Outsourcing optimize

'Onshoring' IT services and bringing jobs back home

Challenges to offshoring have arisen, many not expected, and are now causing people to rethink the offshoring trend that has dominated the IT landscape for the past decade.

For the past decade it has been a widely held belief among IT executives that utilizing supposedly lower-cost resources from non-U.S. locations was the best way to maximize their ever shrinking budgets.  Since Y2K, in fact, there has been a virtual torrent of IT jobs flowing out of the U.S. to overseas locations, most notably India and China.  While the numbers vary, it's estimated that nearly one million formerly U.S. IT jobs have moved or will soon move over seas, with an estimated 3.3 million service sector jobs at risk by 2015.

The primary drivers were initially twofold, cost and resource availability.  Back in the early 2000s, for example, you could hire an India-based IT contractor for under $20/hr., compared to $100/hr. or more in the U.S.  There was also a severe resource shortage in the U.S. because of the boom in demand driven by Y2K, the .com bubble, and the broad adoption of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) packages.  India, and eventually other markets, seemed to be the answer to both issues.  Over time as the U.S. and global economy stalled, the immense pressure on IT organizations to do more with less also played a significant role and accelerated the move to offshore IT functions.

Over time, offshoring had become a way of life for U.S. IT organizations.  Given the seemingly attractive price point as measured in $/hr., many CIOs are forced to utilize a predefined percentage of offshore services as part of their IT delivery portfolio, in effect forcing the escalation of offshoring of U.S. jobs.

But, times are changing.  Challenges have arisen, many not expected, and are now causing people to rethink the offshoring trend that has dominated the IT landscape for the past decade.

There is a growing body of evidence that suggests the actual cost of offshoring is significantly higher than a simple comparison of dollars per hour.  Challenges with software and testing quality, required rework creating inefficiency in the software development process, additional effort because of time zone challenges, language and other communication issues, high turnover (up to 40% annually in some cases) in offshore locations, intellectual property and security risks (especially in unregulated countries like China), are just some of the unanticipated issues that have plagued offshore development.  None of these issues show any sign of abating.

Enter "onshoring": an emerging alternative with tremendous appeal.  It has several names, including onshoring, rural sourcing, home sourcing and insourcing.    The concept is to bring work back to locations in the continental U.S. and take advantage of the highly efficient, effective and innovative U.S. workforce to perform IT functions that have been offshored over the past decade.  This idea, and now trend, is being fueled by all of the shortcomings listed above.

Two challenges in particular seem to be really driving the movement: the rapidly rising cost and poor quality output of offshore services.  Recent data suggests that the cost of offshore services in India and China are rising by as much as 25 percent per year and are expected to continue for the foreseeable future.   That is compared to a one to two percent per year rise in the U.S.  The tremendous cost advantage that offshore locations once enjoyed is quickly vanishing.  Some projections predict that the cost of offshore and onshore resources will equalize around 2015 on a dollars per hour basis for some locations in the U.S.  This does not take into account the true cost of offshoring with all of its challenges.

If we take into consideration the challenges of offshore and the benefits of onshore, it begins to make tremendous sense to focus on developing a U.S. based workforce with an IT skillset.  Bringing this work back into a domestic model has its own challenges.  The first challenge is finding the right location.  Like any other business, IT services businesses must have the right climate and combination of factors to flourish.

First, there must be an available workforce.  This means some amount of IT skill in the area, along with a strong population with the right aptitude and attitude to thrive in a career in technology.  It does not need to be a major metropolitan area, but rather simply an area large enough to support the desired business scale.

Second, it must be a low-cost marketplace.  Traditional areas that are a hotbed for technology jobs have become very expensive to live in, therefore the wages required are higher in those areas.  Thirdly, there must be a strong, responsive and collaborative educational system.  There has been a tremendous drop off in IT graduates over the last 10 years, in some areas 10 fold. To regenerate the population of young technologists the school systems will need to be able to respond to the demand and work with businesses to reshape their technology programs.  It is only by combining the factors of available resources, low cost, and educational infrastructure that an onshore initiative can be successful.

The U.S. has by far the best and most productive workforce in the world.  Cost factors drove companies offshore to find cheaper labor at the expense of efficiency and quality.  In the past these tradeoffs seemed necessary to advance as a business.  Now, however, the U.S. is reemerging as one of the preferred locations for IT services providing a powerful combination of quality, affordability, and consistency and again competing in a global economy.

John Williams is the Senior Vice President of Collaborative Consulting and recently helped launch an initiative in Wisconsin that would significantly reduce or eliminate the increasing challenges encountered in offshore service delivery by keeping jobs "onshore." Collaborative is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts.

180 comments
Nicholas Friedman
Nicholas Friedman

http://www.skillstorm.com/cloud-workforce/ We’ve found a way to open your organization up to endless possibilities through a cost effective alternative to off-shoring. It’s called Cloud Workforce Solutions. We’ve brought the best of all outsourcing practices together to create turnkey solutions that save you time and money. We manage everything from sourcing, screening, interviewing, on boarding, technology and process training while you still maintain control of your project. We eliminate risks that come with co-employment. And you have unlimited access to expert Technology professionals, ready to move your organization forward.

sedky
sedky

Hi Is there statistical data publicly available on IT reshoring?

KingFolstag
KingFolstag

The issue isn't productivity, it's cost vs. marginal product of labor, so he's missed the point entirely. Now the B-school grads have started reading Econ 101 and taking it seriously. The Indians cost ~12.50 on a PPP basis (sans fringe benefits; PPP is a notional exchange rate created by setting the prices of all export goods equal between countries). The Americans cost for some things up to $52.09 on a PPP basis (again, not including fringe stuff). So the question is, "Is an American programmer more than four times more productive than an Indian programmer?" The answer is generally "yes," and so the answer to the hiring decision is that programmers should be hired here other things equal.

adornoe
adornoe

Salaries are one consideration, and even there, you made it sound like, things are fairly equal, but, they're not. Taking your $52.09 for Americans, and the $12.50 for Indians, that's a huge difference, and one which any company would jump on to justify moving operations and jobs to India. But, there is a lot more than just salaries and benefits. There is the union labor, where, if a shop is unionized, a lot of control is taken out of management's hands and into the union leadership's hands. Then there is the higher taxation in the U.S., at various levels. And, let's not forget the higher costs associated with complying with the thousands of regulations that companies have to pay for. And, don't forget the higher costs of real-estate and other incidentals that occur while being situated within the U.S., like higher electricity and water costs, etc. You, like others, aren't looking at the entire picture, which executives had to consider before moving jobs and operations to other countries.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

"Is an American programmer more than four times more productive than an Indian programmer?" What do unions have to do with that question, or even with IT in general?

adornoe
adornoe

the same words with adjectives? No matter, pompous or not, you're still describing yourself, as I explained earlier. So, tell me, what did you actually gain by trying to end the discussion with an insult? Did you win the argument, or did your agenda get advanced in any form whatsoever? Will you be a better person for issuing the insult? At least, when I use a slur, I accompany it with factual material, but, in your case, you accompany it with the material that comes from those "azzes".

adornoe
adornoe

I know about the likes of you, and your politics and your ignorance, and your idealist view of the world. I know about liberalism, after having been one myself. Therefore, I do know you, quite well. Not personally, but, about where you're coming from in all of your arguments. On the other side, you've never been a conservative, and you can't relate, and you are so closed-minded that, it's quite possible that, you'll never understand where I'm coming from. You don't know me personally, but, you know about how I address you and how I argue with you. But, you still don't understand my side of the arguments, whereas, I know your side quite well, and I feel very well qualified to destroy all of your arguments, since, I know them first-hand as a former liberal. So, try to grow and learn and understand. Right now, you're just an ignorant, simple-minded, closed-minded, blind to reality, liberal. When it comes to being an "@ss", that would fit you a lot better, since, the "@ss" is the mascot of your favorite political party, and there's very good reasons for that, and you demonstrate those reasons quite well every time you make any arguments or comments. Bye, "donkey"!

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

[i]You have no idea about me or where I'm coming from. [/i] Exactly. You have no idea about me or where I'm coming from. Yet you continue to call me names, label me, impugn my motives, insult my intelligence, and in general, conduct yourself as an arrogant, condescending, know-it-all. In short, an @$$.

