Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (17062)	2/11/2004 3:57:56 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 306849

Hi Lizzie, you were posting incorrect information. Specifically, your proposal was based upon an incorrect premise, so you were actually suggesting to move say maybe 50% of USA headcount to Overseas. When the reality is, many corporations have something like this: 70% revenue overseas 30% headcount overseas for some of the hightech giants. Which was to the contrary of your premise. This err made me question your POV. But this doesn't mean you were lying at all, nor did I call you a liar and nor am I implying it. It would help if you could be a bit more open to facts, which you usually are, I had already posted this information to you awhile ago. Underneath some of these rare errors, there are some interesting points you bring up. But it's difficult to discuss them, before the facts are cleared up. Or, in the case of a person that worked with project, the details. RE: "I don't have a "real agenda" other than for this economy to improve and stop the slide to banana republic-land. We know the wage divide is growing again after contracting in the entire decade of the 90s." We generally agree on the concerns. I personally think you have some valid concerns and points. But we probably have different POVs on the timing and what needs to be done. I think we need to get more innovation to spur more margins and higher wages. And get more people into investments thru government sponsored programs to minimize any potential wage divide. RE: " All this problem with capex is related to jobs. Thats why I focus on jobs. ... this is all offshoring (unless you include the internet as a communications medium). " When I talk to CIOs, their concerns seem more related to, what will Q1 earnings reports be like, and a desire to watch things play out a bit before they jump in and increase budgets. Viruses, the war, terrorism, have played havoc on their CEO's confidence levels. As far as the impact of offshoring, I've added up the numbers in hightech that I'm familiar with, and offshoring (which has indeed taken a large number of jobs) doesn't seem entirely the fault, nor even majority the fault. I agree it's an issue, but believe it's more of a future issue that'll hit us, if we don't increase our level of competition and get to the next thing. After the worst hightech downturn, during two wars & terrorism, corporations are hesitant to hire, spend and expand. Many corporations saw their revenues drop 50%. And you wonder why they aren't jumping in and hiring? If anything offshoring is putting them into a position where they will be able to hire more people here (rather than cut people due to 50% drops in revenue.) So, I do not feel this current slow job growth is all due to offshoring. It's currently more about CEO confidence and how everyone is looking to Q1 reports. However, I do feel that a future job growth will be impacted if we don't get to the next level. So we agree in concept on the issue, but not on the timing nor the solution. I'm against protectionism. RE: "free market trends that don't result in more wealth for the few." Aren't you incorrectly assuming, corporations are selling free products if they use Linux OS? RE: "it helps engineers locally with more employment" I tend to think your POV might be Linux-centric, in that you are forgetting about a local Windows startup who competes with Linux. Your POV seems to ignore this. RE: "You might want to call up Lou Dobbs and make your case as to why Microsoft" You incorrectly said Microsoft offshored their RND. Your statement was a blanket statement. You also didn't answer my question so it's difficult to have a discussion. This doesn't mean I'm not interested in what you have to say. It means you aren't providing enough clear information to have a discussion. Mentioning the name of one person that worked on a mature database-oriented software product, doesn't do much. The flow is missing, one person or group, IT or other, product feature maturity, the details, etc. Regards, Amy J