| Author |
Message |
    
Dannybuell
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 10:16 am: | 
|
No, they put the capital in long term investments........ That is still an investment, those vehicles are just being managed differently.
Do you know anything about finance or business? ........... I have worked with CPA's, Attorneys and Bankers professionally.
how do you propose we pay for it?......Any investment in human capital adds value to a society.
Look how well your CS degree is working for you, your contributions to society are electronic
representations of someones working world.
it's borderline hate speech..........Philanthropy and Papal dispensations? guilt money?
Anonymous philanthropy is on the rise...
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/05/18/rich-feel-g uilty-about-giving-to-charity/
there are also biblical precepts on charity relating to public and anonymous donations....
Wow... what part are you having trouble with? cite your sources! show me where I am wrong! |
T_man
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 12:55 pm: |
|
I'm really enjoying this from the sidelines... perfect winter holiday entertainment.
Advantage: Jdugger IMO |
Mickeyq
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 08:42 pm: |
|
Harvard did a study sometime back and the result was that eliminating the personal income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax would triplicate revenue for the fed. Why not, sounds great to me! I don't think it is fair that >50% of the people in the US do not even work and live off the govt...tax payer ticket. |
Court
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 10:08 pm: |
|
. . . and that national sales tax . . . a VAT if you prefer . . would teach all those icky rich folks who buy yachts and private jets a lesson.
 |
Jdugger
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 10:11 pm: |
|
> That is still an investment, those vehicles are just being managed differently.
Yes, but it's clear you do not understand the concept of unrealized gains and taxable events, so it's difficult to explain subtle topics related to investing, legal tax liability avoidance, and so on.
In this particular instance, if you buy an asset and it appreciates, but you don't sell it, you haven't created a taxable event, so far as income tax is concerned. This is a subtle, but important -- critical, really -- distinction, in that without a realized gain (sale at a profit), there's no income, hence, no income tax.
So, it's conceivable a person could be in the top 1% of the wealthy in terms of assets, but the bottom 1% in terms of income, perhaps even qualifying for something like the earned income tax credit, all while being worth millions.
> Look how well your CS degree is working for you,
> your contributions to society are electronic
> representations of someones working world.
I graduated high school with a 2.1 GPA and made it through a couple of semesters of college before deciding it wasn't for me.
> show me where I am wrong!
Honestly I'm not even sure where to start there's so much work to do here. |
Jdugger
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 10:22 pm: |
|
> Harvard did a study sometime back and the result was that eliminating the personal
> income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax would triplicate revenue for the fed.
It's a mixed bag, honestly. It's not hard to figure out I lean libertarian, but even I think replacing the income tax with a VAT is unfair, and I distrust almost all government!
VAT taxes are superior because they are easy to administrate, suffer from far less cheating, and effectively tax an underground economy as well as business above the table. They also promote personal savings. So, in this regard they are elegant, efficient and effective.
The downside is they are regressive. It's not just the rich toys like planes and yachts, but also food, clothing and so on that's taxed. They tend to disproportionately impact lower incomes who can't help but spend a larger percentage of their paychecks.
Did the Harvard study suggest a VAT percentage that would work to sustain the US Government? I shudder at the thought of what it might be.. 25%? |
Dannybuell
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 10:43 pm: |
|
Governments are for the people, when the people suffer the society suffers. A governments primary goals are the safety, well being, and security of living breathing human beings. All of that 'lazy people on unemployment' is easy to say when you have a job. We are all social animals and enjoy being a part of a team or workgroup. It is way more fun to ride with your buddies. Our self esteem rises in the group and falls when we don't have the that experience. When the government turns a blind eye to illegal workers and corporations are being PAID to take jobs overseas it doesn't take a flippin rocket scientist to figure out that something is WRONG.
The job exporters/importers and illegal employers earned their extra profit margins. Lets reward these great Americans for their contribution to the American way of life by taxing them less because hey, they DESERVE it.
 |
Dannybuell
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 10:53 pm: |
|
Jdugger - Sorry, I got the idea you were an IT guy. "Honestly I'm not even sure where to start there's so much work to do here."
I am a voracious reader, you must be too. How about a few book titles to point me in the right direction?
Happy New Year! |
Jdugger
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 11:13 pm: |
|
> Governments are for the people, when the people suffer the society suffers.
Ok, but try looking at it from the other side of the fence.
