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