "raw materials" at the best possible price, it furthers that goal.
This is a load of crap. I have seen many companies try to save money
buying cheap parts and end up shooting themselves in the foot. I
recall seeing a big report lately that the biggest problem for
corporate america today is alienating their customers by poor customer
service. Hiring people from outside of the united states to talk to
people inside of the united states is going to have serious
repurcussions. Customers often go to a competing product simply
because they received lousy customer service. Service is everything
when you charge a customer a large software or hardware service fee
for a service agreement.
Just becase a person is advocating made in america products and made
in america workers, they are not infringing on anyone else they are
just voting with their conscience. This is something Some
Corporations do not seem to have.
Eventually a really bad war will break out and not enough people in
the US will be trainded to handle a job, simply because a few
corporate people chose to hire foreign firms. France has had a huge
backlash because of their involvement in Iraq. They sold arms to
Sadam and built his torture chambers, so Let them suffer. This is a
risk any country takes when they get involved overseas. What happeded
in Spain Can happen in any country. Europe did not feel that bad as
long as the USA was the Target of these evil Terrorists. We are still
squabling over property ownership with people in Cuba. How long will
it take to show how dangerous this is?
I say if corporations want to hire foreigners, make them bring them to
the US and let them work here and pay taxes here. At least some
companies have built some plants in the USA and have hired some
Americans. We have built some plants in Canada and Mexico and then as
soon as cheaper labor was found somewhere else the plant was shut down
and they built a factory in some other location with even cheaper
labor. Oh well, you win some and you lose some.
As an IT worker and a programmer I advised against using a Peoplesoft
because it is a large corporation and I did not think they could be
trusted. They will probably not buy their products solely because we
can not afford them, but at least I am trying to affect the system.
| |
| Last Boy Scout 2004-04-04, 10:30 pm |
| We were thinking about all the problems that the USA has with Mexican
Immigrants. I think the USA should just take over mexico and make it
into a few southern States. They want to be here and use our money
and our resources, so we should just take mexico over and get rid of
their corrupt government. If you cant lick them, join them.
>Guy's if they can't write in English dont' respond to the post. I have lost
>many jobs to the non usa programmers who don't speak the language and can't
>read the code let's not help them stick it to us.......................
>rememmber if the transistor was a national secret the transistor radio would
>have been made in the good ole U.S.A.
>
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-04-05, 11:30 am |
| It's real hard to determine whether a product is USAmerican made:
http://www.wired.com/news/business/...tw=wn_tophead_1
But it is hypocritical to be willing to sell our services and products overseas
without being willing to buy. And we sell far more IS services and software
than we buy. It isn't even close.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-04-05, 11:30 am |
|
On 4-Apr-2004, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> Hmmmmmm... this'un's always puzzled me. Why is it that a company which
> ss to obtain the most work for the least money is seen as 'doing good
> business' while a worker who ss to obtain the most money for the least
> work is seen as 'doing bad business'?
It depends on who's doing the looking. I for instance never saw this.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-04-05, 11:30 am |
|
On 2-Apr-2004, "ShadowFox" <me@email.com> wrote:
> rememmber if the transistor was a national secret the transistor radio would
> have been made in the good ole U.S.A.
Reverse engineering is pretty easy. Sure, pass a law telling furriners to buy
our products (with what), but not sell us stuff - no matter how badly we want to
buy from them. They'll end up trading between each other while we fall behind.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-04-05, 11:30 am |
|
On 4-Apr-2004, Julian <whateveryousend@iwontread.net> wrote:
> Without the Sumerians, you wouldn't be able to write and read... So,
> if I get you, you prefer doing badly a job because you're American
> rather than letting someone else (non-American) doing it better than
> you do ?
If the Sumerians never existed then nobody would have invented reading and
writing?
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-04-05, 11:30 am |
| In article <c4rrjg$hm2$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 4-Apr-2004, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>It depends on who's doing the looking. I for instance never saw this.
Our experiences, then, might just possibly be different.
DD
| |
| JerryMouse 2004-04-05, 12:30 pm |
| Last Boy Scout wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 15:06:18 -0500, "JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> This is a load of crap. I have seen many companies try to save money
> buying cheap parts and end up shooting themselves in the foot. I
> recall seeing a big report lately that the biggest problem for
> corporate america today is alienating their customers by poor customer
> service. Hiring people from outside of the united states to talk to
> people inside of the united states is going to have serious
> repurcussions. Customers often go to a competing product simply
> because they received lousy customer service. Service is everything
> when you charge a customer a large software or hardware service fee
> for a service agreement.
You say customers change product loyalty because of lousy service. Sure. But
isn't that lousy service traditionally "Made in the USA?" "Good
Service"/"Lousy Service" is not synonymous with "Domestic"/"Foreign."
You are correct that hiring outsiders will have serious consequences. The
company that does so may be able to stay in business, expand, pay remaining
employees more, reduce prices, or offer a better product.
>
> Just becase a person is advocating made in america products and made
> in america workers, they are not infringing on anyone else they are
> just voting with their conscience. This is something Some
> Corporations do not seem to have.
