• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Intel CEO: U.S. Faces Looming Tech Decline

Valset said:
actually I am pretty sure they knew it would not work from the start. it just fits there political agenda is all
Click to expand...

I don't know.....I think a lot of people really buy into the Keynesian model for economics. Time and time it again Keynesian econ. fails, and yet the Dems hold to it...
 
1 said:
I don't know.....I think a lot of people really buy into the Keynesian model for economics. Time and time it again Keynesian econ. fails, and yet the Dems hold to it...
Click to expand...


I agree. I see tenets of Keynesian economics everywhere, even among the average people who believe it without even knowing that they do.
 
Unexploded said:
I know, what them thinking they deserve safe working conditions, days off, and reasonable pay. Uppity bastards.
Click to expand...

They deserve those things if they create enough value to pay for them (after taxes, of course). If not, they deserve dick. As taxes go up, the amount of value that needs to be created goes up.
 
computerpro3 said:
Excellent refutation. A+ reasoning skills.
Click to expand...

Your argument has so far consisted of telling people that if they took an economics course they would know better. I'd put that level of argument on approximately the same level of intellect.
 
jimmyb said:
Your argument has so far consisted of telling people that if they took an economics course they would know better. I'd put that level of argument on approximately the same level of intellect.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what's wrong with this statement?

If there were no taxes, no EPA, no government regulation at all it wouldn't make that much a difference. The cost of living would have to drop by at least 80% for US workers to be able to survive on wages that companies like Intel pay in other countries.
Click to expand...
 
You haven't replied to the assertion by actually providing any counterpoints. You've only accussed the poster of ignorance, which is not an argument in itself.

It's completely substanceless as far as addressing any of the propositions made, regardless of how obvious it may seem to you.
 
computerpro3 said:
Inflation/deflation

google it
Click to expand...

To argue against a claim you must disagree with some premise, or point out some logical fallacy in the flow of logic. You are doing none of this.

It's all good and well to tell me to google something; maybe I will, and maybe I'll know a bit more about the topic, and maybe I'll change my stance. But don't think you've presented anything in the way of a rigorous or intellectual challenge to the original assertion.

For the record, I think the original claim is pretty nebulous, poorly defined, and probably made without sufficient evidence, but then I also think your disagreement comes from a similar point of ignorance.

Unless you've studied economics to a postgraduate level, and published on the topic, I doubt you're able to offer a serious challenge to any well-established point of view in the field - because there are economists of this calibre, who would argue on both sides of this question.
 
jimmyb said:
To argue against a claim you must disagree with some premise, or point out some logical fallacy in the flow of logic. You are doing none of this.
Click to expand...

The problem is, that statement is so ridiculous on so many levels there's not much of a coherent stance to disagree with. It's almost some kind of half baked false dichotomy.

It's all good and well to tell me to google something; maybe I will, and maybe I'll know a bit more about the topic, and maybe I'll change my stance. But don't think you've presented anything in the way of a rigorous or intellectual challenge to the original assertion.
Click to expand...

If I was attempting to provide a "rigorous intellectual challenge" I wouldn't have posted a four word response. I was hoping that you'd research on your own and I wouldn't have to type this out.


Unless you've studied economics to a postgraduate level, and published on the topic, I doubt you're able to offer a serious challenge to any well-established point of view in the field - because there are economists of this calibre, who would argue on both sides of this question.
Click to expand...

Do you have to study postgraduate math to realize 2+2 does not equal 5?

In short, this is why his statement doesn't work:

If there were no taxes, no EPA, no government regulation at all it wouldn't make that much a difference. The cost of living would have to drop by at least 80% for US workers to be able to survive on wages that companies like Intel pay in other countries.
Click to expand...

First, it is ridiculous to conceive of a US economy with no taxes, no EPA, and no government regulation. To state that "it wouldn't make much of a difference" doesn't even make any sense, as we wouldn't even have a structured economy in the sense that we do now (or that we ever had).