Start with this hypothetical position:
"Governments are inherently inefficient and corrupt. There are certain services only a government can provide -- national defense, major public infrastructure, etc -- but the government should be a solution of last resort, not a preference of first solution"
If you were to perceive government as a "necessary evil" instead of "a first solution" how might you tackle a problem like homelessness or poverty?
Stew on it for a while. |
Court
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 11:44 pm: |
|
>>>if you buy an asset and it appreciates, but you don't sell it, you haven't created a taxable event, so far as income tax is concerned. This is a subtle, but important -- critical, really -- distinction, in that without a realized gain (sale at a profit), there's no income, hence, no income tax.
What about a trader who makes a "mark to market" election?
Be mindful . . that all those houses that caused the real estate market to implode were "unrealized" losses . . they were never sold and the loses realized.
You're not entirely wrong, you're not entirely right. |
Jdugger
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 12:06 am: |
|
Well, for this illustration, we were talking about income tax and tax generating events, so it's still a sound argument.
If you want to get into what you are starting to mess with, we can talk about CDOs and traunch liability, but that's a pretty ugly, complicated conversation.
I spent a few months a year ago helping a banking customer with business processes around bond processing and specifically CDO servicing. It's a fascinating market and business, for sure.
Lotta eggheads running around figuring out this stuff. Way above my pay grade. |
Dannybuell
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 09:24 am: |
|
Incentives for domestic industries deemed in the national interest. The national interest can be defense, infrastructure, education.
Almost everyone has heard the old saying "Idle hands are the devil's workshop." As a God fearing man, I suggest a full employment policy be considered in the national interest.
If you can't find a job the government will give you a job. If you think we are going to pay you to do nothing, you are out of luck.
Stew on what? |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 09:51 am: |
|
Food could be excluded from taxation, just like it is now with state sales taxes. I like the idea of everyone paying into the pool. We have too many people in this country with no skin in the game. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 11:29 am: |
|
I'd be for a national sales tax in theory... take grocery store food out of it, and rent and primary residences out of it, and take inheritance transfers out of it, and everything else is taxed. If you can afford to buy, you can afford to pay taxes.
The problem, and why I am against it, is because I would only be for it if we could guarantee the income tax was gone forever. And telling the national government that income taxes are done is like telling a crack addict not to take drugs anymore.
So the national sales / VAT tax is just that much crack for our national government crack addict. |
Mickeyq
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 04:33 pm: |
|
When I talk about a national sales tax replacing the personal income tax, the first thing I hear is, "that would not be fair to the poor people". My first job, at 15, was cleaning toilets, mopping cow blood from the meat dept floor, mopping the entire grocery store and trash, etc. This was at the outrageous sum of $1.35/hr. My first impression was that I needed to work hard, and get myself educated so I could get the hell out of that type of work and into a field that paid better. Too many people today do not have the desire to pick themselves up and claw their way out of their rut. YES, I understand about being unemployed--I feel especially strong about the shaft HD gave to the Buell group. I was once unemployed for over a year--did not collect unemployment--used my savings and worked two bullshtt jobs to keep my house and bills paid. I would be glad to have the problem of paying more taxes because I earned millions; but, that is not the case. When you get down to it, the honest, working person in USA is pulling the load for those who don't work. Government employees today earn almost twice as much as private sector workers. I remember in high school when we talked about careers--everyone had the same thought: government jobs don't pay. Governments should be concerned with, "To protect and to serve" and not much else. Our congress and senate "reps" serve 2 terms and can then retire millionaires with "Cadillac" insurance for their families. Who's representing who? What is it they say--after May you no longer work for the govt--in regards to taxation. Absolutely, the personal income tax/IRS would be gone when a national sales tax is instituted. Billions of dollars leave the USA untaxed every year--Mexico's second source of income is from their citizens working here and sending that money back untaxed... |
Dannybuell
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 06:18 pm: |
|
Mickeyq - +1. I have had similar life experiences. |
Freight_dog
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 07:39 pm: |
|
"Governments are inherently inefficient and corrupt. There are certain services only a government can provide -- national defense, major public infrastructure, etc -- but the government should be a solution of last resort, not a preference of first solution"
There is your problem. You buy into that wrong minded presumption because you are too quick to believe talk radio and Fox.
Why is government inherently corrupt? I am not talking about elected officials, but bureaucrats who have no vested interest. A government is a not-for-profit organization. Not for profits universally are more efficient than for-profit entities. Not-for-profit hospitals and schools nearly always outperform their for-profit counterparts because of the lack of a profit motive. There is no entrepreneur or investor group who has to take a fat profit off the top. There is no entrepreneur who has a vested interest in pumping up profits at the expense of doing the job correctly.
