U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

In trying to stay on 'thread' here are a couple of pennies worth. We are a multitude of groups with different agenda's. Mine is to stay working in the field of my choice. So that field needs to stay healthy. Too weak and the field becomes too narrow to always be the one working. Too strong and then we become a target for offshore businesses. We all hope(maybe we do, hope IBM sells alot AS/400's or whatever will run RPGIV+ in the future and that they (IBM)doesn't drive the present install base away). And our government doesn't do us in by 'NOT' enforcing laws we already have, or making dumb ones. So we try to have a little influence on what affects us, great. That being said, Chuck I think you have some control over your concern. How many jr programmers do you employ? How many do you plan to employ? Are you part of the solution or the problem. Are you hoping someone else is going to fix it for you. It might be tough to sell to your higher up's or up. But if VP's like you can only see the next hours stock price, someone else will decide your future. Do you support the future of the AS/400 or do you let others decide it's fate. I believe you are in place to make a difference.

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

But at the same time if you don't participate in the process and just stay tuned in to your little business you might find that one day the particular niche you have carved out for yourself is under attack by some stupid law that nobody cared enough to fight, or protection that was critical to your survival that was afforded to you was not enforced, again because the exploiters put forth greater effort. And then you find another niche, I have no problem with that either, but I am not a masochist either. I not much on quotes, but 'no man is an island, at least not for long'

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Joe, First, let me say that I agree 100% with the comment you made toward private companies. I've worked for both and currently work for a private company. I appreciate the fact that I can plan for long range goals and never worry about the next quarterly report. However, I may disagree with you on the public companies. Certainly there is some "win at all cost, damn innovation" attitude in many companies. However, there are large companies (is that what you mean by "Mega Corporations"?) that are very innovative. Many examples such as IBM, Intel, AMD in the tech sector. Others such as Countrywide, Disney, etc. are also very innovative yet mega in size. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "Joe Pluta" wrote in message news:6ae8e941.13@WebX.WawyahGHajS... > Brain said: Companies have to maximize profits to appease shareholders or capital will go elsewhere, stymying (sp?) the ability of the company to compete. > ------- > > I have a problem with this statement. First, it only works for publicly held companies; there are plenty of privately-held companies that do just fine. > > Second, it seems that the drive towards 90-day profits and the rush of mergers in the 80's and 90's has created a network of mega-corporations whose ONLY measure of success is profit, and that this causes some bad strategies when viewed in the long term. For example, buying a successful company only to rip it apart and sell off its less profitable divisions MAY make sense from a 90-day standpoint, but the synergy between the divisions may have been part of the entire dynamic of the company (not to mention the fact that you're throwing more people out of work). > > Profits at the cost of jobs seems to me to be the point where the 90-day profit cycle begins to break down. > > Back in the "olden" days, a company was successful if it made some profit. The idea was to provide a good product at a good price, and treat your employees well. That's the epitome of the small business in America. > > Megacorporations change all that. Since a megacorporation has no real local presence (no roots, if you will), such a company is only successful if it makes maximum possible profit, even if that causes short term decisions with long term negative effects - including putting people out of work. Of course, the megacorporation don't worry about that because they have literally BILLIONS of other customers, and so if the American economy goes belly up, there are others to plunder. Why do you think "free trade" is such a mantra among the megacorps? > > And its not the shareholders who are getting the great benefit of all this cost cutting. Much of the "profits" of these companies are being eaten up by corporate perks and CEO compensation. CEOs are getting huge salaries as their companies declare bankruptcy and yet another "reorganization" involving layoffs in the thousands. If it was REALLY about the stockholder, then a company that has a negative quarter ought not be paying its CEO a million dollars. > > I'm treading a thin line here, but I am coming to believe that the concepts of the megacorporation and the 90-day bottom line are actually hurting capitalism, because it is a disincentive to long term growth. I know it's hurting America. > > Joe

[David Abramowitz]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Tom wrote: It is us who need to change. We don't need more government beaureaucrats trying to protect us. You lose control of your future when you put it in the hands of the government. I couldn't disagree with you more. It is government that has created these Visa programs. They were based on false assumptions, and rife with loopholes. When something that the government has done is wrong, it is up to people to participate in the political process. This can set things straight again. Now that bills have been introduced in both the house and senate, I would challenge you to participate. As far as expanding skills are concerned, I think that any new skills are a good idea. But that is not the issue. Visa programs, and outsourcing are platform neutral. As of now the playing field is not level, no matter what your skill set. The text at the beginning of this post will go a long way to ensure that all of us, including visa holders, are given a fair shake. Dave

[David Abramowitz]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Having done work for Japanese companies, I can state that not all companies consider the bottom line the most important issue. Many firms will eschew the bottom line in favor of market share. This is a forward looking philosophy that hopes to maximize investor interest only on a long-term basis. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

It had a segment on outsourcing(more along the lines of customer support). But it didn't even mention the impact on american job loss...just the fact how it is growing. And in regards to you expanding your business...one of the things shown was how income tax preparation(via outsourcing) is happening. So what is really safe anymore? What a joke...I was disappointed in the story...anyone see it?