Moving on to the second component of that, which is in no way related to the first (I mean, it's seriously out of left field), the OP magically assumes that were there no government regulation, Intel would start paying American workers identical wages that they pay outsourced labor. Obviously, that would never happen - you'd just go work for AMD, TI, VIA, etc, instead. And if the OP is insinuating that all companies would start paying American workers the same wages that they paid outsourced labor, then his cost of living argument would be totally voided as massive deflation would occur.

In short, his argument is ridiculous because he takes a non-existent situation, combines it with an impossible-to-occur variable, an unfounded assumption, and then insinuates that the only way for the American worker to survive would be for an unlikely (to the OP) drop in cost of living to occur - one that would already have occurred by default if the whole impossible situation came true.
 
Right, so your last 3 paragraphs are actually a contemplated response to the original claim - now the poster can actually respond to something of substance; we have an intellectually legitimate discussion.

Up until that point you were just accusing people of needing more education. It was a bit ironic to see you charging others of having poor "reasoning skills" when, at that point, your argument was utterly devoid of it.
 
acidic said:
With all our major manufacturing already outsourced and other tech jobs being outsourced, I'm curious what kind of jobs will be left in ten or twenty years. Are we all going to become Lawyers, Doctors or Bureacrats?
Click to expand...

I guess we'll all have to become management. :p
Re: doctors, they're being outsourced as well. Initially it was just fields like radiology / cardiology where the images could be easily transmitted and interpreted, but telemedicine (and even telesurgery) is definitely picking up steam.
 
The original article is dead on. The government is definitely NOT business friendly. We saw this in the late 70's early 80's just inside our own country. A lot of industrial business used to be centered in the mid west. But environmental (a big one in the early 80's) forced change too quickly. Also, the states were looking at businesses in their states as a big fat piggy bank to be taxed for whatever state program the state felt like pursuing.

There is a huge, default cost of doing business in the US right now compared to other countries. Corporate dollars are going to go where they can make the biggest ROI. These two statements are what is basically going to screw the US economy over in the long run.

I am not saying that we don't need taxes and regulation, we do. But those things need to be balanced out by incentives to counterbalance the burden of doing business in the US, or the business will simply go elsewhere. This is a big reason i see so much trouble coming from this proposed "carbon cap and trade" legislation. Simply put, eventually it is cheaper to build a new factory somewhere else than to comply in the US. When this happens, the US factory closes and another country gets a shiny new factory.
 
Set a minimum wage.
Any people who import goods to sell to the US market must pay their workers this minimum wage.
Set minimum wage the same as the US
Problem solved under guise of improving things for low payed workers.
Would make things more expensive however.
People like cheap stuff.
 
bacon said:
This is total BS. I own a business, so I can speak with some real world experience. American companies can not compete with foreign companies that pay a fraction of what US wages are.

If there were no taxes, no EPA, no government regulation at all it wouldn't make that much a difference. The cost of living would have to drop by at least 80% for US workers to be able to survive on wages that companies like Intel pay in other countries.

Our founding fathers knew that to protect American jobs they had to enforce tariffs, yet our current way of thinking and legislation like NAFTA disagree.

We have outsourced our nations true wealth so big corporations could make more profits. If they had to pay to import these cheap goods from China and Mexico we would see a decline in our industries leaving.
Click to expand...

Wow! This is so wrong!

Wages are _A_ factor, but not the dominant one where high tech is concerned. I don't know what kind of business you got, but I guess if it cannot compete with cheap foreign labor, then it is not a high-tech/high skills biz.

The founding fathers did no such thing. Tariffs were the only source of income because Americans did not want to pay income taxes. In fact tariffs almost ruined the US.

As the guy said at the end of the article "Capital is agnostic. It doesn't have a religion. It doesn't have a philosophy. It goes where it finds the highest returns."
 
obs said:
Holy crap, a bunch of people who clearly failed simple economics are in here. I mean, this isn't even controversial stuff among economists you guys have wrong (stop trading with people, increase tariffs, etc). Hell, go look at the effects of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act if you want to see what would happen.
Click to expand...