adornoe
adornoe

facts out there, of which you demonstrated again that you don't understand those real facts. "Who needs anything as mundane and ordinary as actual facts" That's a lot of BS, especially when YOUR facts are the talking points and lies of the democrats, which are as far away from the truth as anyone can get. "when you can blow them off because you don't like them, then make up your own facts as you go along." It's quite easy to blow away YOUR facts when they can easily be proved to be nothing but spin and lies and ignorance. Yet, you can't disprove any of the points I make. My points are easily verifiable with the current state of reality out there in the world. "At no point did I say I was in favor of "Obamacare." " Your set of arguments, in the past, have been about supporting government programs, including government health-care, which Obamacare IS. You might be denying your support now, but, like a lot of other democrats out there, they're no longer going to be as supportive of a government program which is about to be ruled unconstitutional. But, their hearts and minds would've wanted Obamacare to remain intact. "In fact, given the abject failure of the health care market to provide value for money, I think the only thing that can possibly fix healthcare is a single payer system, and that's easy to do. Simply expand Medicare to make everybody eligible." A thinker, you're not. So, if you can't have Obamacare, you'd like to expand Medicare? Medicare is another failing government program, which is spending a lot more than budgeted for, just like all other government programs. Medicare has never been cost-efficient, and it's full of waste and corruption, from top to bottom, and you'd like to expand that idiocy? Government should never be in the business of providing what the public sector can do more efficiently and at lesser costs. The only reason that the public sector's medical insurance costs so much, is because there have been too many rules and regulations implemented by government that make providing that private health-care more expensive. If, for example, we had tort reform and interstate competition for healthcare, then the price would be a lot less than what it costs right now, and for certain, a lot less than what Medicare/Medicaid can do it for. "I can also see through your selfish, short-sighted "I got mine, I don't care what happens to the country as long as I get to keep it and the liberals lose" agenda." I want the liberals to lose on their agenda, because, it's harmful to the economy and to the people and to the country as a whole. It's got absolutely nothing to do with me being selfish, since, I didn't really "get mine" and I don't care to get mine. I just want the best for the whole country, and my personal interests never enter into the equation. So, you're just barking up the wrong tree, and making things up as you go. You have no idea about me or where I'm coming from. I would bet anything that, when it comes to being concerned about my fellow citizens, I'm a lot more altruistic than you could ever be. I believe in the free market system, where everybody is involved in creating a better lifestyle for all involved, and where people don't become dependent at all on government to take care of them at the expense of the rest of society. But, you could never understand that, or the logic behind it. "I know you'll pop right back in like that inflatable punching clown that won't stay down," You're just like all liberals out there, who would just like to shut up the opposition and have free reign on imposing your agenda. Not going to happen, because, people like you and the liberals have to be stopped. Otherwise, an already sinking country, would totally collapse. The damage your kind has caused to the country cannot be allowed to continue. Therefore, your wish to silence me and others like me, is doomed to fail. " simply if only to have the last word." It's not about getting the last word, you dope. It's about the truth, the facts. You have absolutely no idea what that means, because, you have your rear doing the thinking, and perhaps not even that, because, all you do is repeat the idiotic talking points of liberals and socialists. The liberal agenda can NEVER create a successful country. Socialism has NEVER worked. You should look that up. "Go ahead and talk to the wall." I must admit that, talking to you is like talking to a wall. A wall has no capability at all to understand anything anybody could throw at it, from any side.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Of course not. Who needs anything as mundane and ordinary as actual facts when you can blow them off because you don't like them, then make up your own facts as you go along. I can see through their agenda. At no point did I say I was in favor of "Obamacare." In fact, given the abject failure of the health care market to provide value for money, I think the only thing that can possibly fix healthcare is a single payer system, and that's easy to do. Simply expand Medicare to make everybody eligible. I can also see through your selfish, short-sighted "I got mine, I don't care what happens to the country as long as I get to keep it and the liberals lose" agenda. I know you'll pop right back in like that inflatable punching clown that won't stay down, simply if only to have the last word. Go ahead and talk to the wall.

adornoe
adornoe

and, you'd realize that, her testimony before congress was part of an "agenda" which the liberals wanted to use to advance their Obamacare nonsense. The "fluke" lady credibility is just not there, and she was just serving as a "useful idiot", and, whatever she said in her testimony before congress or to the press, was, for sure, modified by the points which the liberal congress wanted to advance. Why can't you see through the easily apparent methods that the liberals and democrats use. The "fluke" lady was just a "method" for Obama and the democrats to try to attack republicans and to advance the liberal and socialist causes. Like I keep saying, either grow a brain, or use what you have if you have one.

adornoe
adornoe

sense otherwise. But, it's okay, because, I know that, I'll continue arguing for the common sense arguments and you'll continue being in the dark on the issues. You and Nick need to consolidate your arguments, because, you both sound the same and both sound as ignorant as always. Ever heard of "copy and paste"? That's what you and Nick are about, the same old tired liberal arguments on the issues, and which have been leaving a trail of destruction whenever they've become actions rather than just arguments. Look, the world would be a lot better off without the destruction which your kind has unleashed on the world for so many decades. Take a hike and get lost. The world deserves a break from the likes of you people.

adornoe
adornoe

dancing. "Oral contraceptives have a medical use beyond contraception; condoms don't." Yet, that is not the even the question when it comes to the usage of the contraceptives by the "fluke" woman. It's not about other medical uses, and it was mostly about "having to pony up" from her own money for the contraceptive. To most reasonable people, her "need" for contraceptives was beyond the normal range for most people, and her needs were not explained as "medical" but as "contraceptives" to prevent pregnancies. Then, most people, if asked to do so personally, would not contribute towards paying for her needs or wants when it comes to contraceptives, because, in her case, it was more about a choice to live a loose sex lifestyle. People can only get away with insane requests when it's government doing the payments, and the taxpayers be damned. Taxpayers have not been asked if they wish to cover contraceptives as part of a general health-care package, and so, the public is stuck with paying the bills for a loose woman out there in the wild. "If insurance companies don't have to pay for oral contraceptives when medically indicated, they sure as h3ll shouldn't have to pay for ED medication, the only medical function of which is to enable men with poor circulation to sexually gratify themselves and more easily have heart attacks." As I've already stated, the "fluke" case was about contraceptives to enable her loose sexual habits. However, in no case, should government money, aka: the people's money, have to pay for contraceptives or any sexual dysfunction. Added: "...if Adornoe argues against it, it must be nonsensical and illogical and stupid." And that's because adornoe says so. Circular reasoning at its best No, you ninny! It's logical or common sense, because, I wont be arguing against the facts or the truth. Perhaps you've heard about common sense, and logic? " the product of a one-track mind in which the train never left the station" Why should someone ever retreat from sound arguments? Why should someone follow a train that's full of nonsense and idiocy? What you call "one track mind" is a mind that has learned to examine all the issues from many different angles, and is not as easily persuaded to follow the crow-thinking that you seem to be fond of, like when you repeat the talking points from liberals. No thanks. I've grown up and I am not a lemming anymore, like you seem to want to be.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

entered into the discussion when your delusions turned out to be pathological, Adornoe. If you argue against a thing, it can't be all wrong. For example, if you argued against jumping off a cliff, I'd try to convince you to try it before you dock it.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Oral contraceptives have a medical use beyond contraception; condoms don't. If insurance companies don't have to pay for oral contraceptives when medically indicated, they sure as h3ll shouldn't have to pay for ED medication, the only medical function of which is to enable men with poor circulation to sexually gratify themselves and more easily have heart attacks. To answer your question to Ansu: Charter Oaks....Three Rivers...insert name of local medical institution for non-physical illnesses and handicaps here... Added: "...if Adornoe argues against it, it must be nonsensical and illogical and stupid." And that's because adornoe says so. Circular reasoning at its best, the product of a one-track mind in which the train never left the station. This used to be fun. Now it's like I'm kicking a dead puppy. I'm out of here.

adornoe
adornoe

""Because Adornoe says so" is not a valid argument." No, you silly boy, it's because, if Adornoe argues against it, it must be nonsensical and illogical and stupid. "Except maybe for hospitalization." Whatever! But, how does hospitalization enter into this discussion?

adornoe
adornoe

for it. Look, I knew quite well what the "fluke" was paying for. After all, a woman does not go around purchasing $3000 worth of condoms for her personal use. Now, if a man had been the one in the news wanting coverage for $3000 of condoms, do you think that the media and liberals would have made such a big deal of the situation? Would Limbaugh have been attacked by the liberals and media to the same extent if that "fluke" had been a man? Would they have insisted that the man deserved to get medical or health coverage for his expensive sexual habits? As closely as I follow the news, of course I knew that the controversy was about contraceptives. But, if the "contraceptive" had been for a "young" man, would the issue have been overblown like it has? Would Obama have even commented on it? Would the man have been invited before congress to express his concerns about having to pay such a high price for having sex? NO! He would have been laughed off the Capitol building stairs and told to "zip it". Then, it turns out that, the "lady" in question is not so young and spending huge money for her studies to be an attorney. If that had been a man, the first question by most people would have been about, why would somebody with the money to pay for hundreds of thousands in education, not have enough to pay for "condoms" or contraceptives on his own? But, because the person is of the female variety, she was much more favorable and suitable and sympathetic figure to use by the liberals in their arguments for government health-care, and that's what the argument is really about. The liberals wanted to make it about Rush and the evil republicans who would refuse a woman her requests for contraceptives, which, if she couldn't have them, might end up pregnant and inconvenienced by a baby and her entire career would be jeopardized. Democrats have a very evil way of twisting things into what they're not. So, would you have been as sympathetic to a man in his 30s, who was paying for a $400,000 education, and whined about having to spend some $3000 for condoms? I'll bet you would not, and you would have told the guy to "zip it".