Um, I take your point - I think. If you mean by "voting" invoking the
political process to compel certain actions or curtail management choices,
then absolutely you are infringing on someone. If, on the other hand, you
mean by "voting" that individual choice in the marketplace governs, then, by
all means, promote the candidate "Buy America." The general marketplace
will sort it out.
"Conscience?" Employers do not owe allegience to their workers nor workers
any sort of fealty to the corporation. The employees perform a service, they
get paid. That's it. If I buy a ream of paper from Office Depot, all
accounts are square when I walk out the door. I am not obligated to buy my
next ream of paper from them, nor are they obligated to sell to me.
>
> Eventually a really bad war will break out and not enough people in
> the US will be trainded to handle a job, simply because a few
> corporate people chose to hire foreign firms.
A really bad war will not break out in the forseeable future. There is no
large country capable of warring with the U.S. (the U.S. Marine Corps is
larger than all the armies of Europe (England excepted) combined). A small,
rogue country (such as North Korea) can be turned to a sea of glass in less
than twelve hours. Don't lose sleep over the possibility.
| |
| Peter Lacey 2004-04-05, 2:30 pm |
| JerryMouse wrote:
>
> You are correct that hiring outsiders will have serious consequences. The
> company that does so may be able to stay in business, expand, pay remaining
> employees more, reduce prices, or offer a better product.
>
Jerry, just follow your thought to its ultimate conclusion. Consider any
business not involved in the "service" or mcjobs sectors. Can you identify ANY
part of the business that can't be performed elsewhere, where cost are less -
from ownership on down? Seems to me that the only parts are transportation to
the local distribution point and delivery. EVERYTHING else can be removed, so
far as I can see. Truly, I fail to see how that benefits the local economy, the
"remaining" employees, or anyone else except the shareholders and owners, no
matter how much "better" the product may be.
Businesses exist to make money. Nothing wrong with that. But making money ->
sales -> customers -> employed people. (-> is crude attempt to use mathematical
"implies" character). Fewer and fewer employed people -> less and less
possibility of making money. In its own ultimate interest, each local business
must draw the line somewhere if it wishes to remain in business locally.
One-way money flows are ultimately impossible to maintian.
Still on topic: I run a small software & services business. I've had an
approach from an outfit in India, offering me out-sourcing from >>>$3<<< an
hour. Think of the consequences. I could drop my rates by 66% and still make
money this way: until other similar businesses catch on and match me or undercut
me. Where does it end? I can't exist on $3 an hour! Our entire society would
have to average out with the outsourcing countries to make this possible: which
means an enormous drop in the standard of living. (And lest it be thought that
I might be wanting too much: I'm thinking among other things about heating
bills. My house is heated by natural gas, and there's no way I can afford NOT
to use it: not when I have to exist in 40 below temperatures (sometimes!) in
winter).
Enough.
PL
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-04-05, 3:31 pm |
|
On 5-Apr-2004, "JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote:
> A really bad war will not break out in the forseeable future. There is no
> large country capable of warring with the U.S. (the U.S. Marine Corps is
> larger than all the armies of Europe (England excepted) combined). A small,
> rogue country (such as North Korea) can be turned to a sea of glass in less
> than twelve hours. Don't lose sleep over the possibility.
For various values of "really bad".
| |
| Julian 2004-04-05, 4:30 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 4-Apr-2004, Julian <whateveryousend@iwontread.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> If the Sumerians never existed then nobody would have invented reading and
> writing?
he he he, of course not. same for the Americans... if they never
existed, someone else would have invented the transistor, the
computer, ... btw, they did not invented computer science alone.
well, let stop feeding the troll
| |
| JerryMouse 2004-04-05, 5:30 pm |
| Peter Lacey wrote:
> JerryMouse wrote:
>
>
> Jerry, just follow your thought to its ultimate conclusion.
> Consider any business not involved in the "service" or mcjobs
> sectors. Can you identify ANY part of the business that can't be
> performed elsewhere, where cost are less - from ownership on down?
Sure. Any business where you have to meet the customer face-to-face. Home
building. Resurfacing the roadway. Most governmental functions (including
law enforcement and fire fighting). Health care. 95% of retail sales.
Remember, the company with the greatest revenue in the U.S. is Wal-Mart.
More than GE, GM, Micros~1, or any other.
> Seems to me that the only parts are transportation to the local
> distribution point and delivery. EVERYTHING else can be removed, so
> far as I can see. Truly, I fail to see how that benefits the local
> economy, the "remaining" employees, or anyone else except the
> shareholders and owners, no matter how much "better" the product may
> be.
Quit thinking about "product" (unless you are going to move it or sell it).
Think information or service. And, if you still feel there is something
low-class, demeaning, or proletarian about a mere "service," you can always
do without dentistry.
>
> Businesses exist to make money. Nothing wrong with that. But making
> money -> sales -> customers -> employed people. (-> is crude attempt
> to use mathematical "implies" character). Fewer and fewer employed
> people -> less and less possibility of making money. In its own
> ultimate interest, each local business must draw the line somewhere
> if it wishes to remain in business locally. One-way money flows are
> ultimately impossible to maintian.