In government entities, from air traffic control, to fire and police to the military, to delivering the mail privatized enterprises always end up costing more and doing a poorer job.
The actual corruption in government is not naturally occurring, there is no motivation to be corrupt for corruptions sake. The corruption is caused by businesses buying off government workers and elected officials. Business buys influence in the government to increase profits. That is the true evil because it distracts government from its real purpose, to regulate trade and serve The People.
I also take exception to the union bashing that has gone on. Reagan may have followed the CBA, but he did refuse to negotiate with the controllers. They did choose poorly, but they weren't the first government union to illegally strike. They were simply the first to be given an ultimatum. In particular, PATCO cited the US Postal Workers successful two week strike of 1970 and their own successful "sick out" of the early 70's.
Of course, they didn't expect Reagan to make good on his threat because they were convinced that that would lead to the destruction of the entire airline industry. They underestimated Reagan's desire to make an example of them regardless of the cost and lets be honest with ourselves, it was a pretty reckless decision on Reagan's part. It did take nearly ten years before air traffic capacity returned to pre-strike levels.
Be that as it may, IMO, they played into Reagan's hand by striking. His action deliberately did incredible damage to the standing of unions and encouraged labor heavy industries to renew their efforts to destroy unions. They now knew that the Reagan White House would support industry over unions. Since then billions have been spent by anti-union groups in efforts to make unions irrelevant. You can see it on the internet. Just search for unions and you will find numerous anti-union groups and websites funded by industry and law firms who specialize in union prevention. You actually have to search for "pro-union" information before you find it, because the industry funded anti-union rhetoric is overwhelming.
99% of all union members are hard working honest people who rightfully want a place at the table when their employers determine their compensation and benefits. Random anti-union sentiment is not doing any favors for your friends and neighbors who are fighting to improve not only their lives, but yours as well. |
Dannybuell
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 08:00 pm: |
|
Freight_dog +1, I couldn't agree more. |
Jdugger
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 11:21 pm: |
|
> There is your problem. You buy into that wrong minded presumption because you are too quick to believe talk radio and Fox.
Well, considering you completely missed the fact that was posted as a PREMISE to help see one side of the issue and you have missed that, I'll encourage you to go back and re-read my post.
As for the talk radio and TV bit: I don't even OWN a TV, and the only talk radio I listen to is NPR which is probably more likely to be left leaning that right. Outside of that, my major news source would be The Economist magazine, which has as much a European perspective as anything remotely considered right wing.
So, really, try again.
> The actual corruption in government is not naturally occurring,
> there is no motivation to be corrupt for corruptions sake.
> The corruption is caused by businesses buying off government workers and
> elected officials. Business buys influence in the government to increase
> profits.
So how is it this omnipotent government with unbounded power to regulate and control ends up in the position of having the interest of bribes from business people?
I've got news for you... the Government is made up of people. The ones not motivated by profits are motivated by power or some other objective. There are but a *handful* of Mother Theresas in the world, and despite 20% of this country's workers being employed by some kind of government agency (!), I'm pretty sure none of them made the Saint's cut.
The nice thing about business is at least it's clear what the motivations and objectives are, so the rules of the game are well known. And, generally above board. Contrary to your statement, by the most vast of margins business people are ethical, moral, and interested in making profits through legitimate means, not cheating.
You were doing so well when you figured out the labor market problem with US competitiveness, and now this?
> 99% of all union members are hard working honest people who rightfully want
> a place at the table when their employers determine their compensation and
> benefits.
Of course they are. Just like 99% of business people are only interested in above-board activity as well.
But your statement contains and error in my opinion. An employer does not determine a worker's compensation or benefits. The worker and market conditions do, union or not.
Do you understand why? |
Dannybuell
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 10:46 am: |
|
An employer needs a widget maker and advertises at a very low base salary. If the qualified pool of responses is low, the next advertised salary will be a little higher. This will happen until the qualified response pool is considered acceptable. supply and demand.
All bets are off with government contracts where 'prevailing wage' is higher than market rates. government workers, that 20% of the population you mentioned does not play by market rules. government workers peg their salaries to the private sector at the peak of an economy and get better than market benefits.