+1

You are 100% correct. The problem is the majority of people who claim to be educated and deserving of high-paid jobs are clearly uneducated and easily manipulated. So they vote in morons.
 
The real problem isn't limits on foreign tech workers. The real problem is the lack of next generation US tech workers.

Caused by...drumroll.... Policies of large tech company like Intel importing cheap foreign workers and outsourcing tech jobs.

No one I work with wants their kids to go into computer science, which they see as dead in North America.

It is incredibly short sighted for US tech companies, to locate R&D centers in China/India. In 10 years they will be competing with startups fueled by employees they trained who know their IP, with no loyalty to your company or this country.

Intel, HP chiefs praise offshore outsourcing
http://searchcio.techtarget.com/news/933144/Intel-HP-chiefs-praise-offshore-outsourcing
 
Ok. I'm all ears for your solution...

obs said:
Holy crap, a bunch of people who clearly failed simple economics are in here. I mean, this isn't even controversial stuff among economists you guys have wrong (stop trading with people, increase tariffs, etc). Hell, go look at the effects of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act if you want to see what would happen.
Click to expand...
 
So, we'd like to be able to afford something other than Cambell's soup for dinner, and the ability to be treated if we get injured or sick.

Call me guilty.

computerpro3 said:
Exactly. The sense of entitlement among the American worker is astounding.
Click to expand...
 
I was thinking the same thing of the Internet. It has not been all good for us.

obs said:
Want to know what kills many, many more jobs than outsourcing? Technology. Would banning all robotics make us better or worse off?
Click to expand...
 
We're headed for a society where we are Consumers, and supporters of consumers. We will 'consume' things and provide support for others that 'consume' things. It's f'ing weird really...

All the creativity and manufacturing will be left to others.



acidic said:
With all our major manufacturing already outsourced and other tech jobs being outsourced, I'm curious what kind of jobs will be left in ten or twenty years. Are we all going to become Lawyers, Doctors or Bureacrats?
Click to expand...
 
As they post record profits...

I fail to see how the world's largest consumer society would buy any of their products if they didn't have jobs. No, the countries who took on the labor would not be the consumers, if the US economy sank, so would the rest of the world.
 
computerpro3 said:
This right here shows that you should probably take some economics courses if you hope for your business to survive for much longer.
Click to expand...

Please explain how my business which is still doing well, in the hardest hit industry in the US during this recession and still falling (housing) is going to fail because I see our industries given to other countries for larger profits.

You can't disprove what I said, and the truth of the whole thing is Americans will realize how poor they are if it wasn't for these cheap foreign consumer goods.

A mere 10 months after NAFTA was signed my home town lost 3500 textile jobs. That same factory is now in Mexico paying a wages a fraction of what they were in the US, and not paying a single dime to sell its goods in the US.

This has happened in at least 10 different cities in my state alone, and entire communities are gone because of it. That is just textiles, then you have Chinese furniture which has cost just as many jobs. This was in the south with no unions what so ever, and low taxes.
 
computerpro3 said:
The problem is, that statement is so ridiculous on so many levels there's not much of a coherent stance to disagree with. It's almost some kind of half baked false dichotomy.



If I was attempting to provide a "rigorous intellectual challenge" I wouldn't have posted a four word response. I was hoping that you'd research on your own and I wouldn't have to type this out.




Do you have to study postgraduate math to realize 2+2 does not equal 5?

In short, this is why his statement doesn't work:



First, it is ridiculous to conceive of a US economy with no taxes, no EPA, and no government regulation. To state that "it wouldn't make much of a difference" doesn't even make any sense, as we wouldn't even have a structured economy in the sense that we do now (or that we ever had).