Wrong. Incestuous money flows (all within a city or country) are the
problem. Adam Smith put this protectionist silliness to bed 300 years ago.
It amazes me that people STILL don't get it.
We've got more people employed than ever. We have a lower unemployment rate
than the average for any decade in the last fifty years. The average real
income is up, and up dramatically. Poverty rates are down. Standard of
living is up. Everything that should be up is up. And vice-versa.
>
> Still on topic: I run a small software & services business. I've had
> an approach from an outfit in India, offering me out-sourcing from
> by 66% and still make money this way: until other similar businesses
> catch on and match me or undercut me.
Things change. You can make a bunch of money now, until your competitors
catch on, or make a modest amount of profit now, until your competitors
catch on. Your choice. Because catch on they will.
> Where does it end? I can't
> exist on $3 an hour! Our entire society would have to average out
> with the outsourcing countries to make this possible: which means an
> enormous drop in the standard of living.
Right. March or Die. Things will NOT stay the same. The only way to prevail
is to innovate, to do things better than anyone else. Knowledge is power.
For example, suppose someone knew how to make Aluminum from corn. No more
strip mining in Jamaica, shipping of millions of tons of ore, or huge
expenditures of electricity. Aluminum could be made in Kansas! The essential
ingredient here is the KNOWLEDGE of how to make Aluminum from corn, not
mining, shipping, or electric blast furnaces.
Absurd, you say. No one can make Aluminum from corn! Not now. But think
motor fuel.
Knowledge is power (and profit).
> (And lest it be thought
> that I might be wanting too much: I'm thinking among other things
> about heating bills. My house is heated by natural gas, and there's
> no way I can afford NOT to use it: not when I have to exist in 40
> below temperatures (sometimes!) in winter).
Amazing. I never heard of a place that was unexplored until pipelines were
installed.
The weather's quite mild in Sri Lanka. And $3/hr is a princely sum. Why do
you think so many retirees live in Mexico or Costa Rico? (And Arthur C.
Clarke lives in Sri Lanka!)
| |
| JerryMouse 2004-04-05, 5:30 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 4-Apr-2004, Julian <whateveryousend@iwontread.net> wrote:
>
>
> If the Sumerians never existed then nobody would have invented
> reading and writing?
The Rabbis say:
"If Moses never existed then the Torah was written by someone else whose
name happened to be Moses."
| |
| Peter Lacey 2004-04-05, 10:30 pm |
| JerryMouse wrote:
>
> We've got more people employed than ever. We have a lower unemployment rate
> than the average for any decade in the last fifty years. The average real
> income is up, and up dramatically. Poverty rates are down. Standard of
> living is up. Everything that should be up is up. And vice-versa.
>
You belong to the Pollyanna Institute, right?
| |
| JerryMouse 2004-04-06, 11:30 am |
| Peter Lacey wrote:
> JerryMouse wrote:
>
>
> You belong to the Pollyanna Institute, right?
Actually, I'm a member of the Realist Society.
Recently, however, the outlook of our group and the Pollyannas' seem to
coincide. We're planning a picnic.
| |
| Warren Simmons 2004-04-06, 2:30 pm |
| Hi all, back after a long break moving to NJ from AZ,
messing up my w98, getting a new system, learning XP,
and adjusting to living in smaller quarters with daughter
and grandsons. I've missed hearing you all XXXXX, XXXXX.
Meanwhile, this subject has been long on my mind, too.
I recall the buggy whip discussion of the advent of the automobile, and now
it looks like we will only need to ride, not drive. I should care, I can't
drive anymore.
Meanwhile, again, the problem I have with the use of
cheaper labor is two fold. First, there is no good program to keep those
displaced earning a living until
they don't care again.
And second, we live in a time of hightened security.
Will we loose our knowhow or secrets by shipping
them somewhere else. I remember us teaching the
Japanese how to build continuous casters, and then
when ours broke down, we had to hire the Japanese
to come help us fix and improve upon them. Not a big
deal perhaps, but there are many things to the balance
of so called POWER that might be underminded by loosing an ability to serve
ourselves. I don't have a celler
full of food to hold me over, and I get nervous when our
two or three day supply gets low.
It's hearting though to see that some companies are willing to donate their
significant products to the public domain while we are building tools to
make war in the sky.
I saw India and China during WII, and found that experience enlighting.
However, recently I say a photo
travelog of the same area today, and they have made
great stides.
Almost like any one of our big cities exist, and the way
of life has improved greatly.
My real concern is why can't we do well while we help others do well. Why
can't we just get along? A good
bit of the world is not ready to accept our methods, and
see our methods as weak or lame. Why should our
leaders try to push their ideals on the rest of the world?
Why must we say "under God" instead of your higher
power. Mostly, it seems that the crooks run the banks,
business are managed by them, and everyone is a crook.
Now, I don't believe that. But how can one spend time
trying to do a better job, and designing new systems without wondering who
is taking care of US.