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Do you pay any attention at all to what's really going on? The young lady in question was not discussing condoms, but oral contraceptives. The Pill. In addition to its contraceptive effects, the pill also treats certain menstrual disorders; this is why the FDA first approved Enovid in 1957.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

"Because Adornoe says so" is not a valid argument. Except maybe for hospitalization.

adornoe
adornoe

of how the world should function, is never going to happen. Once you start living in the real world, and using your head, then you might start noticing that, what you imagine as a better world, is just one huge nutty graveyard where civilizations go to die. You can cry out loud all you want, but, the facts cant be changed by crying First of all; how are the democrats forcing Rush to call ordinary women "sluts" for disagreeing with him? Do they have mind control lasers? Check your facts, because, Rush the story youre referring to, involved one (1) woman, and not women, which is more than one. The flake or flaky or fluke woman was, indeed, engaging in slutty behavior if she needed as many condoms as she revealed. Rush may have gone a bit too far with his rhetoric, but, that woman was engaging in slutty behavior if she did need to use so many condoms. But, what has that got to do with the current discussion? Slutty behavior can occur with women of all political or ideological stripes. But, thats not what the discussion is about, and my argument with Nick is about liberals trying to change or destroy the constitution, and Nick is firing back with his own accusations about instances where republicans have been doing the same, except, Nick still hasn't got a good example of where republicans have actually tried to undo the constitution. Homosexual issues have nothing to do with Rush's accusations against that slut or loose woman. Get it??? "You're damned straight the Dems are using it against the right, but they wouldn't have anything to use if the right didn't allow those nutcases free-reign. The Republicans can't have their nutcase-cake and eat it too; they use the nutcases to "energize" their biblethumping bigot powerbase, so they cannot shout foul when that lets their opponents energize theirs. Nobody is forcing Republicans to associate with dangerous idiots... except maybe nobody but dangerous idiots will vote for their sorry asses?" Nutcases??? Thats laughable, coming from you, exhibit number one for nutcases. When it comes to issues and the reality, its people like you and liberals in general, who are causing the most harm to the country, with damage to the economy and the destruction of the constitution and the destruction of traditional family values. The issue about homosexuality is not about religion or beliefs. Its about traditions, and, the longest lasting tradition in all societies, is that marriage is between a man and a woman. You might not like it, and it might not fit in with your sleazy values, but, its about how societies function best when that tradition is valued and observed. Like I said, I have no problem with homosexual partnerships, but, its not tradition, and its not the value which has defined societies and civilizations. A society always goes downhill whenever the traditional values are corrupted. Now, when it comes to what republicans stand for, the real fact is that, most Americans, and most people in the world, believe like those republicans, where a marriage is between a man and a woman. So, it would seem that, the real nutcases are on your side of the aisle, and the dangerous idiots all reside on your side of the argument. "Second, marriage is not the problem!!! Sure, some homosexual couples would like to be married (that is, have their union sanctified in a church) - BUT, when that option is not available to them (although I don't see why they don't form a church to allow it), they DO have a right to the same EXTRANEOUS protections bestowed upon married couples, if they enter into a similar commitment." Oh, BUT, marriage is the problem, where many homosexuals would like to have their marriage accepted in the same way as a traditional marriage, but, that cant be, because, its not exactly the same. There are differences, even if you're not smart enough to recognize them. Also, I would not put barriers in the way of homosexual partnerships, and if people want to live that way, I say, let them. But, it's not like the traditional marriage contract between two people of opposite sexes. So, why is that so hard for you to understand? In reality, your problem is that, you're stuck with your liberal ideology, which wants to destroy societal values and the constitution, and destroy the American way of life. A society that trades its traditional values for the convenience of the few, is one that wont be around for long. That may sound harsh, but, its reality. "All over Europe homosexuals have been able to enter into registered partnerships, the equivalent of a municipally conducted marriage. It doesn't undermine anything, only lets homosexuals enjoy the same protections of property as do married couples. Marriage is not about religion, after all... it's not even about love. Marriage is about property. About inheritance." And, what has been happening all over Europe? Europe is going bust, and much of it is because of the abandonment of the values which made many of those countries great. It all matters, every little thing, and when the liberal values took over, the deterioration of the continent was bound to happen. So, you can keep your European values in Europe. It might be too late for the U.S. too, because, we've been adopting some of that corrupting influence and behaviors. You might want to make marriage about property and about inheritance, but, marriage is much bigger than the monetary values that come with it. So, in your definition, it's about what can be gained by partnering up with someone, but, marriage is more about love and dedication to one another and a commitment for life, and what society has to gain from that kind of commitment and the values that are passed down to the rest of society. I believe that people should be happy in their relationships, and that includes homosexual partnerships, but, as a whole, societies and civilizations thrive more with the traditional marriage, which is between a man and a woman. "Always has been, even before Jesus or Moses were even born." Garbage! Nonsense! There have been too many instances in society and civilizations where, a marriage is more about love and children than about property and inheritance. In fact, where love rules, the monetary value of their possessions is irrelevant. Moses and Jesus were religious figures, but, even before them, the traditional marriage was understood to be between a man and a woman, and what religion basically did, was to codify or define that kind of marriage as the standard for the world. "A state has no right to deny a person the right to declare their companion their special inheritor. Least of all on bogus religious reasons dreamed up by some slavering conclave of self righteous bigots." The way I see it, government needs to stay out of peoples private lives, including marriage or partnership agreements. Let marriage stand as what people want it to be, and government doesn't need to interfere with definitions or acceptance of whatever one wants to call marriage. Let the people decide what kind of agreements they wish to make before marrying or getting into partnerships, and government's only role, after those agreements, is to apply the law in enforcement of those agreements, but, only to the extent where previous laws apply. Prenuptial agreements or pre-partnership agreements should be allowed, but, not forced. Government has no business in codifying what marriage roles should be, or how people should behave in those types of agreements. I believe in the values of the family and in the values represented in the traditional marriage. That is what has kept societies together and made for long-lasting civilizations. If you like what the Europeans are doing, then, either stay there or move there, but, don't try to change the world into your corrupt vision. "Screw that." Yeah! Screw that! And, screw your screwed-up vision of the world.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

First of all; how are the democrats forcing Rush to call ordinary women "sluts" for disagreeing with him? Do they have mind control lasers? You're damned straight the Dems are using it against the right, but they wouldn't have anything to use if the right didn't allow those nutcases free-reign. The Republicans can't have their nutcase-cake and eat it too; they use the nutcases to "energize" their biblethumping bigot powerbase, so they cannot shout foul when that lets their opponents energize theirs. Nobody is forcing Republicans to associate with dangerous idiots... except maybe nobody but dangerous idiots will vote for their sorry asses? Second, marriage is not the problem!!! Sure, some homosexual couples would like to be married (that is, have their union sanctified in a church) - BUT, when that option is not available to them (although I don't see why they don't form a church to allow it), they DO have a right to the same EXTRANEOUS protections bestowed upon married couples, if they enter into a similar commitment. All over Europe homosexuals have been able to enter into registered partnerships, the equivalent of a municipally conducted marriage. It doesn't undermine anything, only lets homosexuals enjoy the same protections of property as do married couples. Marriage is not about religion, after all... it's not even about love. Marriage is about property. About inheritance. Always has been, even before Jesus or Moses were even born. A state has no right to deny a person the right to declare their companion their special inheritor. Least of all on bogus religious reasons dreamed up by some slavering conclave of self righteous bigots. Screw that.

adornoe
adornoe

was a bi-partisan law, passed by both houses of congress and signed into law by Clinton. Thus, if anybody is to blame for the act, blame congress and the president at the time, and the people of the U.S., who, as polls indicated, still define marriage in the traditional sense, that being, "between a man and a woman". But, when it comes to the constitution, you still haven't defined any area of the document where republicans want to undo it or redefine it or destroy it. The defense of marriage act is like any other law that is passed that is not in violation of any part of the constitution. Defining marriage does not change or undo any part of the constitution, and it doesn't remove any rights to any group, including homosexuals. So, as always, you're wrong. But, keep digging, and perhaps you'll come up with something very obscure.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

that was against the Constitution; I told you. [i]You can't "legislate" what a society should be... ...There are so many issues that government should not be in the business of legislating against, and there are so many societal behaviors and customs that, no government should be in the business of legislating against. [/i] The social conservatives appear to disagree with you. cf: Defense of Marriage Act. I've already said that I don't think government should be involved other than to ensure [i][b][u]all[/u][/b][/i] Americans are not denied rights granted to others for any reason: that's my entire point. You say you believe the same thing, then you add a "but" to qualify, and even negate, what you say.

adornoe
adornoe

or how it's going to behave, and you certainly can't redefine the traditional marriage through legislation just to cater to a particular group of people over the vast majority of the people. Redefining what society should be is not what government is or should be about. Government should be about protecting the people, including the gays/homosexuals, but, marriage is a tool for society, which has been traditionally defined as between "a man and a woman", and, if "gay marriages" are to be accepted by society, then they won't be in the traditional sense, and a tradition cannot be legislated out of existence or out of preference. What you seem to be completely incapable of understanding is, that I don't care what people do with their private lives, and if they wish to create partnership agreements where they become committed to each other, then so be it; I won't get in their way, and neither will most conservatives/republicans. Live and let live. Traditional marriage is not what homosexual partnerships are about, and, if they do need to have equal rights for their partnerships that might be equal to the rights "under government" for traditional marriage, then, I have no problem with that either. But, legislation that legalizes homosexual marriage should be at a local level, and not something that the federal government should be intruding into; the constitution does not give the federal government any powers in that area. By keeping marriage legislation local, people have a choice about where they wish to live or where to move to after a particular segment of society or any region becomes "hostile" to the beliefs of those who disagree with "homosexual marriage". To me, homosexuals are "born" that way, and they should have all the same rights as any other group in society. But, marriage is a tradition in all societies and not something that can be legislated on. People cannot be forced to behave a certain way just because government wants to legislate on it, and it's not something that, will force people to change their beliefs/religion. The moral fiber of most stable societies have to do with the stability offered by the traditional marriage, that being between a man and a woman. A traditional marriage is capable of procreating and bringing into society the new generations which keep such societies blossoming, but, you could not say the same with homosexual marriage, even if they could demonstrate the same capabilities to love and raise children. There are so many issues that government should not be in the business of legislating against, and there are so many societal behaviors and customs that, no government should be in the business of legislating against. So, when it comes to you "trying to help me", it's actually you that needs a lesson on humanity and societal behavior. It's you that is clueless about what humans are about. Legislation cannot change how humans were created, or how societies want to behave. Every time society is changed through government edict, that society begins the road towards extinction.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

