[NTLUG:Discuss] OT: Fried

[Alvin Goats]

I've been through this on other mail lists so I'll pass it on here as
well.

First and foremost, IT is a support field, supporting retail,
management, manufacturing, banking. If any of these producing areas goes
offshore, then the need for IT professionals goes down, and frequently
goes somewhere closer to where the production went.

H1B is typically assumed that ALL H1B workers are in your field, i.e.,
they're all programmers, all admins. They are actually spread across ALL
fields; I know a Chem E for one. IEEE was griping that the numbers were
practically ALL EE's. Wrong. They're spread across a lot of different
areas. Only something on the order of 40% of the H1B workers are in IT.

As for our labor costs... talk to the business guys and make them tell
you more details about how American workers are "too expensive". You'll
get a real eye-opener, and it will help explain how business migrates
from country to country. In manufacturing, the cost to make a widget
from DIRECT LABOR, the person touching the item and REALLY adding value
to it, is so small that it doesn't make sense to go "offshore". But if
you add the "overhead" or as some companies have it, "General Accounting
and Overhead" costs per worker.... offshore may be the only way to
survive. 

In the high tech electronics manufacturing arena, the cost of floor
space (taxes, EPA regulations and OSHA regulations), health benefits
(HIPAA, malpractice insurance, taxes, Sarbanes-Oxley), finding alternate
methods to avoid what some SMALL group suddenly decides is "toxic" or
arbitrarily deciding what the toxic levels are, regardless of
solar/geologic resources may influence the "levels" (the sun creates
ozone from oxygen and outstrips the contribution from cars, lead levels
in water is oft times attributed to dumps and electronics, neglecting
natural lead deposits...). Remember that the Canadian Accord was signed
by only 12 American scientists, some 275 others told them to go back and
do their homework better. I digress only as freon does not deplete the
ozone as originally claimed, though it was more efficient at cleaning
and cooling than what we are stuck with in the US now, and China has no
such restrictions. That's not to say there wasn't any polluting going
on, I lived not far from a river in Ohio that was so polluted that it
(the river) caught fire. 

Initially, business moved electronic manufacturing to Mexico. As
Mexico's overhead increased and efforts to reduce pollution tightened,
business moved overseas. To countries that don't have the high overhead
costs or regulations. 

Look closely at IT and India, they're getting more expensive. The trend
now is to go to China. Those who are paying attention have already seen
that Russia will follow China. As soon as China, Russia and the former
eastern bloc countries become too expensive, the trend will move to
South America and then to the African continent. You now have the path
laid out. It isn't hard to deduce, that's just follow the technology
pecking order. 

If you want to keep jobs in America, then you have to be competitive.
That means that all of those feel good laws passed by Congress for the
past 20 or so years should be re-examined for what good they do overall
(as opposed to what was claimed) and then either modified for US
competition, removed entirely, or fully justified to the UNEMPLOYED
public. We have the vote, all we have to do is use it like California
did. Fiscally, they are in shambles, "progressively" leading the nation,
into bankruptcy. Why have companies left California? Re-read the above.
Hint: taxes and excessive, restrictive legislation. It's cheaper to
leave the state.

Likewise, you have to invest in the future. Business is too short
sighted. Currently business is not looking any further than June.
Historically, business in general, only looks 1-3 years ahead. Yes,
there's exceptions like Intel, who looks 5-8 years ahead. Most don't.

Research labs look only 5-10 years ahead with only a few projects
looking out to 15 years. To be innovative, you have to invest in
something that will create, discover, do what currently cannot be done.
Research labs look, but tend to follow political whims and where
companies (remember their short sightedness) will push them. 

The most progressive with technology is actually the military. They look
the furthest into the future. Who else has a 1 year, 5 year, 10 year, 20
year and 50 year plan? Consider carefully that NASA was a thinly veiled
military type answer to the cold war escalation of the USSR launching
Sputnik. Look closely at what benefits came from NASA, and understand
that a lot of that was also declassified fallout from the military.
Remember that the commericial rocket boosters that NASA first used
failed miserably, but the military missles they reworked is what got us
into space...

The military pushes companies, not the other way around like with
research labs. While political whims affects military spending, the
military has a long term plan and they will outlast whoever is in
office. Political whims only creates delays, not total stoppage. 

The liberal closing of the Superconducting Supercollider in favor of
social programs stymied innovation, leaving that type of innovation to
the Swiss (Cern). The Senate's failure to pass the telecom bill a couple
of years ago (remember the one that would have completed "the last
mile", killed just to "get Bush"?), that one put the US behind several
countries. We aren't number one anymore. And I have to settle for 28.8
kbps with a 56k modem indefinitely, thank you very much. Oh, and I might
mention, had the Senate passed the bill (it was lobbied FOR by the
president and PASSED by the House), it would have envigorated the
telecom industry, kept people employed, hired more workers. Do some
research on this.  Social programs don't innovate, never have. 

You want a job, you want innovation? Re-read what I've written, do so
with an open mind, ignore rhetoric from ALL of the political parties
(they all have something to be ashamed of) and think about what spending
made us the most innovative and technically advanced country on the
planet. We need a long term focus, Mars or bust! If we take the approach
I use for buying capital equipment, we ask for Mars and take Moon bases
instead. Have any idea what it's going to take to have a moon base? To
get Mars, let's aim for Pluto! And I'm being serious. Star Trek is
achievable guys.

Alvin