Warren Simmons
wsimmons5@optonline.net
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:c4s727$qln$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 5-Apr-2004, "JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote:
>
no[color=darkred]
small,[color=darkred]
less[color=darkred]
>
> For various values of "really bad".
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-04-06, 4:30 pm |
| In article <mgCcc.26467$7r2.5361282@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
Warren Simmons <wsimmons5@optonline.net> wrote:
>Hi all, back after a long break moving to NJ from AZ,
>messing up my w98, getting a new system, learning XP,
>and adjusting to living in smaller quarters with daughter
>and grandsons.
Welcome back, Mr Simmons; it is most pleasant to have you grace these
discussions with your input.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-04-06, 4:30 pm |
|
On 6-Apr-2004, "Warren Simmons" <wsimmons5@optonline.net> wrote:
> It's hearting though to see that some companies are willing to donate their
> significant products to the public domain while we are building tools to
> make war in the sky.
One trouble with this is that the best way to help the most needy is to provide
them with jobs. And the most needy are overseas. Instead of clear-cutting
the rainforests to try to survive, they go to factories and learn skills, then
the next generation move to offices and learn skills.
(Historically, moving to mines hasn't had this type of effect).
The most effective way of helping them makes them our competitors.
| |
| Julian 2004-04-07, 3:30 am |
| JerryMouse wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>
>
> The Rabbis say:
>
> "If Moses never existed then the Torah was written by someone else whose
> name happened to be Moses."
>
>
ahhaha exactly
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2004-04-07, 10:30 am |
| In article <c4rsds$8kd$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <c4rrjg$hm2$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> Our experiences, then, might just possibly be different.
>
> DD
I'm not sure it is seen as 'bad business' -- it is just the standard
conflict that determines the 'going rate'.
It might have gotten a reputation for being 'bad business' because of
the behavior of the various unions of the last century. The act of
tring to get maximum value for your work hour is just plain honest
capitolism.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-04-07, 10:30 am |
| In article <joe_zitzelberger-21AEDC.09100307042004@corp.supernews.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <c4rsds$8kd$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>I'm not sure it is seen as 'bad business' -- it is just the standard
>conflict that determines the 'going rate'.
I used the label 'bad business' in order to maintain symmetry... see
below.
>
>It might have gotten a reputation for being 'bad business' because of
>the behavior of the various unions of the last century. The act of
>tring to get maximum value for your work hour is just plain honest
>capitolism.
I have no idea how unions might or might not be made to fit into this
scenario... what I have seen might be described this way.
Businessperson: 'I always try to get the most amount of (commodity) for
the least amount of money... I give *just barely* enough to get what I
want and I always want more.'
General Wisdom: 'This is a good attitude towards business.'
Employee: 'I always try to give the least amount of work (commodity) for
the most amount of money... I give *just barely* enough to get what I
want and I always want more.'
General Wisdom: 'This is a bad attitude towards business.'
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-04-07, 11:30 am |
|
On 7-Apr-2004, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> I have no idea how unions might or might not be made to fit into this
> scenario... what I have seen might be described this way.
>
> Businessperson: 'I always try to get the most amount of (commodity) for
> the least amount of money... I give *just barely* enough to get what I
> want and I always want more.'
>
> General Wisdom: 'This is a good attitude towards business.'
>
> Employee: 'I always try to give the least amount of work (commodity) for
> the most amount of money... I give *just barely* enough to get what I
> want and I always want more.'
>
> General Wisdom: 'This is a bad attitude towards business.'
In both cases, doing barely enough does not expand one's long term wealth. The
General Wisdom around here is that one invests in the future by building value.
"One" can be company or employee.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-04-07, 12:30 pm |
| In article <c5131m$5p6$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 7-Apr-2004, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>In both cases, doing barely enough does not expand one's long term wealth.
This seems confusing. Company A pays $x/qty for widgets, Company B pays
$x+y/qty for widgets (where x, y and qty are all positive)... so Company B
is, by paying more for the same commodity, 'expand(ing) one's long
term wealth'?
Likewise... Employee A gives the company off-the-clock hours at no charge,
Employee B does barely enough and take night-courses... so Employee B is
'not expand(ing) one's long term wealth'?
>The
>General Wisdom around here is that one invests in the future by building value.
> "One" can be company or employee.
The number of observations made here - and in a few other places - about
how companies approach employee-training issues might lead one to conclude
that 'around here' has a rather... limited geography.
DD
| |
| SkippyPB 2004-04-07, 12:30 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 18:01:54 GMT, "Warren Simmons"
<wsimmons5@optonline.net> enlightened us:
>Hi all, back after a long break moving to NJ from AZ,
>messing up my w98, getting a new system, learning XP,
>and adjusting to living in smaller quarters with daughter
>and grandsons. I've missed hearing you all XXXXX, XXXXX.
>
Welcome back and you have my condolences having to move from
beautiful, warm Arizona to a state I lived in for 3 years and hated
enough to volunteer for an international assignment that sent me to
Europe and Asia for nearly 6 years!
<<snip>>
>Warren Simmons
>wsimmons5@optonline.net
>"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
>news:c4s727$qln$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>no
>small,
>less
>
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country
being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction
far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take."
