<<   <   Page 5 / 10   >   >>
Sisyphus 12/5/2012 | 3:56:18 AM
re: W Does Cisco > It is government's job to allow a healthy
> business environment and for a secure country

Even the first capitalist, Adam Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... stated it wasn't quite as easy as that.

The current state of modern mass social psychology is quite interesting: people as a whole vote with their wallets (promise lower taxes and it's near guaranteed you'll win any election), yet expect to be take care of when that selfish attitude of not paying into the social pool eventually backfires.

It may seem a Marxist premise, yet it is a proven fact that free-market oriented goovernments don't serve "the people" with their entire agenda - the majority of which tends to serve "The Capital".

History tends to work in cycles. Many moons ago, when workers felt they were on the short end of too many decisions by "the capital", they united, fought for a common cause, and the result was the emergence of the middle class. Since then, "the capital" has learned a few tricks -and according to original capitalist Adam Smith it's not out of greed and malice, it a natural phenomenon when free markets roam free- and thus now the middle class effectively is the new worker class that may end up being disenfranchised if the current mechanisms keep on going the way they're going. The predictable result will be social unrest, eventually, and a renewed fight to reclaim lost territory.

It's not EEs have a tough lot, in fact they were affected later than auto industry workers, or people working in consumer electronics, or textile indsutry people, or... or... The list of Western industries that have been rationalized before when facing the pressures of global markets is unending. Now telecommunications equipment is being rapidly commoditized. It was inevitable.

I don't even think the H1 visa aspect influences this stuff all that much - in fact, as long as visas are being granted, it's a good sign - it means the US economy still dominates a market segment and can not supply all of the talent required to further grow the business. It's when both home-grown and imported EEs are competing for capuccino brewing jobs to make a living that we truly have an H1 visa problem in the industry. The day may yet come.
Sisyphus 12/5/2012 | 3:56:17 AM
re: W Does Cisco >... Otherwise, the answer would be engineering
> salaries would be very high ...

A gross oversimplification for the sake of demagogy, and you know it. If the US would be a closed and protectionist economy, your argument would hold. Since the US is an open market, the salaries are set also by a complex factor of global parameters. Incidentally, those higher salaries you talk about would render things utterly uncompelling (and uncompetitive) at a global level, bringing forth a collapse in US companies' ability to sell their product globally, and further accelerating the outsourcing of those jobs overseas - to overseas companies, and not US-based companies with outsourced internationally-based R&D. The latter happens to be the lesser of evils, as many industries have shown before, with the big economy in mind - it does affect lives and fortunes of many, though.
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:56:17 AM
re: W Does Cisco "Of course, engineers do not deserve it!
The major difference between blue colour jobs and engineering jobs is the difference in education.
And it is not a mute point, but the crux of the matter!

Sorry, OpticOm, but your point is both moot and mute.
Particular higher education is not a guarantee of a lifetime high paid profession.
Many higher educational degrees command much lower wages than engineering degrees do.

Developing a high paid skill, in manufacturing, in the trades, or in a profession does not guarentee it will stay high paid or in demand.

The reason engineering is different from the medical and legal industries is that engineers are not required to get government licenses to practice their profession: If they did, outsourcing would have been slowed down considerably. Licensing is an arbitary and effective "professional" barrier that engineering never really attained. Without arbitrary legal barriers, professions are all likely to erode to non-professional status.

Maybe trial lawyers can sue enough companies for neglegience for not using licensed engineering staffs and then Wall Street will pay attention.
I won't hold my breath.

"It is government's job to allow a healthy business environment and for a secure country."

A country cannot guarentee its security if it is missing either manufacturing or engineering.

The "governnment" does not have a job: for the most part, the elected portion of the government only respond to the issues that can get them elected and keep them in office.