The immediate descent into personal attack in your post indicates you have no idea how to respond. Here are some hints: 1. Marriage is a religious institution that has been granted legal status with very favorable treatment under law. The favorable treatment includes tax breaks, automatic power of attorney in most situations, waiver or acceleration of probate, and many other benefits not accorded to those merely cohabiting. 2. If two consenting adults wish to formalize their relationship through marriage to gain these benefits, they should be allowed to do so. 3. To deny a couple the ability to formalize their relationship through marriage solely because the partners are of the same gender is to deny them benefits available to others and absolutely contradictory to the concept of equal protection under the law enshrined in the Constitution.

adornoe
adornoe

much less anything I say. "Homosexuals can do anything they want as long as they don't have equality under the law." Apparently, you don't have the capacity to understand the written language, and, even if you went back to re-read what it is that I wrote, you'd still have a hard time understanding it. But, perhaps if you recruit a kindergartener, he'll be able to explain it to you. "And you've just answered your own question about what conservatives are doing to destroy the Constitution: denying equality to every American. " Bull-droppings! I'm a conservative, mostly because it is that side of politics that is most concerned about protecting and preserving our constitution. I used to be in a political party which is mostly concerned about destroying that same constitution, and that democratic party is essentially using the same tactics as the old communist party in the old USSR in order to restructure the U.S. and destroy the constitution. But, fools like you will never understand how it is that you are being so easily duped. But, just like most ignorant and misinformed people in societies, you insist on remaining in denial.

adornoe
adornoe

democrats who constantly use race and religion to pit groups against one another in order to win political advantage for the party. It happens every election, and it happens at all levels. Take note about how the Trayvon Martin case has been turned into a race issue, instead of a case of about an overzealous cop-wannabe. When it comes to religion, if it weren't for the democrats trying to constantly remove religion from society, nobody, not even the republicans, would ever show any concern about it. So, use your head for a change, and start thinking about, why do democrats need to twist matters into issues relating to race and religion and homophobia? When republicans get involved in such cases, it's because the democrats have twisted the issues and lied about them in order to gain favor from a particular group or another. So, again, you fail to use your head and you blame the one group that is trying to defend against the real racists in society, those being the race-baiting democrats, and you fail to understand that, democrats also need to demonize people of religion in order to try to win favor with people who are not of a particular religion. So, do try to use your head for a change. It'll do society a lot of good to start noticing the real evil in our midst, that being the liberals who need to spin and twist and lie about the issues in order to stand any chance at winning over the ignorant voters.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Convince your Republican suckpoppets to disarm the Democrats by [b]no longer attacking people for reasons of Race, Gender or Sexual Orientation[/b], after all, we all know they're just doing it to suck up to the religious fringe.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Homosexuals can do anything they want as long as they don't have equality under the law. And you've just answered your own question about what conservatives are doing to destroy the Constitution: denying equality to every American.

adornoe
adornoe

Nowhere in what I wrote previously, did I even hint at telling anyone who they should or should not marry. What I did say is that, what conservatives do want to protect, is the traditional marriage, which is the union between a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage is not the tradition, for any society. Now, even as a conservative, I wouldn't propose going around telling people how they should live their private lives. If homosexuals want to have their own type of union, where same sex couples are honored as "partnerships", then I have no problem with it. In fact, if they want to call it a "marriage", I have no problem with that either. But, it in no way will be seen as a "traditional marriage", which is reserved for a union of opposite sex members. Do. You. Understand. Me, Now. ?????? However, my point is still unanswered about how conservatives are doing anything to destroy the constitution, whereas, I pointed to a couple of instances where democrats want to undo or destroy the constitution and our rights. Religion is a settled matter, and conservatives are not proposing to change any part of the constitution, and, specifically, they're not about to change the part where government is forbidden from proposing an official religion. What conservatives do want to do, is to protect the freedom of religion. Homosexual "marriages" is not, and should not, be a religious issue. Can. You. Hear. Me. Now????

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

The Constitution as written and ratified, including the first ten amendments, was a compromise. (I know this word is not in your vocabulary...look it up.) Pity the ideologues on both sides haven't got the smarts to see it or the nads to admit it.

adornoe
adornoe

Where the heck did you get that misrepresentation from reading anything I stated? Nobody should be so dense! What the democrats are very good at, is using race and homosexuality to demonize any other group in order to pretend to be the defenders of those "victimized" groups, and thus, win their votes. It's all about creating the perception that, democrats are looking out for those "minority victims", while in reality, they're just trying to implement an agenda for socialism, but, like the good old communist regimes of the past and present, democrats understand that, they need to do whatever it takes in order to get people voting for them, including lying and cheating and stealing elections. So, in essence, the devil does reside in the ranks of democratic party leaders. Now, when it comes to religion, where the heck did I mention that, any of my arguments are based on any religious beliefs? Again, you don't understand what you're reading, or you're making it up as you go. Nowhere did I mention being religious, and nowhere did my approach to any of my arguments are based on any religious beliefs. Now, go back and read what I posted, and tell me where my religious beliefs enter into my arguments. The only thing that I do believe is that, the constitution forbids the government from establishing an official religion, and that, that restriction does not forbid people in or out of government from having religious beliefs. The restriction on government when it comes to religion, is not about separating government from religion, and it's not about "freedom from religion"; it's about "freedom of religion", with no government interference about which religion any government or political party would prefer. Myself, I don't care one way or the other. I'm not really that religious, although I do believe that there is a design to life and the universe. Now, please try to get your reading comprehension abilities engaged when you do read my posts, or anything else, for that matter.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

You. Don't. Have. The. Right. To. Tell. Somebody. Who. They. Can. Or. Cannot. Marry. Neither do I, neither does anybody. You don't seem capable of understanding this basic truth. For every right you have, you have a corresponding responsibility to exercise that right in a manner that does not infringe on the rights of anybody else. The one right you [u]don't[/u] have is the right to not be offended.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

What are they, the Devil? Oh wait, that would make the thin veneer of "tradition" on your religiously founded argument fall clean off.

adornoe
adornoe

Marriage is not a religious issue. It's a societal issue. Republicans would not be institutionalizing any kind of religion into the constitution by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Many people might wish to have their marriage blessed by some kind of religion, but, the act of marriage in a society, is about a commitment between two people, and the traditional marriage has been between a man and a woman, in all societies, until the last few decades, where liberals and progressives have wanted to redefine the traditional commitment of marriage. The biggest reasons for republicans wanting to create a constitutional amendment is for the purpose of preventing the democrats from destroying the traditional definition of marriage, and thus, it's he democrats who are forcing the issue on republicans. I personally have no problem with homosexuals making partnership commitments, but, when it comes to the traditional definition of marriage, and the repercussions that would come from destroying that definition, then I would be opposed to a state sanctioned same sex marriage. However, what part of the constitution would be destroyed by introducing an amendment, which doesn't kill any part of the constitution or any of the currently existing amendments? Remember that, democrats want to kill the constitution, even if little by little, one amendment at a time. So, again, which part of the constitution would be destroyed by a marriage amendment that republicans want? The separation of church and state would not be affected, and the only effect would be a standardized definition of marriage, which has nothing to do with government interfering with people's religious beliefs. It may be religious to some, but the amendment doesn't have to include religious beliefs in any of the wording. Me personally, I'm not in favor of any amendment to codify the definition of marriage. Let people live their own lives, and let them commit as they wish to partnerships or to marriage, but, get the effing government out of our personal lives. Marriage is not something that government should even be involved in at the federal level, and if involvement of any kind is merited, let it happen at the state and local levels. At least with the state levels, if people have a problem with the local laws, they have a choice for moving to other states which might be more suitable for their lifestyles. Codifying anything at the federal level removes all choices. That's my biggest argument, the one about choices. And that's the argument that democrats make in the other direction, where they'd like to remove the choices that people can make. There is reason that the founding fathers gave limited powers to the federal government, and the overreaching that's being done currently is precisely what those founding fathers wanted to avoid.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

The conservative push for Constitutional amendments to define marriage as between a man and a woman and to ban abortion are both based in religious dogma. The hypocrisy of people complaining about the government interfering in religion on the one hand and trying to push their religious views into the Constitution on the other hand is amazing.

adornoe
adornoe

fathers, and let's just concentrate on the meaning of the constitution. Let the constitution stand as written, because, there will always be different interpretations, mostly based on the particular agenda and ideology of those doing the interpretation. As it stands, the court system is about judging cases based on the constitution, as written, and not as some judge wants to change it to suit his determination for a case. Now, you mention that, both conservatives and liberals want to change the constitution, and that it's not just liberals. I mentioned specific areas of the constitution that democrats have been trying to change or redefine or completely eradicate from the constitution, such as "the right to bear arms". Now, why don't you present a clear case where conservatives want to undo the constitution, or to eradicate any part of it. The fact is that, it's not the same on both sides. So, present your argument that makes both sides equal as far as the constitution. Remember that, I'm talking about conservatives, and not about "republicans" in general, where many of them are basically liberals in republicans pinstripes, or RINOS.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