President Bush Meets with National Economic Council, White House (2/25/2003)
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/fea..._on_the_record/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-04-07, 12:30 pm |
|
On 7-Apr-2004, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> This seems confusing. Company A pays $x/qty for widgets, Company B pays
> $x+y/qty for widgets (where x, y and qty are all positive)... so Company B
> is, by paying more for the same commodity, 'expand(ing) one's long
> term wealth'?
Company A spends $X to produce and distribute 50,000 widgets.
Company B spends $X+Y to produce, distribute, and improve (the process of)
50,000 widgets.
The market place buys each widget for $Z. In the short run company A wins.
In the long run, company B wins.
> Likewise... Employee A gives the company off-the-clock hours at no charge,
> Employee B does barely enough and take night-courses... so Employee B is
> 'not expand(ing) one's long term wealth'?
Employee A produces 50 widgets.
Employee B produces 40 widgets but takes night courses.
Who do you think gets the promotion?
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-04-07, 12:30 pm |
| In article <c51685$b90$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 7-Apr-2004, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>Company A spends $X to produce and distribute 50,000 widgets.
>Company B spends $X+Y to produce, distribute, and improve (the process of)
>50,000 widgets.
>
>The market place buys each widget for $Z. In the short run company A wins.
>In the long run, company B wins.
Only if the market will bear a charge which makes the improvements
profitable.
>
>
>
>Employee A produces 50 widgets.
>Employee B produces 40 widgets but takes night courses.
>
>Who do you think gets the promotion?
The one who marries the daughter of the boss... or, when the company
switches production to Widgetania... neither.
DD
| |
| Warren Simmons 2004-04-07, 7:30 pm |
| Thanks for the kind words. Now, to the point of the
debate.
A. Things are always changing.
B. We (people of the world) are relatively poor
planners.
C. The guy with the biggest hammer makes the
"majority" impression.\
D. We have run out of land to move to.
E. Some of what you all have to say is true some of the
time. Convers of this is clear.
F. We are failing our roles as humans in to many ways.
Warren Simmons
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:c5174l$o2l$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <c51685$b90$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
pays[color=darkred]
Company B[color=darkred]
of)[color=darkred]
wins.[color=darkred]
>
> Only if the market will bear a charge which makes the improvements
> profitable.
>
charge,[color=darkred]
is[color=darkred]
>
> The one who marries the daughter of the boss... or, when the company
> switches production to Widgetania... neither.
>
> DD
>
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-04-07, 9:30 pm |
| In article <tA%cc.8406$Po2.3166613@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
Warren Simmons <wsimmons5@optonline.net> wrote:
>Thanks for the kind words. Now, to the point of the
>debate.
>
>A. Things are always changing.
Mr Simmons, if things are always changing then things are always the
same... Heraclitus spoke of constant change in the 4th century BC(E).
>B. We (people of the world) are relatively poor
> planners.
That might be due to the fact that we see things, now, through a glass,
darkly... and that particular sentiment is nigh two millennia old, as
well.
>C. The guy with the biggest hammer makes the
> "majority" impression.\
Hobbes noted that the differences between men are so small as to be
negligible... Professor Lensing explained this as 'You might have a siege
howitzer and all I have is this li'l bitty hammer... but you have got to
go to sleep, sometime.'
>D. We have run out of land to move to.
Will Rogers noted this a while back, aye.
>E. Some of what you all have to say is true some of the
> time. Convers of this is clear.
I try not to believe everything I read on the UseNet... including this
statement.
>F. We are failing our roles as humans in to many ways.
Who makes this judgement... other human beings?
DD
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:c5174l$o2l$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
>
| |
| berlutte@sympatico.ca 2004-04-07, 9:30 pm |
| Same on political discourses, if memory serves.
And yet, we hardly e'er heard on how in heaven you figured whom to
rightly vote for, didn't we, old statesman!
Audrey Buul!
On 7 Apr 2004 20:04:28 -0400, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>I try not to believe everything I read on the UseNet... including this
>statement.
>
| |
| Warren Simmons 2004-04-07, 10:30 pm |
| Doc,
You are right on it all.
Now, we just need someone to invent something new
that we can do, that the rest of the world can't.
Warren
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:c524uc$dm6$1@panix1.panix.com...
> In article <tA%cc.8406$Po2.3166613@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> Warren Simmons <wsimmons5@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Mr Simmons, if things are always changing then things are always the
> same... Heraclitus spoke of constant change in the 4th century BC(E).
>
>
> That might be due to the fact that we see things, now, through a glass,
> darkly... and that particular sentiment is nigh two millennia old, as
> well.
>
>
> Hobbes noted that the differences between men are so small as to be
> negligible... Professor Lensing explained this as 'You might have a siege
> howitzer and all I have is this li'l bitty hammer... but you have got to
> go to sleep, sometime.'
>
>
> Will Rogers noted this a while back, aye.
>
>
> I try not to believe everything I read on the UseNet... including this
> statement.
>
>
> Who makes this judgement... other human beings?