Moving on to the second component of that, which is in no way related to the first (I mean, it's seriously out of left field), the OP magically assumes that were there no government regulation, Intel would start paying American workers identical wages that they pay outsourced labor. Obviously, that would never happen - you'd just go work for AMD, TI, VIA, etc, instead. And if the OP is insinuating that all companies would start paying American workers the same wages that they paid outsourced labor, then his cost of living argument would be totally voided as massive deflation would occur.

In short, his argument is ridiculous because he takes a non-existent situation, combines it with an impossible-to-occur variable, an unfounded assumption, and then insinuates that the only way for the American worker to survive would be for an unlikely (to the OP) drop in cost of living to occur - one that would already have occurred by default if the whole impossible situation came true.
Click to expand...


WTF are you talking about? Let me simplify this for you smart guy. Its all about profits for Intel or any other business that wishes to succeed. Remove all the things that cry baby millionaire CEO's cry about in the US which is regulation, taxes, and the government. You then have pretty much what they have in a third world country where they build factories.

What is left after that? Hmm let me see... Oh wages! Yea they pay an engineer from Malaysia the same they would here in the US right? Wrong.
http://www.worldsalaries.org/engineer.shtml
 
bacon said:
WTF are you talking about? Let me simplify this for you smart guy. Its all about profits for Intel or any other business that wishes to succeed. Remove all the things that cry baby millionaire CEO's cry about in the US which is regulation, taxes, and the government. You then have pretty much what they have in a third world country where they build factories.

What is left after that? Hmm let me see... Oh wages! Yea they pay an engineer from Malaysia the same they would here in the US right? Wrong.
http://www.worldsalaries.org/engineer.shtml
Click to expand...

The engineer in the US has far more resources to be a better engineer than the one in Malaysia.
 
bacon said:
WTF are you talking about? Let me simplify this for you smart guy. Its all about profits for Intel or any other business that wishes to succeed. Remove all the things that cry baby millionaire CEO's cry about in the US which is regulation, taxes, and the government. You then have pretty much what they have in a third world country where they build factories.

What is left after that? Hmm let me see... Oh wages! Yea they pay an engineer from Malaysia the same they would here in the US right? Wrong.
http://www.worldsalaries.org/engineer.shtml
Click to expand...

See, this is why I was trying to avoid typing an explanation out. You can't wring blood from a stone, so my explanation was largely a waste of time.

Once again, I highly suggest you take an economics class.
 
computerpro3 said:
See, this is why I was trying to avoid typing an explanation out. You can't wring blood from a stone, so my explanation was largely a waste of time.

Once again, I highly suggest you take an economics class.
Click to expand...

If you had bothered taking a comprehensive selection of high level postgraduate courses in economics you would understand why you are completely wrong. I won't bother trying to explain because it would be like wringing blood from a stone.

Your primitive understanding of economics, presumably from a handful of undergraduate university courses at most, is entirely insufficient to understand the complex nuances that occur in scenarios like this.
 
jimmyb said:
If you had bothered taking a comprehensive selection of high level postgraduate courses in economics you would understand why you are completely wrong. I won't bother trying to explain because it would be like wringing blood from a stone.

Your primitive understanding of economics, presumably from a handful of undergraduate university courses at most, is entirely insufficient to understand the complex nuances that occur in scenarios like this.
Click to expand...

Once again, incorrect. Bacon's comments have nothing whatsoever to do with "postgraduate economic theory". It's not rocket science.

See obs' post above for a quick and dirty explanation of what both of you are missing - jimmy's reply shows that he either did not read my above post (in which I clearly explained why his response is invalid), or did not comprehend it - thus my recommendation for more education.
 
bacon said:
WTF are you talking about? Let me simplify this for you smart guy. Its all about profits for Intel or any other business that wishes to succeed. Remove all the things that cry baby millionaire CEO's cry about in the US which is regulation, taxes, and the government. You then have pretty much what they have in a third world country where they build factories.