Wall Street is clearly fine with outsourcing and will stay so as long low cost regions don't get immersed in war. Civil and regional wars in low cost regions are a lot more likely than most people care to think about.
OpticOm 12/5/2012 | 3:56:17 AM
re: W Does Cisco Vinhod can move his money around, to make money using much lower engineering salaries, that's why he thinks that we, in the USA, are not competitive.
It is matter of salary comparison.
The Indian (for example) engineers earn a much lower salary, all the other parameters (environment and others) in the Indian economy are much lower.
It is moronic to expect to compete with those engineers, salary wise, when everything else is stacked against.
That's why the governments must regulate and tax, to even the balance.
Otherwise, very few gain at the expense of the rest (including non-engineers who are not seeing a dime in taxation from those products/services).
Absolutely the same "reasoning" was used when slaves were brought here four centuries ago, and when illegal immigration is allowed, if not encouraged, nowadays.
Sisyphus 12/5/2012 | 3:56:15 AM
re: W Does Cisco > .. we have a more and more 'open' marketplace
> in the US. This is not good. An open trading
> market is good. ..

Alas, therein lies the crux of the problem - how do you enginner to have open trading markets with protected (and thus subsidized) labor markets?

The problem is not that the USA is too open - the problem is some of the tiger nations are predatory and take hefty advantage of openess elsewhere while keeping their own markets controlled. Then again, since US businesses can't afford not to participate in the projected growth of those economies... well, it's complicated.

The US can't afford to become protectionist, even though it's popular to believe that to be the case. For one, it is dependent on imported goods in many areas, and wouldn't even know how to support its need for many goods. Thus it is a bit at the mercy of providers in trade negotiations, otherwise you better believe it would try more blatant strongarm tactics (which it is not shy to use at other levels). The only thing it can lobby for is for the other markets to become as unregulated as possible - but to take advantage of the bilateral open trade market it needs to stay competitive.
opticalwatcher 12/5/2012 | 3:56:15 AM
re: W Does Cisco "Since the US is an open market, the salaries are set also by a complex factor of global parameters."

It depends on what you mean by 'open'. If you mean "the doors open, anyone take whatever you want--wait, don't even bother taking it, we'll GIVE it to you", then yes, we have a more and more 'open' marketplace in the US. This is not good. An open trading market is good. But a market where you take your intellectual value and give it away is NOT good (not if you care about the US having any kind of advantage over other countries. Maybe you don't).

H1-B involves taking highly trained engineers from other countries, bringing them to the best labs and design centers of the US where they learn best practices, design techniques, and intellectual property, then sends them back home. Is it any wonder that places like India now have such strong outsourcing capabilities?

opticalwatcher 12/5/2012 | 3:56:15 AM
re: W Does Cisco "Alas, therein lies the crux of the problem - how do you enginner to have open trading markets with protected (and thus subsidized) labor markets? "

Talk about not even hearing a word that I said.

I sometimes think that managers and business leaders think that the reason that the US is so strong is because of their superior mangement capabilities. Engineers are a dime a dozen. Why should we 'protect' and 'subsidize' the labor market?

They have a deaf ear to any concept of intellectual property--the idea that technical people like Edison, Ford, Bell created something unique and extremely valueable, without which no amount of management would have made this country strong.

And they just give it away without even realizing what they are doing.
uguess 12/5/2012 | 3:56:14 AM
re: W Does Cisco Don't forget that H-1B workers pay tax as well.

whyiswhy 12/5/2012 | 3:56:14 AM
re: W Does Cisco "And they just give it away without even realizing what they are doing."

They know exactly what they are doing: stealing our jobs and selling our future in favor of theirs.

This used to be macro-economics a grade school student could understand.

Then the Bible belters decided they cared more about abortion and immigration than eating...and the Neos suckered them in.

big_daddy_cool 12/5/2012 | 3:56:13 AM
re: W Does Cisco >The US can't afford to become protectionist, >even though it's popular to believe that to be >the case.

If it's true that we can't afford to become protectionists for your stated reasons, it's only because the US gave away everything for far too cheap long ago to stuff the coffers of executives and wall streeters alike ... and we all must now must suffer the consequences.

From a survival perspective, the US can become protectionists if the common people realize that their short term suffering will be shared by the Chinese, Indians et al., as well as Investment Bankers and other rich people of the world. It is only a matter of willpower, since America is much more self-sufficient than a country such as China and can live comfortably (not as much as now) without any globalism. i.e. they need us more than we need them. Protectionism may be the only way to tell these countries we mean business.

Do the American people have the will? I don't know. But I believe Americans be willing to way $5/gallon if they knew that all their money wasn't going to finance $500 million retirement packages, but to sustain American economic competitiveness? But that's a moot point.
<<   <   Page 5 / 10   >   >>
Sign In