>
> DD
>
news:c5174l$o2l$1@panix5.panix.com...[color=darkred]
pays[color=darkred]
Company B[color=darkred]
of)[color=darkred]
A wins.[color=darkred]
charge,[color=darkred]
B is[color=darkred]
>
>
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-04-08, 7:30 am |
| In article <jF1dc.9517$Po2.3616981@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
Warren Simmons <wsimmons5@optonline.net> wrote:
>Doc,
>
>You are right on it all.
Most gracious of you, Mr Simmons... it just seemed a matter of history and
reason, that's all.
>
>Now, we just need someone to invent something new
>that we can do, that the rest of the world can't.
Until such a time as this is possible - the first step, it might be said,
is to determine what a 'we' is - then it might be best, similar to Ol' Man
River, that things just keep muddling along.
DD
[color=darkred]
>
>Warren
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:c524uc$dm6$1@panix1.panix.com...
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2004-04-08, 9:30 am |
| In article <c5104u$c46$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <joe_zitzelberger-21AEDC.09100307042004@corp.supernews.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> I used the label 'bad business' in order to maintain symmetry... see
> below.
>
>
> I have no idea how unions might or might not be made to fit into this
> scenario... what I have seen might be described this way.
I'm colored by my dealings with Teamsters and others. It is quite
standard fare in unionized industries to have a high "accident" rate
when employeeing non-union workers. Of course, this is simple because
the unions screen well and only accept the most careful and dedicated
workers.
It has even been alleged (by hostile, worker-hating management of
course) that some unions actually pay members to go break up non-union
job sites, damage equipment and other various forms of mayhem. This is
their subtle form of negotiation.
Whenever I think of 'collective' employer-employee negotiations, I
always remember my time with the Teamsters (I wasn't one, just worked
next to them), and that makes me wonder about the whole process of
collective bargining.
> Businessperson: 'I always try to get the most amount of (commodity) for
> the least amount of money... I give *just barely* enough to get what I
> want and I always want more.'
>
> General Wisdom: 'This is a good attitude towards business.'
>
> Employee: 'I always try to give the least amount of work (commodity) for
> the most amount of money... I give *just barely* enough to get what I
> want and I always want more.'
>
> General Wisdom: 'This is a bad attitude towards business.'
I've always thought the individual approach to dealing was quite decent
and straight forward. In just the last performance review I told the
boss I wanted a $250,000 annual salary and to perform work on alternate
Mondays. Of course, that was just my starting position...
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-04-08, 11:30 am |
| In article <joe_zitzelberger-649EEF.08450908042004@corp.supernews.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <c5104u$c46$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>I'm colored by my dealings with Teamsters and others.
It might be said, Mr Zitzelberger, that, likewise, I am 'colored' by
having been a card-carrying member of the American Federation of
Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) Steelworker's Union,
local 7770... but I do not believe that I am so colored that I have
fallen into the habit of reading 'a worker does (x)' and responding with
'unions do (y)'.
>It is quite
>standard fare in unionized industries to have a high "accident" rate
>when employeeing non-union workers. Of course, this is simple because
>the unions screen well and only accept the most careful and dedicated
>workers.
This might be the case (this argument has been applied to the successes of
'magnet' schools, as well)... or it might be that the power which comes
along with being unionised might cause a company to assign non-unionised
workers to more dangerous tasks. Whatever the cause, whatever the
effect... this apears to be extraneous to the examples I give which
specify 'a worker' and 'a company/busniessperson'.
>
>It has even been alleged (by hostile, worker-hating management of
>course) that some unions actually pay members to go break up non-union
>job sites, damage equipment and other various forms of mayhem. This is
>their subtle form of negotiation.
What a lovely hobbyhorse you have, Mr Zitzelberger... and so many places
to ride it, as well!
>
>Whenever I think of 'collective' employer-employee negotiations, I
>always remember my time with the Teamsters (I wasn't one, just worked
>next to them), and that makes me wonder about the whole process of
>collective bargining.
A good thing the examples given were of 'a worker' and 'a
company/businessperson', then... nothing about ''collective'
employer-employee negotiations' in that whatsoever.
>
>
>I've always thought the individual approach to dealing was quite decent
>and straight forward. In just the last performance review I told the
>boss I wanted a $250,000 annual salary and to perform work on alternate
>Mondays. Of course, that was just my starting position...
I recall, decades back, responding to an employment-application question
of 'What do you expect to be doing in five years?' with 'Life is full of
Uncertainties; in five years I hope to be in a position where I can make
sure that the employment-applications I hand out do not contain the
question of 'What do you expect to be doing in five years?'.'
DD
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2004-04-08, 8:30 pm |
| In article <c53j18$8cu$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <joe_zitzelberger-649EEF.08450908042004@corp.supernews.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> It might be said, Mr Zitzelberger, that, likewise, I am 'colored' by
> having been a card-carrying member of the American Federation of
> Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) Steelworker's Union,
> local 7770... but I do not believe that I am so colored that I have
> fallen into the habit of reading 'a worker does (x)' and responding with
> 'unions do (y)'.