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

My observation: In most of these conversations there are two or more sides of the fence that some people get off of the fence to. Active Capitalist and non Active Capitalist(my definition.) It seems to me sometimes some pick and choose what part of something they want to acknowledge, usually because they don't have a good understanding of how it works, usually because they haven't lived it. Now, some people who have never done something can have an excellent grasp of how something works.......But, those who have succeded in something like being a successful capitalist. ie...Software Vendors who have sold more than one installation, independent contractors who have been in the role for more than 6 months, paper boys(or girls), etc... Anyway just some rambling thoughts about which side of the fence I usually find the same people in these interesting conversations. It might help those who haven't run their own business to read about it (running someone else's usually doesn't count, unless you have a stake in too, if it fails it costs you dearly). Joe, David maybe that's why those CEO's don't get it, they don't lose like you or me.

[J.Pluta]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

When is that last time any network "news" show actually presented news? It's pretty clear to me that the job of network television is to present the political platform of the network in the best possible light. Even though it's clear that Americans are being thrown out iof work, they won't mention it. Instead, they'll act as if the process was "inevitable". This of course is complete bullocks. By making it very clear to our elected officials that their job depends on OUR jobs, you will indeed see action. They can end the visa programs and provide incentives against layoffs. They can establish training programs and provide temporary tariff relief against outsourcing. They can prevent sensitive information like tax and medical records from going offshore. Congress can indeed fix this. But we have to give them a reason to do so. I suggested a while back that we select a single candidate with a particularly egregious record on employment issues, and mount a national campaign to elect someone with a better record to that seat. I'm sure, given the number of people out of work, that we would be successful. The politicos don't worry about the unemployed because they think we have no money for them, but we stil have enough to make at least one elected official feel our pain. As elections near, I once again present this proposal. Remember, nobody is looking out for you anymore. No CEO cares whether you go bankrupt; they want to sell to Bangalore and Beijing. Nobody in Hollywood even understands the price of a loaf of bread. Nobody in network television has any clue what it costs to raise a child, or buy a house. Damned few elected officials are interested in ANYTHING except getting re-elected. So, the only way we can turn this around is to make sure they know we're still around, and that's by voting. Joe

[J.Pluta]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Joe said: "Brain said:" Hee hee! Just because you're Brain does NOT make me Pinky. Anyway, sorry about the typo, Brian. Too late to fix it. ZORT! Joe

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

I am new to the forum but get the gist of it. In response to Tom and "expanding skills"...the fact is..any and all types of computer work is being outsourced...their is no aspect of what we know as "IT skill set" that cannot be emailed to another country and done cheaper. Even if they ended H1-B today, the jobs will continue to flow unless this aspect of outsourcing is addressed also. I tend to think that the best weapon(if their is one) is some sort of unified publicity campaign..one that focuses on the companies that are doing this...and organizing some kinds of "strikes" or "boycotts" against anything to do with them and or their political candidates. Has anyone ever proposed a "march on washington"..similar to the "Million man marches"...don't you think it would work? I really think that the average joe out there would support the cause if they only knew enough about it and how wide spread it is.

[J.Pluta]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

"Even if they ended H1-B today, the jobs will continue to flow unless this aspect of outsourcing is addressed also." I disagree with this statement. While there will be some outsourcing, that's nothing new. Outsourcing has been attempted for many years. I know, I was involved in several projects in the 90s. Outsourcing typically works on small, grunt-work type projects that are primarily about typing. That is, performing the same types of tasks over and over again. Y2K conversions are an example. Static web sites are another good example. But as soon as the job requires business analysis, outsourcing starts to have problems. First, the lack of face-to-face between programmers and end users can be a problem. Second, when you try to offshore these projects, you add in problems with language, culture and even things as simple as time zones. As far as I have seen, no major project can be split over geographically disparate locations without having highly competent full-time technical project managers with business development skills in each location. In a pinch, a single person can ride herd over the various locations (I did some of that in the 90s) but the travel requirements tend to get overwhelming; frankly I don't think it can be done trying to work between the US and, say, India. Thus, you cannot simply outsource major projects to body shops. You must have seasoned veterans overseeing the implementation. And since the typical "expert" in most of the offshore firms is someone with three years of experience, it's highly unlikely you're going to find veterans among these folks. As offshore firms take on more and more jobs, you'll see this happen more and more. I've been asking for quite a while now - where are all the enterprise-level projects that have been outsourced successfully? I have yet to hear of one. Instead, every major project I hear of has been mired in overruns, missed target dates and quality control problems. If outsourcing was so successful, wouldn't we have heard those success stories by now? No, offshoring doesn't work except in those cases I've outlined. That's why the companies are pushing H- and L- visas. This way, they can get offshore employees on American soil under American management using American equipment, all at offshore prices. This is the ONLY way they can compete on large projects, and that's why I fight so vehemently against the H- and L- visa programs. Joe