What is left after that? Hmm let me see... Oh wages! Yea they pay an engineer from Malaysia the same they would here in the US right? Wrong.
http://www.worldsalaries.org/engineer.shtml
Click to expand...

Since you and jimmy apparently need Hooked on Phonics, let me requote myself with the relevant portion of my post:

Moving on to the second component of that, which is in no way related to the first (I mean, it's seriously out of left field), the OP magically assumes that were there no government regulation, Intel would start paying American workers identical wages that they pay outsourced labor. Obviously, that would never happen - you'd just go work for AMD, TI, VIA, etc, instead. And if the OP is insinuating that all companies would start paying American workers the same wages that they paid outsourced labor, then his cost of living argument would be totally voided as massive deflation would occur.
Click to expand...
 
computerpro3 said:
Once again, incorrect. Bacon's comments have nothing whatsoever to do with "postgraduate economic theory". It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...

Ah but it is like rocket science, you would understand this if you were more educated.
 
jimmyb said:
Ah but it is like rocket science, you would understand this if you were more educated.
Click to expand...

Certain aspects of economics are, as with anything else.

Bacon's statements, are not.

As I said, you don't need a postgraduate math degree to know 2+2 isn't 5.
 
computerpro3 said:
As I said, you don't need a postgraduate math degree to know 2+2 isn't 5.
Click to expand...
Ironically, if you had an undergraduate math degree, you would realize that it's trivial to construct systems where 2+2 does equal 5.

You don't realize how complex and nuanced this scenario is, by virtue of being insufficiently educated. If you took more courses, you would understand this.
 
Jimmyb, let me put it this way -

Are you agreeing with bacon that the removal of regulations and taxes is:

1. possible

2. would result in companies lowering US pay rates to the levels of third world nations

3. that this (completely ridiculous) pay reduction would occur without causing massive deflation?

Further, are you claiming that you need a postgraduate education to realize how ridiculous the above statements are?

If so, I've got nothing more to say to you.
 
jimmyb said:
Ironically, if you had an undergraduate math degree, you would realize that it's trivial to construct systems where 2+2 does equal 5.
Click to expand...

And for all intents and purposes, those constructed systems are entirely useless.
 
TechLarry said:
So, we'd like to be able to afford something other than Cambell's soup for dinner, and the ability to be treated if we get injured or sick.

Call me guilty.
Click to expand...

If you're not producing value, why should you get those things? The sense of entitlement is incredible.

I'd like a Ferrari. Does that make it right for me to demand it of my employer when I don't increase my worth to the company somehow?
 
Considering most jobs in this country are provided by small business who don't outsource their main business, the idea that outsourcing is causing problems is wrong. From an actual business owner on hiring:

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704017904575409733776372738.html

Quote since wsj blocks some times:

With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it's going to be later—much later. Here's why.

Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She's been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay.


Before that money hits her bank, it is reduced by the $2,376 she pays as her share of the medical and dental insurance that my company provides. And then the government takes its due. She pays $126 for state unemployment insurance, $149 for disability insurance and $856 for Medicare. That's the small stuff. New Jersey takes $1,893 in income taxes. The federal government gets $3,661 for Social Security and another $6,250 for income tax withholding. The roughly $13,000 taken from her by various government entities means that some 22% of her gross pay goes to Washington or Trenton. She's lucky she doesn't live in New York City, where the toll would be even higher.

Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.

Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers' comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally's Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security.

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.

Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming—for my company, and even for Sally too.

Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare.

Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums—for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%.

To offset tax increases and steepening rises in health-insurance premiums, my company needs sustainably higher profits and sales—something unlikely in this "summer of recovery." We can't pass the additional costs onto our customers, because the market is too tight and we'd lose sales. Only governments can raise prices repeatedly and pretend there will be no consequences.

And even if the economic outlook were more encouraging, increasing revenues is always uncertain and expensive. As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company's vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment.

A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government's message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price.

Mr. Fleischer is president of Bogen Communications Inc. in Ramsey, N.J.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top