>
>
> This might be the case (this argument has been applied to the successes of
> 'magnet' schools, as well)... or it might be that the power which comes
> along with being unionised might cause a company to assign non-unionised
> workers to more dangerous tasks. Whatever the cause, whatever the
> effect... this apears to be extraneous to the examples I give which
> specify 'a worker' and 'a company/busniessperson'.
>
>
> What a lovely hobbyhorse you have, Mr Zitzelberger... and so many places
> to ride it, as well!
>
>
> A good thing the examples given were of 'a worker' and 'a
> company/businessperson', then... nothing about ''collective'
> employer-employee negotiations' in that whatsoever.
>
>
> I recall, decades back, responding to an employment-application question
> of 'What do you expect to be doing in five years?' with 'Life is full of
> Uncertainties; in five years I hope to be in a position where I can make
> sure that the employment-applications I hand out do not contain the
> question of 'What do you expect to be doing in five years?'.'
>
> DD
Then allow me to back up a bit. I think your "General Wisdom" is quite
wrong in the sense of an 'individual worker' dealing with 'business'.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever complain about the specific
cost of an employee -- as long as they produce more value than they cost
-- they are worth their rate (those that don't usually depart quickly).
Where I have heard the complaint that "This is a bad attitude towards
business" is when half of the feedback loop is missing -- that is, the
ability to fire, or cut the pay of, under-performing workers. And that
only occurs as a result of collective bargaining.
In fact, just last w I watched you deal with Paul H. in exactly the
the spirit of "always try to give the least amount of work for most
amount of money". (Or rather in that specific case, "always try to get
the maximum amount of money for a fixed amount of work", same thing
really.) Not only did nobody condemn your approach as a 'bad attitude
toward business', some jumped in to defend your approach and condemn
Paul H's 'blind trolling for rates'.
| |
|
| It's funny that people point out the grammar problems. It is completely
beside the point... a normal (not even intelligent) person can understand
context.
It's when a person is so bad at a language that the context is lost.
Case in point: a company I currently consult at recently wasted $4,000
because their DBA didn't understand that I DID NOT need something installed
on a server. He just pretended that he knew what I was talking about and
then went off and did his thing.
Dumb IT people need to admit that they don't know what you're talking
about -- just as brilliant IT people who don't speak your language need to
admit that they don't know what you're talking about.
"ShadowFox" <me@email.com> wrote in message
news:NYobc.165326$Cb.1659753@attbi_s51...
> Guy's if they can't write in English dont' respond to the post. I have
lost
> many jobs to the non usa programmers who don't speak the language and
can't
> read the code let's not help them stick it to us.......................
> rememmber if the transistor was a national secret the transistor radio
would
> have been made in the good ole U.S.A.
>
>
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-04-08, 10:30 pm |
| In article <joe_zitzelberger-E2D259.19321908042004@corp.supernews.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Then allow me to back up a bit. I think your "General Wisdom" is quite
>wrong in the sense of an 'individual worker' dealing with 'business'.
>
>I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever complain about the specific
>cost of an employee -- as long as they produce more value than they cost
>-- they are worth their rate (those that don't usually depart quickly).
Then, Mr Zitzelberger, our experiences are different; I have heard folks
complain to the effect that any cost is too much and that no matter how
much an employee offers it just isn't enough.
DD
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2004-04-08, 11:30 pm |
| In article <c54t1e$mut$1@panix1.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <joe_zitzelberger-E2D259.19321908042004@corp.supernews.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Then, Mr Zitzelberger, our experiences are different; I have heard folks
> complain to the effect that any cost is too much and that no matter how
> much an employee offers it just isn't enough.
>
> DD
It sounds as thought the employer has a significent personality problem.
Any worker in such a situtation as you describe ought to be showing the
employer -- err, themselves -- the door.
You might say that the employers have the better of workers at the
current time -- but such things are cyclic. Remember the fat years of
pre-y2k? When workers extracted off the chart rates from frantic
empolyers.
I'm reminded of a situtation that my employer (and Robert Wagner's
company -- what ever happend to him BTW?) put me in a few years ago.
They wanted 'massive effort' to the tune of 20 hour days, 7 days a w
for a reasonably short period. In return, I was able to extract my own
concessions -- they would provide dinner & snacks, I showed up for work
in jeans and berkies, they coughed up extra vacation, cash and comp time.
I could have said no, the company down the street was hiring. But I cut
a deal I was happy with, they cut a deal they were happy with, it was
all good. That is the beauty of the system -- nothing bad about it.
| |
|
| Peter Lacey wrote:
> Businesses exist to make money. Nothing wrong with that. But making money ->
> sales -> customers -> employed people. (-> is crude attempt to use mathematical
> "implies" character). Fewer and fewer employed people -> less and less
> possibility of making money. In its own ultimate interest, each local business
> must draw the line somewhere if it wishes to remain in business locally.
> One-way money flows are ultimately impossible to maintian.
That's the beauty of free enterprise and capitalism - a self-balancing
market. Heard that jobs numbers are up for this quarter, and they're
revising last quarter's up as well... How interesting.