If you did, you didn't comprehend. I'm not calling you for hypocrisy because you quoted one of the founders. I'm calling you for hypocrisy because you took me to task for quoting one of the founders to make my point [u]after you quoted one of the founders to make your point[/u]. So, why is it okay for you to cite the founders, but not for me to do the same? Were you one of those kids who always changed the rules to be in his favor because he was afraid he would lose if he didn't? [i]The one sure thing is that, there are people in the country who don't like the constitution, and until they can do away with it, they will try to dilute its purpose and make it as ineffective as possible.[/i] You are absolutely correct. But you then go on to blame only liberals and progressives, while ignoring the actions of the conservatives and reactionaries who are also trying to dilute the Constitution. You're like a soldier, defending a position, who shoots every opposing soldier he sees, but ignores the tank escorting them.

adornoe
adornoe

in your arguments. You are chastising me for quoting a founding father's thoughts on the welfare clause, and then you cited "your own" choice for a founding father with a slightly different interpretation. Then, you're going to tell me I'm being hypocritical for using "a founding father" that had a different interpretation from "your founding father"? In the end, and like I said, it's preferable to use the constitution as written, and to not dilute the meaning of that constitution with a thousand different interpretations, because, the end result will be a constitution which serves nobody, if decisions are based on the particular interpretation of the day by the person making the judgment that day. Might as well not have a constitution, since, with every decision, and every interpretation, the people end up with no clarity, and with a constitution which can easily be bent to mean what the agenda of the day requires. Nuts! Neither you nor I will ever understand, without any doubts, exactly what the founding fathers had in mind, or which one had the best interpretations for what was written. The same applies to any judges, at any level, including the Supreme Court. Nowadays, decisions are based mostly on the particular ideology of the person making the judgments, with liberals making decisions based on their progressive beliefs, and conservatives making decisions based on their beliefs. Having said that, the one group which does tend to honor the original constitution, as written, are the conservatives, and liberals are mostly about "changing" the constitution, either by reinterpreting to suit their beliefs, or wanting to destroy as much of the constitution as it exists. For example, which group is it that wants to do away with the "right to bear arms"? Which group is it that has wanted to change the intent behind the "separation of church and state"? Separation of church and state had nothing to do with "no religion in government", it had to do with "no official religion" being chosen and/or forced on the people. Yet, we keep hearing all kinds of interpretations on that part of the constitution and others. The one sure thing is that, there are people in the country who don't like the constitution, and until they can do away with it, they will try to dilute its purpose and make it as ineffective as possible. That's what the liberals and progressives are about, and many of them have stated that emphatically, including Obama.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

You further make my point... http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-388970-3652761 There is no discussion, there is no doubt. Your reading (i.e. [u]interpretation[/u]) of the Constitution is the only possible interpretation because it is yours. You don't see the hypocrisy in citing one of the Founders to justify your point, then castigating me for trying to interpret the Constitution my way when I cite a different founder contradicting your point. You return to the same old, tired "what the Founders really meant" mantra even in the face of evidence that the Founders were no more united in their interpretation of the Constitution than we are today. Can you actually think, or are you a just a right-wing bobblehead?

adornoe
adornoe

of the constitution, and then, you end up with many different interpretations, and each person along the way selecting the interpretation which best suits his/her agenda. Might as well not have a constitution then, because, a constitution constitution will be rendered "not usable", because, depending upon who's in power next time, the laws, rules, regulations, and rights that were in place, might have to be changed all over again, because, somebody has new and "better" interpretation to the words in the constitution. Rather than re-interpreting in order to retrofit an agenda, why not take the constitution as written, and to then take the original intents of the founding fathers as the reasons and guiding light for what was written as the constitution? The purpose of the Supreme Court is NOT to interpret the constitution. It's purpose is to follow the constitution, and to judge all cases that come before it according to the law of the land, that being the constitution. If the constitution is allowed re-interpretation every time a case comes before it, then that constitution is too flexible to serve as a guide for governance or for the law. The general welfare clause was never intended to allow the federal government to create new levels of government to "take care of the citizenry", and it was meant to take care of the "general" welfare of the country, meaning that, on an individual and group basis, it was/is intended that, the people will take care of themselves and their own problems. The constitution was written to get away from the problems which become institutionalized through big government, like the kinds that could be found in Europe and which the founding fathers understood quite well. So, why would they insert a clause in the constitution which would bring back the kind of government which they were trying to get away from? The real intent of the constitution is best interpreted through the separation of powers between the federal government and the states, where the constitution states that, whatever power is not "specifically" given to the national government, automatically belongs to the states and the people. The general welfare clause and the commerce clause, were reinterpreted by those in favor of big government to mean, that, the federal government had the right to supersede any powers that the states were given by the constitution. Yet, the constitution specifically made clear that, the states had the bigger authority, and the federal was in charge of defense and the "general" welfare of the states, which had nothing at all to do with creating new layers of government to take care of the "general needs of the citizens". The needs of the citizens were supposed to be addressed at the local levels. So, if you are right, and the big government liberal are right, then we essentially, have no constitution, and it might as well be completely scrapped. In fact, that is the real intention of the liberals and progressives, to make the constitution so ineffective that, it doesn't really matter. That was quite evident during the discussions and passage of Obamacare back in 2009. The constitution didn't matter to the democrats, and Obamacare was shoved down our throats. The people were not listened to, and the constitution was not even considered. Now, we have a case in the Supreme Court, which is a huge test about that constitution, even if the case is about nationalized health care. We'll see, but, I don't have too much hope for the constitution surviving a few more decades, even if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional. The eternal march to create ever bigger government, has diluted the constitution and our freedoms. In time, it won't matter any more, and, at that time, we wont recognize the U.S.A. anymore, and the dreams of the founding fathers will have died 200+ years after they did.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

And raise you a Hamilton: The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, [u]the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive[/u], than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. [u]The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition[/u]. ([u]my emphasis[/u]) The Founders were not a monolithic bloc who all agreed on everything in the Constitution. For every quote that makes a point in support of one interpretation of the Constitution, there is no doubt another quote in support of a different interpretation. [b]The purpose of the Supreme Court is to make those interpretations[/b].

adornoe
adornoe

You mention the Supreme Courts' interpretation, which, depending upon who the people are in the court at the moment, that interpretation could change. It's a fluctuating document, and it fluctuates on the opinions of the majority at the moment. That's a bastardization of the original intent of the constitution. I gave you the original intent, from one of the founding fathers, and you give me an "interpretation", instead of what the original founding fathers intended. Jefferson would know better than any of the Supreme Court justices what he and the others meant in the constitution. I'll go with what one of the original authors meant, instead of what certain justices would prefer to have as an interpretation. So, when it comes to Jefferson vs the interpretation by the supremes, I'll go with Jefferson every time. The problem with the constitution is that, we the people have allowed it to be destroyed through interpretation and re-interpretation, and after a while, people have come to "accept" a bastardized version of "what the founding fathers intended". But, those interpretations are often, nowhere near the original intents of the document. We have people such as Obama telling us that, the constitution is highly unfair to minorities and other groups. What he is, is an anti-constitution advocate. He'd like to destroy it and start all over again with a "new" constitution, and one that would fit the ideology of the liberals and progressives. To that end, they've been very effective, and they didn't really need to rewrite the constitution; all they did was to come up with a whole new interpretation of what was intended, and so, we ended up with a document which is quite irrelevant to many issues in our lives. However, the real intent of the liberals is to get rid of the constitution and to install a completely new document which embeds their ideology into the new document and which guarantees that, big government will be the one true power, and that the people will be subservient, and the states will follow the one and only constitution, with no states rights to create their own constitutions, and, where all decisions flow from the national government down to the lowest levels of governance. The original intent was to create a weak federal government, with the bulk of real power left to the people and the states. The liberals hate the original constitution because of the stipulation of a weak federal government, and they want to turn the whole thing upside-down, and that's why, we have liberals in government and in the court systems getting their way with "re-interpretation" of the constitution. The fact is that, no liberal should be allowed to "interpret" or "re-interpret" the constitution, because, we'll end up with a complete redefinition of the constitution. That redefinition will create an all-powerful government with no guarantees of the rights that people have enjoyed for more than 200 years, and the separation of powers, where the states had their own rights and power levels, won't exist anymore. The problem with liberals such as you is, that you fail to consider history and the reality on the ground, and the repercussions of government actions. And, hey, I don't complain about the U.S. losing influence around the world. The way I see it, there have been far too many countries and peoples who have become far too dependent upon that American influence, and that American support, and that American protection. A lot of Europe, for example, decided that, they didn't really need to support their own military when the U.S. was their defense umbrella, and so, they spend very little on their own military forces. But, the fact is that, when the U.S. pulls out from their areas of current influence, there will be more conflicts and more wars and far less freedom in many of those countries. But, no matter, we can just bury our collective heads in the ground and pretend that, it doesn't affect us, and it's none of our business. And then, you finally admit that, we don't need a Department of Education. It's been a waste of money and resources, and in fact, counterproductive, where the results of bigger government and bigger spending has, in reality, ended up creating a dumbed-down citizenship, where our H.S. graduation rate is a national disgraced, and even many of those that do graduate can't even cope with the every challenges of life and work. And, no, we don't need for a national curriculum, set up by a national centralized government. That's pretty stupid. If we don't need a department of education, then we don't need for them to get involved in any way. Let the states and local jurisdictions decide on what's best for their respective populations. Those kind of decisions are always best defined at local levels. Defining a curriculum at a local level, doesn't mean that, the curriculum will be drastically different between the states or localities. Most people have enough common sense to be able to determine what needs to be taught/learned in all areas of the country, and many of the subjects aren't going to be drastically different just because, people live in different geographical locations. You need to get real, and start using some common sense. The only idiotic opinion I can spot, between you and me, is yours. Because, you fail to use common sense when making any kind of judgment or statements. The federal government was intended to have very limited powers. One of those limitations was to "not interfere" in the powers of the state and local governments, and education was left to the states. The only reason liberals want to insert their controls over education, is for control of the message, which starts at the elementary school level, through indoctrination. Indoctrination includes keeping the people ignorant and misinformed about public policy, and to get that done, it's best to start when the people are young and easily influenced and ignorant. So, no thanks. Keep big government off our backs, and that includes "education". In fact, education is one of the most important rights that people have, and to have government control it, would be the same as having government indoctrination. At least at the local and state levels, if an education system doesn't work for some people, they will still have a choice to move to a better education district. That wouldn't be the case with a national education policy or curriculum. So, again, take your socialism, and move to where you can be more pleased with it. Hey, have you heard of Venezuela, or Cuba, or North Korea. They have the kind of big government which you think "the people need".

