Cisco moves even more to china.

Curtis Maurand curtis at maurand.com
Sat Sep 25 18:23:04 UTC 2004


Alexei Roudnev wrote:

>This race exists, because American employees keeps many unnecessary
>expenses, making local workforce
>very expensive. In reality, even if people in India or Russia will have the
>same life level as in USA, they will cost 2 - 3 times less.
>
>There are many core reasons, driving work costs up and workforce offshore.
>(1) Number 1 - LIABILITY and LAWERS. It became anecdote for the all world
>around. Some girl in NY failed near the train - and company pay her $24M
>dollars for _future lost_. 
>
That's right, the train company should pay handsomely for not installing 
a $500.00 guardrail to prevent the accident in the first place and as a 
result a child is killed.  Yes trains are dangerous, that's why the 
railroad should do everything in its power to protect the public where 
it will be close to moving trains.  Protecting the public is much less 
expensive than the lawsuit.  And you think this way until its your child 
that trips and falls an dinstead being caught by a fence, falls onto the 
track in front of an oncoming train.


>My friends closed boat rental because of
>liability costs are too high. Palo Alto Hospital pay to the mother many
>millions because _she believe they did not do their best..._. Who pay it
>all - Hospitals, transport companies, rentals? Not, it is paid by customers,
>consumers (I do not want to revert liability to the doctor, but I am forced
>to pay for others who can claim liability). lawyers are doing nothing, they
>just pull money from others and drive costs high - and it drives workforce
>offshore.
>
>  
>
Frivolous lawsuits drive up those costs.  The lack of a system for 
weeding out those lawsuits is the problem.  If a manufacturer is 
negligent and places the fuel tank in  my vehicle in such a way that a 
$10.00 will protect it so that when my vehicle is rear ended by someone 
else (who is also negligent, BTW) and that fuel tank explodes setting my 
entire vehicle instantly ablaze and they knew about the problema and did 
nothing about it and I'm burned over 50% of my body and will probably 
cost me millions in reconstructive surgery and therapies both physical 
and mental, probably my job, not to mention the social costs of having 
large parts of my body covered with scars, that manufacturer should pay 
through the nose for every body that happens to.  If manufacturers 
weren't so focused on the bottom line and worried more about the safety 
and quality of their products then this point would be moot.  The 
actuaried make decisions like 1,000,000.00 vehicles X $10.00 = 
$10,000,000.00 the number of accidents of this type is low and the 
damage awards will amount to less than the $10 million, screw the shield 
we'll take the lawsuit.  This kind of thing happens all the time.

If a doctor is negligent and reduces my child or my wife to persistent 
vegitative state, or say, amputates the wrong limb and is forced to 
amputate both, or kills them, then that doctor should pay handsomely.  
What's the price of my (your) wife's or my (your) child's life?  As far 
as I'm concerned, its pretty damn high.  How can you cap that damage 
award?  Please, the answer isn't that simple.  Massachusetts has a 
pretty good system for weeding out frivolous lawsuits and that has kept 
medical malpractice insurance costs significantly lower than other parts 
of the country.  Oh, and BTW, the neglegent doctor shouldn't be allowed 
to pass those costs on to other patients.  That damage award is supposed 
to hurt and come out of that doctor's hide.  He'll think twice before he 
makes the same mistake.  Its supposed to weed out bad doctors.

Health Insurance in the United States is the problem, not the solution.  
National healthcare is the solution.  Billions of dollars are syphoned 
out of healthcare every year in the form of profits.  Profiting from the 
misery of others is immoral.  You can't defend it.  Its just plain 
wrong.  Other countries, even poor ones, have national healthcare and 
healtcare costs in those countries are substantially lower.  Health 
Insurers only want to insure the healthy.


>(2) Number 2 - landlords and real estate costs. Who pay for the homes
>($500,000 here and $1,000,000 in Santa Barbara) - homeowners? Not,
>employers -> consumers. I can live in Moscow paying $300 / month for the
>apartment, I can not live here paying less than $1,000 for apartment. Who
>pay it? Employers, at the end.
>  
>
The market will get what it can.  That's why the same home that cost's 
$1,000,000.00 in Santa Barbara costs $250,000.00 in Portland, Maine.  
For those of you who don't know, that's way up in northern Maine not 
near much of anything but farmland.  Companies don't need to locate 
their companies in the most expensive places in the country.  That's a 
choice.   If I look in the right town, I can find apartments in the 
$300.00 range or even the $500.00 range, unlike, say, LaJolla, CA where 
they go for about 10 times that.

>This is main driving engine. No one want to outsource (with exceptions, of
>course - if you are from country A, you will likely outsource engineering to
>country A) - it is much more convenient to have a local workforce vs.
>remote. But if call center agent pays to the lawyers, pays for liabilities,
>pays $2K/month for the rent here -  and the same agent in India pay $200 ,
>no liabilities (because smart people are responsible for themselves, because
>_coffee is hot, and train is dangerous_), no huge lawyers costs, no huge
>payments to licensed doctors 
>
Yep coffee is hot, but it shouldn't be so hot that it removes the skin 
from your body if you're scald by it, which is what happened in the case 
you cite.  See my earlier rant about the train. 


> (while many unlicensed can not get a job, and
>many do not take this career because of huge liabilities) - employer have
>not other chance than outsourcing. Smart employers keeps core team local and
>outsource utilities, technical jobs, mass programming etc; other outsource
>everything and then die, but no one have a chance to survive, paying this
>liabilities, rentals and so on, when competitors are not doing it.
>
>
>  
>
I am against free trade.  I think it should be fair trade.  Tax policies 
in the United States encourage companies to move jobs offshore.  In the 
last 3 years, the US has lost more jobs offshore than in the previous 
22.  That's tax policy and nothing more.  I, for one, have real problems 
with companies moving jobs (especially R&D and engineering) to a country 
that isn't exactly our friend.  Companies can also waste the environment 
in the third world in ways they can't here.  They should be penalized 
for that.  For that matter the countries that let them do that should be 
penalized for that.  If the playing field is level, then lets have free 
trade.  Until it is, then the engagement is fair trade.  Lessaiz Faire 
economics was tried about 100 years ago.  It resulted in the Great 
Depression and children dying of tuberulosis in the factories.  Why does 
anyone think it'll work today?

This is my last post on the subject on the list.  I'm happy to continue 
off list.

Curtis





More information about the NANOG mailing list