Supply and demand works great for regulating a market. If you haven't
ever read Walter Williams (Walter E. Williams on some web sites), you
ought to check him out - he's a brilliant economist from George Mason
University. :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-04-09, 8:30 am |
| In article <joe_zitzelberger-31569F.22400208042004@corp.supernews.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <c54t1e$mut$1@panix1.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>It sounds as thought the employer has a significent personality problem.
That might well be, Mr Zitzelberger... but i do my best to leave the
diagnosing of such things to The Professionals.
>Any worker in such a situtation as you describe ought to be showing the
>employer -- err, themselves -- the door.
As with any working conditions... some put up with it, some take a hike.
>
>You might say that the employers have the better of workers at the
>current time -- but such things are cyclic. Remember the fat years of
>pre-y2k? When workers extracted off the chart rates from frantic
>empolyers.
I also remember that during these 'fat years' people asking that I work a
'professional day', something which, when I asked, was described as 'you
put in as much time as the task needs taking and you don't charge for
it'... and a brief search of this newsgroup for that term yields a result
which indicates that my experience is not unique:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?sel...8&output=gplain>
--begin quoted text:
"Professional day" means that you are unprofessional if you
expect to be paid more than $0.00/hr. for overtime hours
(that is, hours in excess of the first 7 or 8 hours in the
day.)
--end quoted text
.... and in response to the above, from
<http://groups.google.com/groups?sel...8&output=gplain>
--begin quoted text:
I've seen that. I remember in '81 a guy Chris who was there until 7 or
later; he was considered slow and stupid by his "peers" who figured he
had to stay late just to do his normal day's work. I looked at what he
was doing, and this guy was carrying more than half the group's work on
his shoulders because of *their* lack of experience.
--end quoted text
.... and a similar response, from
<http://groups.google.com/groups?sel...8&output=gplain>
--begin quoted text:
It basically means that the client feels free to gouge you for as many
hours over and above 8 a day as he likes without it costing him a
cent...It's kind of like you hiring a carpenter to build you a new
bathroom at a fixed price and when he is done you saying "hey wait a
minute, I also expect you to redo my kitchen and add a deck on the house
and since you were here anyway for the bathroom there is no reason for
you to charge me anything extra for THAT...."
-end quoted text
.... and, from another thread, from a self-admitted COBOL-codin' fool
responding to a self-described 'Kiwi':
<http://groups.google.com/groups?sel...8&output=gplain>
--begin quoted text:
>The "professional day" was started by companies who figured they could
get 9
>or 10 hours for the price of 8...
>
>However, it cuts both ways... My "professional" day ends when I have
>achieved the detailed goals I set each morning... This means my day is
>anything between 6 and 8 hours...
How interesting... any place I have been asked to work a 'professional
day' I have presented this very scenario.
The response has been, uniformly, 'No, it *doesn't* cut both ways...
there's *always* something else for you to be doing.'
I have never taken a contract which stipulated 'professional days' for
that very reason.
--end quoted text
>
>I'm reminded of a situtation that my employer (and Robert Wagner's
>company -- what ever happend to him BTW?) put me in a few years ago.
>They wanted 'massive effort' to the tune of 20 hour days, 7 days a w
>for a reasonably short period. In return, I was able to extract my own
>concessions -- they would provide dinner & snacks, I showed up for work
>in jeans and berkies, they coughed up extra vacation, cash and comp time.
>
>I could have said no, the company down the street was hiring. But I cut
>a deal I was happy with, they cut a deal they were happy with, it was
>all good. That is the beauty of the system -- nothing bad about it.
You describe a situation where concessions appear to be mutual, Mr
Zitzelberger, where both sides 'give a bit and get a bit'. This is, in my
experience (and the experiences of others, quoted above), not the most
frequently encountered of situations.
DD
| |
| Peter Lacey 2004-04-09, 3:30 pm |
| scjp wrote:
[color=darkred]
> It's funny that people point out the grammar problems. It is completely
> beside the point... a normal (not even intelligent) person can understand
> context.
>
> It's when a person is so bad at a language that the context is lost.
> _____________________
> "ShadowFox" <me@email.com> wrote in message
> news:NYobc.165326$Cb.1659753@attbi_s51...
>
>
> would
It's up to the communicator to make sure that the "context" required is
minimized. Good communications do not depend on context: they supply the
information that their audience might reasonably expected NOT to have: besides,
of course, assuming common experience (a notoriously slippery concept. I don't
know where SCJP comes from but it's possible that s/he is not aware of what
(***example only!!!***) "plugging the car in" means). A program spec, for
instance, ideally contains all the information a programmer versed in the
required language needs to write the program (apart from recognized places to
look such as file layouts): i.e., context is absolutely minimized.
In the case of "Shadowfox": if I were in charge of him, and if his e-mail is a
good sample of his communications - I'd insist he take remedial English before
permitting him to publish anything that other people had to read & understand -
and I'd be dubious about his own notes (if any) for his own future reference.
Having said all this - I have some sympathy for his views - as my posts may
have indicated.
PL
|
|
|
|
|