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

On the applicability of the Welfare Clause, you quoted a letter from Jefferson; I quoted the Supreme Court. The latter takes precedence; as much as you go on about the Constitution, you are no doubt aware of that. You are also no doubt aware that, no matter how much you would like it otherwise, that decision is the current law of the land under our Constitutional form of government and not likely to change in the near future. Second, I fail to understand how you can complain about the United States losing economic influence in the world, then come out in favor of government actions (inaction, more accurately) that would hasten that decline. The United States is the only industrialized nation without national curriculum standards for a education...and it shows. Yes, education should be managed at the local level, and no, we don't need the Education Department. What we do need is a standard curriculum, set at the national level, and for all—ALL—students to have access to the opportunity to achieve under that curriculum. What this means is that students in BF Alabama, Watts, and Harlem are entitled to the same quality of education as students in West Palm Beach, Beverly Hills, or Westchester. You will no doubt see that as undue federal interference in education, but you are entitled to that (flamingly idiotic) opinion.

adornoe
adornoe

rest of the points. Okay, my bad for the flub about the "welfare clause" vs the "commerce clause". Now, when it comes to food and education, nothing changes just because transportation has changed and boom in interstate trade has occurred. In fact, those items still have no reason at all to be managed at the federal level, and they can be managed quite easily and more effectively at the local level, where the most minute of transaction details are best handled. Larger government just creates bigger messes, and more costly ones at that. Anybody can think up excuses for having the feds take over certain local functions, but, they're still very ill-advised, and intrusive. Things that can be handled best at the local levels, should be left there. Besides, the constitution did not grant that kind of power to the federal government, and it's a states' rights issue. We can easily do away with the education department at the federal level, and things would, no doubt improve. The founding fathers knew from the beginning that, part of interstate trade would involve food, and they provided for that with the commerce clause for regulations and promotion of trade. Other than that, the feds have no reason to intervene. Thomas Jefferson's explanation for the purpose of the "general welfare", is in stark contrast to the direction which the country has taken: "Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: ???[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.??? " In other words, taxes were to be levied to pay for the general welfare of "the union", and not for specific programs or for pet projects by any congressperson or executive at the federal level. Notice that Jefferson said: "only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union", which means to pay the country's debts and to provide for the welfare of "the union", not the welfare of the states or of the people. Jefferson and the other founding fathers understood that, going beyond the duties assigned to the federal government, would unnecessarily create a bigger and intrusive government, and they were trying to avoid creating such a monster. Unfortunately, we have been going against the guiding hands of the founding fathers, and the monster exists now, and we're stuck with destructive government. We can have the best education system in the world, and the best food growing and distribution system in the world. In fact, we had the best education system in the world before the "education department" was created, and things have been going downhill ever since that department was created. Education is a local function, and it's still a large operation at a state level. No need to complicate matters by creating a much bigger and intrusive level above the states. The only reason we have so many federal government agencies, is because there have always been big government advocates, who believed that, the more people became dependent upon government, the more people would come to depend upon the political party which created those government agencies and services. But, the vast majority of those departments and services are unnecessary at the federal level, and many of them aren't even necessary at the state levels. That we get our food from all areas of the country is irrelevant to the discussion about which government level has jurisdiction. The only thing that the federal government should be involved in, is to insure that commerce is flowing smoothly between the states; other than that, it's a states and local matter. In fact, a lot of goods and services are consumed in the same state that it's produced, so, the commerce clause is irrelevant to those situations. Again, what you're doing is looking for excuses to involve the federal government, where they actually should have minimal involvement, it any at all. And, finally, you come back to the question of what constitutes "intrusive government". To me, a government is intrusive if it gets involved in influencing the everyday decisions that people make in their lives. No matter where the decision is made or by whom, if it gets government involved, then it's intrusive. It it's coming from a republican, then that's not a true conservative. If it's from a liberal or democrat, well, it's to be expected. Now, when it comes to reproductive issues, the only intervention that most conservatives talk about, is the issue of abortions, where most or all conservatives believe that, it constitutes the ending of a human life. I believe it's ending a human life, because, if that "baby" is allowed to continue it's development in the womb, it will emerge as a fully recognizable human being. The only thing it needs is the nutrition that comes from the womb, but, it's a full human being, with the blueprint of a full human having been imprinted at conception; so, even if it looks different at "conception" and beyond, until birth, it is a full human being, with the DNA unchanging from then on until death at old age. And, you are a big government advocate. Your statements all over the place demonstrate that fact. Different departments for education and transportation and for food and health issues, are the biggest indicators of a big government advocate. It's socialism, even if you can't recognize it, and even if you can't admit to yourself that you favor big government.

adornoe
adornoe

You gotta be kidding!!! Salon is, no doubt, one of the biggest media sources with no credibility whatsoever, so, when it comes to voter fraud, their credibility is even lower than what could be encountered in the old Pravda/USSR days when it comes to lying to the people and keeping them uninformed. In fact, as liberal and progressive as Salon is, they would be the first to deny that voter fraud exists, because, they have an agenda which they wish to advance, and that agenda requires as much voter fraud as possible in order to get voters and non-voters and non-existent and dead voters, voting their way. Nobody can deny that voter fraud exists, and it exists during the registration process, and during the primaries and during the general election cycle. Democrats depend on it in order to win elections, and without that vote fraud, chances are that, they'd lose most elections. So, they need to cheat in order to have any kind of influence in government and in getting their agenda into becoming public policy. So, why would the U.S. attorney general try to block a voter ID law in Texas? Texas is one of the key states for the democrats' voter fraud, and they don't want to lose that "advantage". They could be voted completely out of Texas governance, if that voter fraud didn't exist. So, they need to block all initiatives towards "fraud free" voting. Now, go back and do better research, because, it's everywhere and affecting most elections. And, the biggest beneficiaries of that fraud are the democrats, and, Salon is nothing more than a left-wing media mouthpiece for liberals and democrats. Try harder next time.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Food and education were local functions. The ease of travel and the boom in interstate commerce have changed that. [i]The welfare clause was for the promotion and regulation of trade between the states and foreign governments. [/i] No, that's the commerce clause. The General Welfare clause is commonly held to allow Congress to lay taxes and initiate spending: "The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution." [i]United States vs. Butler[/i] Is it not to the general welfare of the United States to have a top-notch education system? Is it not to the general welfare of the United States that the population be healthy and able to work? In the case of food safety, both the commerce and welfare clauses apply. The food you eat no longer grows in your back yard or on your neighbor's farm as it did two centuries ago, it comes from all over the country. Vegetables from California, Washington, Idaho, Oregon. Meat from Kansas, the Carolinas, Texas, Arkansas. Fruit from Florida, California, Georgia, New York. Bananas from South America. Whatever from wherever. To get to you, all of this has to cross state lines, which makes it interstate commerce and subject to federal regulation. Finally, that quote ("conservatives are ... about government that respects our freedoms, and is not as intrusive as it has become.") was taken from YOUR post. What I was calling into question was not the need for less-intrusive government, but your assertion that conservatives believe in less-intrusive government. You didn't even read enough to determine that I don't believe government at any level should be making those decisions, but automagically assumed that I am in favor of intrusive government. So again, in the face of all those hypocritical laws intruding on women's reproductive decisions and health matters, how can you state with a straight face that conservatives believe in less-intrusive government?

