General discussion


Outsourcing and the presidential election

By jmottl ·
A political analyst states the following in a ZDNET article (link: ):
"It's safe to say that almost none of the really important Internet and technology issues will be debated during this campaign...In an attempt to shore up votes and campaign cash for the technology community, all the candidates will probably just play it safe and stick to bland platitudes and generalities about how 'technology is vital to the U.S. economy.' It's just a bunch of hot air."
What's your take?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Here's the news article link

by jmottl In reply to Outsourcing and the presi ...
Collapse -

Interesting read

by Oz_Media In reply to Here's the news article l ...

as the new candidates have not spoken publically on Canadian TV (other than little snippets etc.) I will refrain from offering opinion at this time (you're welcome).

One thing that made me chuckle was the suggestion of .xxx or .sex top level domains.

I suggested a .*** or .SEX domain about seven years ago when discussing Internet porn with some aquaintances. It would be SO easy to rid the net of porn sites, INSTANTLY. If you have a porn site on a .com, .tk or whatever, you're done, end of story, YOU CANNOT HAVE IT THERE. How easy is THAT!? then just turn around and create a filter blocking ALL access to .*** URL's, now you have stopped CHILDREN being subject to pornography.

I think I shared the idea here when discussing the WHITEHOWSE.COM vs WHITEHOUSE.COM names, one was a porn site, the other presidential (although in the Clinton term they could have been one and the same).

Oh well, I can't run for pres of the USA anyhow so I'll let the guy take the credit and wish him well in his campaign.

Good luck you guys, hope you do better this time around!

Collapse -

Safe Statement on any Topic

by Oldefar In reply to Outsourcing and the presi ...

The first goal of any politician is to be elected to office, and to take a hard stand on any issue is sure to alienate some portion of the voters. The exception is when the politician believes a particular stand represents a majority view of the voters.

A bigger concern is that issues of outsourcing, privacy, free speech, and government regulation get confused with technology. Technology itself is neutral.

Issues that won't be addressed but should be include the imbalance in compensation. As wages fell for the typical worker, executive pay soared. From 1989 to 2000, the wage of the typical (i.e., median) chief executive officer grew 79.0%, and average compensation grew 342%. In 1965, CEOs made 26 times more than a typical worker; this ratio had risen to 72-to-1 by 1989 and to 310-to-1 by 2000. The richest families continued to pull away from the pack over the decade: the income of the top 1% of taxpayers (including their realized capital gains) grew by 59% from 1995 to 1999 (the most recent available data of this type) while that of the bottom half grew by 9%. It was only in 1998 that the wage level for middle-wage workers (the median hourly wage) jumped above its 1979 level. The median male wage in 2000 was still below its 1979 level, even though productivity was 44.5% higher in 2000 than in 1979. One reason for this divergence is increased corporate profitability, which drove a wedge between productivity and compensation growth.

Coupled with this is the impact of outsourcing as it relates to stock values. The wealthiest 1% of all households control about 38% of national wealth, while the bottom 80% of households hold only 17%. The ownership of stocks is particularly unequal. The top 1% of stock owners hold almost half (47.7%) of all stocks, by value, while the bottom 80% own just 4.1% of total stock holdings.

These issues impact fundamental aspects of the American self-image, and require the type of serious introspection that never comes out in a political campaign.

Other issues include the surrender of personal responsibility to government agencies in the name of national security. While 9/11 was a tragedy, it is worth noting that the terrorists suffered a 25% failure rate, 100% once the threat was understood. With no government assistance, passengers stopped the fourth hijacked plane once they understood that the rules had changed and this was not a hostage type hijacking scenario.

Collapse -

Source of numbers

by Oldefar In reply to Safe Statement on any Top ...

The article can be found at
and the article is called "The State of Working America 2002-03".

Third and fourth paragraphs of my previous post are primarily direct out takes from the article. It is late and I forgot to give credit when I posted.

Collapse -

Oldefar I would imange that those numbers

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Source of numbers

Are about the same on this side of the pond. But we have a totally different Political situation here.

Currently we are in the mist of a State Erection whops that should have read Election but who cares anyway. Our current Queenlsand State Premier said the day before yesterday that for him to be like the leader of the Oppisition he would need a Full Labominty which he had to apoligise for latter but at least he got a lot of laughs at the time. We have a lot more colourful group of pollies over here even though they constantly push the PC line it appears that it only applies to the plebe's and not the pollies themselves as they just behave as normal like spoilt little kids who can not play nice in the same sandbox at preschool.

And some people wonder why I just dismiss all pollies!


Collapse -


by Oldefar In reply to Oldefar I would imange th ...

The article indicated US CEO were paid about 3 times that of CEO from other developed countries on average. No specifics by country, however.

We have our share of politicians who were more carictatures than men of character, and more image than substance. As for PC, I think its a pendulum. All a question of good taste, and that is still a regional perspective.

You are right about the sandbox. Problem is, I have to be in that same sandbox (like you, too old to expect emmigration to the moon or Mars) so I can't simply ignore them.

Besides, I come from a long line of windmill jousters. "I yam what I yam and dat's all dat I yam!"

Collapse -

Oldefar A long tiime ago and In a Galaxy far far away

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Windmills

I used to have to work with Government instutions and negotate contracts for their IT needs. Now I know this is not in the general topic of discussion but it was a nightmare for the first 2 years of negations and by that time you began to get suficentlyhigh enough up the ladder to start getting some sence. Then you would finish that contract and the very next job I was given was to start negations on thenext Government Contract so I had to start all over again knowing full well that by the time that the original proposal was even looked at by someone high enough up the totem pole it would be so far out of date as to be next to useless.