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

The average joe 'knows' whatever the station or paper or mentor who he trusts for his news. And usually what he knows is whatever that other entity wants him to know....until it affects his paycheck(then he might look further)... and that happens to a business owner every cent he takes in...I think most business owners are in tune to this, but CEO's and politians don't seem to be or some might be but aren't worried about selling us out. Forget the money aspect (like we could) the security aspect of sending all of our private information to places that don't have to even pretend to obey our laws is sure frightening to me, and I would want to trust a company with my name on it in a situation like that. So, yes while we don't have a lot of time to be influencing politicians, we sure will have given up our chance to shape our future, because there are those who do have the time to influence them,and the money.

[David Abramowitz]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Joe Pluta asked: If outsourcing was so successful, wouldn't we have heard those success stories by now? One of my constant dronings has been that business decisions will be perpatuated by the decision maker due to political considerations despite the ramification of those decisions. The reason is that the decision maker's career is tied up in the correctness of the decision. This is why a change of platform, outsourcing, or anything else can not be reversed by the same individual. An intelligent company would stop the bleeding. More often than not, there is an abundance of blood. If an outsourcing project ends up as a detriment to the bottom line, the decision maker will spin the facts as to support the method. Other times the projects are "too big to fail". and so on and so on and so on. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Picking a coupla small points from a big-topic post...

Of course, the megacorporation don't worry about that because they have literally BILLIONS of other customers, and so if the American economy goes belly up, there are others to plunder. Why do you think "free trade" is such a mantra among the megacorps?

If the American economy goes belly up, the world economy is in serious trouble too, so I doubt they think quite that way. However, I understand your point to be that they could care less about the negative ramifications of what they do. But we need to make them care by investing smartly. I just got done reading Thomas Friedman's (of the NYT) The Lexus and the Olive Tree, which is all about globalization. It was very interesting reading, at least for me. I'd recommend it for sick politicos who want to get a good handle on the basic issues of globalization, which are certainly complex. He talks about capital in hedge funds as being the reward for good countries and the punishment for bad. The same applies to companies - capital will be given to those that do good for the investor, and removed from those who do bad, both in the long and the short run.

If it was REALLY about the stockholder, then a company that has a negative quarter ought not be paying its CEO a million dollars.

But the mega-famous CEOs can bump up the price of a stock considerably, which is why companies probably think they're worth it, in the same sense as much as star sports players might be. That doesn't mean they're actually _earning_ it, of course. ;-) Somewhat related, I just re-explored the CIA World Fact book site last night, and they have a cool new comparison page, which you can find from the "what's new" section of the main site. The site seems to be down right now (Al Quida? ;-)), but the URL is http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/. Fun stuff. You can see who's got the highest GDP (USA, by a long shot) and per-capita GDP (Luxembourg), for example. If you haven't seen it, check it out when it comes back up. Brian

[J.Pluta]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Brian, I just did a little math. I know we use sweeping terms like "stockholders' equity" when we talk about these megacorporation maneuvers, but I decided to check into what the numbers really mean to you and me. Here's a typical situation. HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, is headquartered in the UK and its call centers have actually provided significant economic recovery to areas hard hit by the loss of manufacturing jobs. It was a success story! The neighborhoods had done exactly what they were told to do - change from a product economy to a services economy. And what happens? HSBC now announces moving the call centers to India. They want to get rid of 4000 jobs paying a whopping 12K British pounds (or about US$22K) and replace them with Indian counterparts making one tenth of that. From a pure cost-cutting move, this seems to make sense, right? But think about it. They will be saving a TOTAL of $80 million dollars. Total. Out of a capitalization of nearly TWO BILLION shares, over 150 BILLION dollars. This comes out to less than a nickel a share. Of course, that doesn't factor in the additional expenses of moving the jobs, severance pay, lost revenue due to additional time spent on the phone, or any of a number of other issues. But let's say two cents a share actually makes it to the bottom line. Sure, insitutional investors with millions of shares will love it. The directors of the bank will see huge profits. The CEO who personally stands to gain millions in bonuses and stock options will think it's splendid. But someone like you, with maybe 10 shares in your mutual fund, you will make less than a quarter. And for that, my friend, for that two bits, 4000 more English workers are out of work. Interestingly enough, The Royal Bank of Scotland has just announced that it will NOT offshore. It has decided that the costs to the economy and to its business do not justify the minimal savings involved. So there is hope yet! Joe