adornoe
adornoe

a "dumbass", as you tagged yourself. "Since I'm such a dumbass and you're the genius" It doesn't take a genius to recognize some simple facts related to the issues. It's just that, there are so many "dumbasses" that don't have the common sense to recognize those simple facts. "Please explain to me how police and fire services, public highways, and food safety are appropriate under the General Welfare clause of the Constitution and public health and public education aren't." First off, you "not-so-smart-donkey", the constitution is a "national" document, or a set of rules designed for governance on a national level. And, the welfare clause is part of that national document, and it's not relevant to how local governments do business. Thus, the states and other local jurisdictions are the definers of the local services needed, such as police departments and fire departments and local justice systems, and water and sewer and road service/repair. Those are "micro" level services, and it's not the business of the federal government to get involved in, unless a national law is violated during the administration of those services, or people's rights are violated. Beyond that, the federal government has no business getting involved. One of the state and local services, is education, and it's not part of the federal government's assigned powers, and, if you'd bother to read the constitution, it says that, any power not directly granted to the federal government, belongs to the states. Nice, huh! Education is "assigned" to the states, not directly, but by the definition in the constitution. In the same way, food and health issues are local or state duties, and as such, it's not the business of the federal government either. The problem with food and health issues, is that, the federal government has usurped power from the states, through the "reinterpretation" of the welfare clause, which clause was not intended for the government to dictate how business would be transacted. The welfare clause was for the promotion and regulation of trade between the states and foreign governments. That doesn't speak about taking control of the health management of the population, nor of making sure that people have enough to eat. Those, again, are state and local issues, and it's the people who are supposed to manage their health issues and their food supply. So, again, it's about how the federal government has overstepped its bounds and become so powerful and intrusive in every aspect of our lives. "I've got a 25-year-old Scotch says you can't do it without using "liberal", "socialist", "socialism", or "unconstitutional." " Go ahead and drink the scotch by yourself. I don't drink. However, your question is, again, pretty dumb, because, one cannot address government issues without using the constitution and the ideologies involved. Nice try, but dumb. "conservatives are ... about government that respects our freedoms, and is not as intrusive as it has become." If you believe otherwise, then you are a socialist. "You're kidding, right? Not a Republican-dominated state legislature has failed to introduce bills that deny women access to reproductive services, that inhibit or deny access to birth control, or that stigmatize people because of who they love." Look, you "not-too-bright-donkey", those are, again, issues which are personal and not the jurisdiction of governments. No government should be involved in the medical and personal decisions between a person and his/her doctor. Government should never have been in the business of contraception. That's a personal issue and not one for government to decide on, especially not for using other people's money to pay for "birth control" and abortions. That is another area where government has invaded people's privacy and has become very intrusive. Let the people decide, and let the people resolve their own issues. While attempting to solve those private issues, the people have lost more of their freedoms and their privacy is being invaded as government gets more involved. Get the effing government out of our lives! We only need the basic services that government provides, and not the invasive types that have come into existence for a few decades now. "There's even that idiot in Georgia who wants to require women to carry known-dead fetuses to full term, regardless of the health effects on the mother. How can anybody with anything remotely resembling a sense of either shame or integrity complain about intrusive government in one breath and introduce legislation like this in the next?" I'm not familiar with the Georgia case, but, you again, would use the worst case scenario to justify the heavy government intrusion into our lives. It makes no sense. Like I said, I don't know about the Georgia case, but, I highly doubt that, the case is exactly as you describe, and there must be more to that case than the simple insanity of the governor getting involved in a "dead fetus" case. If it is like you describe, then I too would be very upset with the governor. But, I keep going back to my general belief that, pregnancy and contraception is a personal matter and government should stay the eff out of that personal issue. It doesn't matter if it's a local official or a national official getting involved; it's all just as invasive. BTW, did you notice that, when it comes to the privacy and freedoms of the individual, that, my arguments always end up protecting the individual, while, on your side, you always end up on the government side. Now, which side seems to be more on the side of the individual and which side comes across as government advocates. Apparently, you don't recognize that, having heavy government involvement, is the same as "socialism". Don't get me wrong, we still need certain government services, but not at the individual level. And big government and invasive government, are the enemies of our rights and freedoms.

Fairbs
Fairbs

More generally, there seems to be little statistical basis for the Republican fixation on voter fraud. The few studies that have been done show fraud to be insignificant to the outcome of elections; it has been measured at levels as low as .0004 percent (PDF) of all ballots cast. Loraine Minnite, an assistant professor of political science at Barnard College, conducted a study of elections from 1992 to 2002 for Demos, a London- and New York-based public-policy think tank. Her analysis of the numbers showed that ???the incidence of election fraud in the United States is low and that fraud has had a minimal impact on electoral outcomes.??? A 2006 report from the United States Election Assistance Commission, an independent agency created by Congress to ???[conduct] research on election administration issues,??? calls Minnite???s study the ???most systematic look at fraud??? (PDF). See links from source (they didn't transfer)... http://www.salon.com/2008/04/28/scotus_2/ When it's shown that voter fraud is minimal, then your claim that dem/lib/progressives (or whoever you're ranting about) are opposed to voter ID to increase fraud is logically flawed. And you can then make an argument that efforts to make it more difficult to vote is an attempt to tamper with election results in the opposite manner (essentially rigging the election). I could also render many of your other opinions impotent and/or illogical from your rant a day ago, but it is quite clear that you're not able to incorporate documented information into your thinking.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Please explain to me how police and fire services, public highways, and food safety are appropriate under the General Welfare clause of the Constitution and public health and public education aren't. I've got a 25-year-old Scotch says you can't do it without using "liberal", "socialist", "socialism", or "unconstitutional." Added: [i]conservatives are ... about government that respects our freedoms, and is not as intrusive as it has become. [/i] You're kidding, right? Not a Republican-dominated state legislature has failed to introduce bills that deny women access to reproductive services, that inhibit or deny access to birth control, or that stigmatize people because of who they love. There's even that idiot in Georgia who wants to require women to carry known-dead fetuses to full term, regardless of the health effects on the mother. How can anybody with anything remotely resembling a sense of either shame or integrity complain about intrusive government in one breath and introduce legislation like this in the next?

adornoe
adornoe

about how any and all government services are about "socialism". A lot of government services are about services that would otherwise not be provided efficiently and effectively and cost-effectively by the private sector. A lot of those services are very common needs, and should not be open to private enterprise. Such things as police departments, fire departments, road service, court systems, are provided for under the constitution. However, there is nothing in the constitution preventing states and other local governments from creating their own set of laws to govern many of those services you mention. Do you understand that, there is a difference between local, state, and federal jurisdiction? The constitution was written to lay out the law for how the union of states would operate, and not to specifically dictate to the states how they would be governed. Understand that, at the state level, if a person doesn't like the laws of one state, or the services of that state, that he/she has the option to move elsewhere, where the laws and taxes and services are not as odorous. When it comes to federal law, there is no such option to take your "business" elsewhere; you are stuck. Remember that, conservatives are not about "no government". We are about "small government", and about government that doesn't infringe upon our constitutional rights, and about government that respects our freedoms, and is not as intrusive as it has become. A very high percentage of laws and regulations passed by congress in the last 100 years or so, are actually unconstitutional, and they've been allowed to take hold because of the judicial system which has also been bastardized by too many liberals in the courts. Now, since you brought it up, a lot of the agencies and services being provided by the federal government, are actually in violation of the constitution. At the local level, we might have constitutional violations too, but, they're not as egregious as at the federal level. As an example, voting laws are a state function, and the federal government cannot create laws in that area. Yet, the feds are trying to block local laws for some nebulous excuse about preventing minorities from exercising their right to vote. In the current case, it's about democrats wanting to keep the "right to commit voter fraud", because, they can't win elections without that fraud. It's not about protecting minority rights, or constitutional rights. But, again, it's about what's proper at the different government levels. Government at local level can do as much as they wish, as long as they don't violate the rights of the people, and don't co-opt a function of the federal government. So, to me, local services are a necessity, and I don't mind paying for them. Big government services are mostly redundant and a burden and intrusive. We don't need for the federal government to, for example, be dictating to a corporation where they will do business, how they will conduct business, who they will do business with, and who they will employ, what salaries will be paid to those employees, what benefits those businesses will have to provide, and whether they need to unionize or not. If a local government wants to create laws and regulations for businesses, I won't have as much a problem with that, but, they could be digging their own graves, because, corporations are always looking for ways to save money, and if a state is "anti-business", then that business could easily be lost to another state that has a more business friendly environment. So, it seems that, you again fail to understand the difference between needed government services, and intrusive and unnecessary government services. You keep thinking like a socialist, and you will always end up thinking wrong.

adornoe
adornoe

to understand. However, the topic of onshoring/offshoring/outsourcing, invariably always bring up the topic of unions, because, unions are part of the causes for many of our lost jobs to overseas labor. Here again, I'm having to explain the obvious to you. Oops! Wait! I guess things like that are not so obvious to people like you. Verbal diarrhea and carpal tunnel, in the same sentence. Leave it to a liberal to connect two completely unrelated subjects. But, like all liberal thought processes, it makes no sense.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Did you get where you are without any help? Did you use [u]anything[/u] provided by society (highways, schools, currency, etc.) in your advancement through life? Unless you did it all with no outside help from parents, teachers, or friends, and using no government resources whatsoever, your own specious logic makes YOU a 'socialist'.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

I'm trying to understand the thought processes that lead from a question about programmers to an anti-union rant. Or maybe, in light of the stream-of-consciousness verbal diarrhea that invariable follows such questions, I'm trying to get you to spend so much time on the keyboard you develop carpal tunnel...