I got sick and tired of bashing my head against a brick wall so I've set up my own sand box and play in it with a few friends and simply refuse to have anything to do with Government or Medical contracts anymore. I do not need the hassles and unless the Governments actions directly impact upon me I just tend to ignore them.

But just to make me feel good about myself I was contacted a few days ago about a proposal that I put forward about 10 years ago for the Australian Government and I was over rulled as being too far over the top. But now it appears that my original proposal is going to be impelmited as the cut price option that they chose is now costing them far too much and exactly what I said would happen is happening. So now they are going to rollout a bit of fibre optic cable all around Australia. Now if thay did this all those years ago it would have saved them millions as then the telco was doing the same thing and they could have easily just added another cable in that roll out now they have to do it from scratch.

But it did save them something like 10 Million back then but now it is going to cost them well over 100 million to do exactly what they could have for less than a 10 th of the cost now days.

So do you see just why I'm so sinical about Government's?


Collapse -

Sounds all too familiar

by Oz_Media In reply to Oldefar A long tiime ago ...

I soaked the government sooo many times for thier ridiculously high contract prices but they took forever to get approved.

The brick wall analogy reminded me of a former employer, they'd ask me to prepare ROI's for projects, would have me spend weeks researching and testing software and when it hit thier desk..............

I'd have reps calling to follow up, I'd say "sorry, try me again next month approval should be through soon" (Should have just changed my voice mail to provide a scripted speach ).

4 months later the boss's would start complaining that they need to get these issues resolved now! I'd have to contact all the former reps and get requotes, then test the new versions, then apologize for wasting thier time again.

Needless to say little got done, I was being paid to aste my time, when the pay didn't warrant my time anymore, I said FO and left. Who needs a reference from idiots like that anyhow.

Yes, beating your head on a brick freakin' wall!

One thing though, you sure learn how to run your OWN business from studying other's mistakes though.


Collapse -

Excellent Oldefar

by Oz_Media In reply to Safe Statement on any Top ...

Thanks for the stats, very educational to say the very least. I don't know how reliable the source is,I am not to familiar with the EPI site but I will assume that you would take all of that into account vefore posting.

We are also watching local campaigners go at it, today we heard frmo a new candidate who suggested banning marijuana but supporting gay marriage. I won't offer my views on the subject but these two go hand in hand, it like shooting yourself in the foot to split these two groups in Canada (Western Canada anyway) apparently not a single MP backs her ideas. Oh well, we tend to just giggle at our candidates, they aren't running for 'leader of the free world' though.

This is also somethnig I may have overlooked regarding American presidential elections. I think the reason for placing such importance on your Presidential vote is that the USA has appointed the President as leader of the free world (no sarcasm or shots here at ALL). When we vote in a P.M, who cares he's just going to sit in his office and run Eastern Canada, they never make any noise out here in the west.

The President of the USA must be someone who you can see contorlling world affairs for four years and I now see the importance of yor votes.

My next question would be, when people in USA are deciding on a party, what are the factors taken into account, now this will vary geographically as well as demographically. Those who are more ecnonomically aware, such as yourself, I assume would take into account the economical effects on the USA. Others may choose just based on favoritism and what others are doing. How much thought is put into HOW this President will act toward the rest of the world? Was this a consideration when Bush was elected or just what he would do for the USA?

Should you vote based on your country's gains or perhaps on a mroe global perspective?

During campaigns, do these candidates address world issues for resolve while in term or do they sell their ability to improve America?

If the President is elected based on National focus and then starts to take international matters into his hands while in term, should you still support him?

Wow, glad I'm in Canada, it seems that no matter who is in office here, in B.C. we have the highest cost of living, highest taxation, most expensive cigarrettes and booze (Taxation again) and get F-all for tax breaks. It's damn expensive to live here. Then again, on the other foot, it is probably what has kept BC's wildlife and wilderness in tact. We have a MASSIVE asian population, as this is the place they want to move to make money. I am sure that our Asian population would meet or top that of ANY US state, although I haven'tresearched the stats. EG. You take a bus in Richmond BC, the ratio of Asians to caucasians is at least 25:1 (not exaggerated at all). You come to port Hardy where I live it is about 0.25:1.

There is no commercial trade in our area, it is forestry, fishing or sightseeing tours (whale watching, sealion caves, bears etc.).
Sorry for running off track but what I'm gettnig at is because MOST of B.C. is protected wilderness and undeveloped/uninhabited, it is easy to 'get away' and enjoy the real world around us without seeing anyone for days. For this, we pay extreme taxes, rent/mortgages etc. But it pays us back by providing isolation.

Again, sorry for the segue, you got me thinking.

Collapse -

Diversion warning - trivia question

by maxwell edison In reply to Excellent Oldefar

Many of our foreign friends seem to take objection to the "leader of the free world" label attached to the President of the United States.

Who was the first to use that term to describe the President of the United States and why?

(I have an answer, but I could be wrong. I haven't found an earlier reference than the one I have. I'll reveal it later, but not now.)

More interesting questions to consider: Was it justified then? Is it justified now? Why or why not? If it was justified then, but isn't not now, when did it change?

Related Discussions

Related Forums