adornoe
adornoe

productivity issue? Where you trying to challenge me, or were you too ignorant to find an answer for it by yourself? No matter. Good to be of help to you. Now you can move on with your life. ;)

adornoe
adornoe

a left-wing radical. It's not about you simply disagreeing with me. It's your ideology and your comments and words that give you away as a left-wing radical. Most left-wingers have to be idiots, because, they don't understand what the liberal and socialist ideals do to people and to societies. There are plenty of cases in history to demonstrate what the left-wing ideology does to countries, and yet, the idiots on the left want to repeat the same stupid mistakes of the past. You and I have gone around in circles many times, and you continue to defend the left's ideology every chance you get. You may say you're not a left-winger, but, from the point of view of anybody that understands socialism, what you espouse is socialism. The problem is that, there are millions, perhaps billions, that can't recognize socialism, even when they're already living it. It seems so "promising", yet, they don't understand that, it eventually turns into their worst nightmare; it just takes time. And, hey, the real world IS composed of many black and white situations. There is right and there is wrong. It's true that there are nuanced situations to everything. But, nuances can get many people into making bad decisions. BTW, haven't you taken notice that, there is a different side to every argument? I take the opposite side from you. And, there are at least 100 million like me in the U.S. alone. We are called conservatives and republicans, but, there are also many who call themselves libertarians and independents who believe like I do. Those people, along with me, compose the bigger majority of the people in the U.S. who are not of the liberal/progressive/socialist persuasions. There are plenty of things that I find fault with, but, I'm not disagreeable just for the sake of being disagreeable. For example, I disagree with liberalism, but, only because I too was a liberal at one time, and I understand the ideology quite well, and that's why I will always chastise anyone that I perceive to be as stupid as I used to be in my past. Life's lessons can direct people towards better understanding of the world, and of the consequences of making bad decisions. I just find it hard to understand how an adult could not understand the repercussions of liberalism and socialism. But, ultra left-wing ideologies won't allow for even the slightest straying from their "ideals", otherwise, they'll fail to keep control of those already counted in their ranks. As it stands in the U.S., only about 19% of people consider themselves to be "liberal", and yet, they seem to be setting most of the economic and social policies for the country. The only way they can get that kind of control, is by lying to the people, and so, they end up with more power in government, with about half of political offices being under democrat/liberal control. The only way they can attain such a great amount of power, is by lying to the people. And to me, people really have to be idiots to not see the clear manipulation that liberals need to do over people's minds in order to keep and attain power. For example, which party is it that needs to block voter ID in order to insure voter fraud, and which party has actually done it? Fraud occurs on all sides, but there is one party that is very dependent upon that fraud in order to have a chance at attaining that power. While blocking initiatives that would block voter fraud, that same party, will, at the same time, accuse the other of trying to "disenfranchise" the minority voter. The fact is that, it's the democrats who are counting on voter fraud to disenfranchise the real voters by nullifying their votes with many thousands and perhaps millions of illegally cast votes. And, there are just too many people who either don't care or don't understand how they're being cheated, during elections and after elections.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

That you consider anybody with the temerity to disagree with you a left-wing radical, at best misinformed, at worst an idiot. You have also made it quite clear that for anybody in your world to have an opinion different from yours is illogical or unintelligent. In short, you are incapable of considering that others may have valid viewpoints because, the minute they question your conclusions, you immediately classify them as leftist radicals. You don't appear to recognize that the real world does NOT readily accommodate the either/or choices to which you subscribe. Given how wrong you must think the rest of the world is, it's probably not possible for you to enjoy leisure time without finding fault with something. Pitiful...

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

You may have responded to my earlier posts, but if I'm still asking the question, it should be obvious that I don't see it as answered, no matter what you think you've done. [i]When it comes to productivity, an American programmer is not necessarily more productive than an Indian or Chinese programmer...[/i] That paragraph is the answer I was looking for. Programmers may take some issue with your categorization of their quality, though...

dba88
dba88

Consider also, very well funded lobbies in Washington, DC, that represent large American companies, large,wealthy and powerful Indian lobbies and lets not forget one of the biggest instigators and perpetuators of off shoring in the US... Immigration law lobbies!!

adornoe
adornoe

rants, all full of nonsense? And, for someone with "work to do", you sure do spend a lot of time reading and posting comments here. But don't worry. You won't be missed if you posted less or stopped posting. I'm sure the same would apply to me if I stopped posting. But, if I stopped posting, this whole forum would be composed of almost exclusive left-wing radical viewpoints, such as yours. ;)

adornoe
adornoe

or not, is irrelevant. In the U.S., we will, of course, insist on higher wages and better and more costly benefits. That's the nature of the beast in the U.S., where workers, in general, will expect to be paid better than Indian or Chinese labor, and corporations can expect to have to pony up a lot more dough for that labor. The cost of doing business and living in the U.S. are a lot higher than in those other countries. When it comes to the union where I worked, it's true that, I was not forced to join, but, I and all the others "were expected" to join, "or else". When the whole shop is unionized, you would feel very out of place and awkward working around the others who were union members. Whether union member or not, you were expected to follow union rules, and if you violated any of them, union member or not, you would suffer "some consequence", and for the non-union member, it could mean, being easier to 'become unemployed'. No one wanted to be working as non-union in a union shop, otherwise, your working environment would be less than hospitable. It's the same thing that happens now in a lot of union shops, where unions want to force all employees to join the union. As a union member, there were some protections which most members appreciated, which is, they couldn't get fired for being less productive than others, and in fact, in my department, there were 4 older programmers who had been with the company for more than 40 years, and the only reason that I could determine for them still being there, is the union protection, because, they couldn't be fired. Now, when it comes to programmers, there really isn't anything special about them in a union shop. You're just "as important" as the janitor or the cleaning woman. When it comes to productivity, an American programmer is not necessarily more productive than an Indian or Chinese programmer, and in some cases, the Indian/Chinese programmer might "have to be" more productive, because, he would be a lot easier to replace in a place where labor is over-abundant, with millions of people eager to take your place. Programming is a task that doesn't really require much more than average intelligence, and if average is the norm, then you can expect many millions of people in China and India and all around the world that would be just as capable as American programmers, but, not as demanding.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Including links, and showing that I don't think you've provided a valid answer to a single one of my questions, on any subject. But I've got work to do.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

There is no programmers' union in the US. Again, what do unions have to do with the question you were originally asked: "Is an American programmer more than four times more productive than an Indian programmer?" And the union shop and closed shop were outlawed by Taft-Hartley in 1947. You may have had to pay dues or fees to cover bargaining costs, but you were not forced by law to join the union.

adornoe
adornoe

since you don't want to believe that I actually worked in a union shop, with the specific conditions I mentioned, then I'll tell you who they were. The union was the newspaper guild, and the shop was the NY Daily News. And, the example about moving a chair or a table, was real. I was told by the supervisory staff that, if I were to do any of those on my own, that I could be subject to getting fired. I could not work under those conditions, and like I said, I left after 2 years. I haven't kept in touch with them since I left, and perhaps things are different now, but the union membership was mandatory and the conditions were as I described. Now, you are apparently living in a different world, where you believe that, unions are just demanding "fair pay and fair benefits". Bunk! Their demands have made running a business tough on management, and those demands have, in fact, made doing business more uncomfortable and more expensive. That is one of the reasons that we have a lot of offshoring/outsourcing. Now, if you don't mind those businesses that can't pay for "fair pay and benefits", then you are getting your wish, with many thousands of those businesses closing shop. BTW, there is nothing stopping you from boycotting products and services from those companies that use foreign labor. But, after a while, you have to start using your head about why things are as they are. You are failing to consider the repercussions of a company that has to pony up more in expenses because, they are doing business within our shores. Many companies can cope, but there are many more that saw no other option than to move operations and jobs overseas. Nick's question was answered, even if it was an asinine one to begin with.

adornoe
adornoe

There doesn't have to be a "programmers' union", per se. I was in a union shop, and everybody had to join the union, programmers and all others. A union shop is not just about certain types of jobs. A union shop often encompasses all of the non-management positions in a company.

Fairbs
Fairbs

Unionization tends to make labor more expensive because workers demand a fair wage and benefits. Unionization takes power away from owners. If owners can't make enough to pay fair wages and benefits then, in my opinion, they should go out of business (union or not). I don't believe your example of working in a union. The costs on the American continent reflect the true cost of making something (i.e. includes paying for externalities and a safe work place). We should be appalled at and boycott those companies that do business in places like Hong Kong where limbs are severed daily and the worker is tossed into the scrap heap. You still haven't answered Nick's question. You did use the moment to reiterate your already stated opinion, but you didn't actually add anything to the discussion you hijacked.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

or any other kind of IT union, for that matter, I'll ask again: What do unions have to do with the question you were originally asked?

adornoe
adornoe

But, since you asked, I'll try to fill you in... Unionization tends to make work more expensive, and lengthier to get done. Union labor is more demanding with higher salaries and bigger benefits. That's not always the case, but, corporations don't want to take chances on union labor, and that's why there is more offshoring/outsourcing than we'd have otherwise. Beside the more expensive union labor, there is also the control which union labor brings with it, where management has to consult with union officials and with government, to get anything done. As an example, I used to work in a union shop, and I was in the union myself (because I had no choice), and anything at all that could be classified as union work (which was virtually anything), I could not do on my own. As a programmer, I could not move a chair from one cubicle to another if I wanted that nicer or more comfortable chair. I had to get a union rep to approve the "work" and then have somebody else "qualified" to roll the chair to my cubicle. I found that insane, and I only stayed at that job for 2 years. But, basically, an American programmer might be worth more than an Indian programmer, but, production-wise, the output might not be that much more on the American side. Costs on the American continent automatically will be higher to do business in, and that is a huge negative, and therefore, it's not all about the costs of labor. What applies to IT is applicable on many other sectors where labor can be "moved" overseas. BTW, I too lost a couple of positions to overseas labor and to H1B workers. So, while I may begrudge the loss of jobs, I have to be understanding of the position of management and ownership of corporations. Many of them wouldn't even exist anymore if it were not for that foreign labor and overseas plants.