Perhaps government's business model should be based on some sort of mandatory service. Like the military there would be a core of 'lifers' to maintain standards. |
Freight_dog
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 11:46 am: |
|
So how is it this omnipotent government with unbounded power to regulate and control ends up in the position of having the interest of bribes from business people?
Are you kidding me? First off, where did you get "omnipotent" and "unbounded power"? The only power the government has is what we give it and that power is continuously curtailed by bought politicians who strive to eliminate its power to properly regulate unbounded industries. That is exactly and completely the corruption we should be concerned about.
Of course they are. Just like 99% of business people are only interested in above-board activity as well.
I would differ with that characterization because big money is a far more attractive corrupting force so business people are more likely to act in an unethical manner. Also the size and scope of unethical behavior at the heart of industry is far more damaging than a union security guard taking a nap on his watch.
An employer does not determine a worker's compensation or benefits. The worker and market conditions do, union or not.
Do you understand why?
I understand why you believe this but you are wrong. The worker has a limited ability to vote with his feet. At best, it is ineffective in improving the standard. The better option is to stand together and raise the bar. Your statement that the employer doesn't determine compensation or benefits is well off base, I am surprised you said it. Yes there is a minimum level that they must compensate to attract workers, but they put every effort into finding that minimum and then pushing it down once they have a worker over a barrel. Truly the employer holds the stronger hand in determining compensation. Is it economics? Yes. Is it ethical? Probably not because it often becomes abusive. The CEO certainly didn't take his job without a contract which affords him protection from the vagaries of corporate decisions, why shouldn't all of the employees? |
Jdugger
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 12:46 am: |
|
> Are you kidding me?
No, I'm not kidding you. Let's do some math:
90% of the federal budget is paid by 10% of the tax payers. We established this earlier in the thread with the IRS numbers. And, we know, in particular for a family with two working members, it's not *that* hard to be in the top 10%.
There are roughly 100 million people that work in this country. That's about 1/3rd of the population. Figure in kids and retirees, it's not too bad, really.
20% of those work for some kind of government agency.
So, of the population of people actually creating the value that funds and runs this place we are talking about... hmm... 10 million people.
So, more or less, for every successful business person in the country, there's TWO GOVERNMENT WORKERS.
Now, you tell me, why is it there are two of these precious government types for each of of me, and I'm the cheater and the problem?
Business people are far more straight than you are implying. While it's hard to run a successful business, it's not so hard and so rare that it isn't *broadly* done in America. And, broadly, those are straight, moral people that don't cheat. Mostly, we are talking about IT professionals, health care professionals, lawyers, accountants, small business people, and so on. You know, every day types.
I'm sorry you think that business people win by cheating, but as a general statement it's just broadly false.
And, anyway, with 2 of these government types for every one of me, I'm kinda wondering why I don't have someone over my shoulder all the time. Shouldn't they be regulating?
I've NEVER paid a bribe and NEVER met someone that did. I would immediately disassociate with anyone who even considered it. Most business people feel this way. Such policies of conduct have been to clearly articulated in the rules of every employer I've ever had, I've always known anything that even looked like a bribe or kickback would result in immediate termination of employment. Put simply, it's just not acceptable.
And, it amazes me that someone as smart as you could look at these numbers and come to any other conclusion other than "holy hell, we have a 2:1 production to overhead ratio in the system already, and people think *more* overhead will somehow cure problems?" How can you even remotely consider this and then complain about the cost pressures of the American labor market or competitiveness in the same breath?
> I would differ with that characterization because big money is a far more
> attractive corrupting force so business people are more likely to act in an
> unethical manner.
No, it's not. People steal at much bubble gum as they do cars. And, great power corrupts every bit as effectively as money. Corruption is corruption, and it's incredibly clear you have a chip on your shoulder about business and don't understand much about it.
Broadly, consistently, and with well known but also relatively rare exceptions, business is conducted in an ethical fashion. PERIOD.
Corruption is a people problem, not a money problem. Cheaters cheat, period. And, for every example of business corruption you site, it's just as easy for me to cite a political one.
One of the nice things about the US in general is a relative lack of corruption and high degree of transparency. And, we have one of the most prosperous private enterprise systems in the world. It works both ways.
> but they put every effort into finding that minimum and then pushing it down once they have a worker over a barrel.
Ever heard the phrase "I need not be the fastest zebra to avoid the Lion, only faster than you"? If you have that attitude about your skills and situation, it will surely be the truth soon.
I work in an at-will employment state. I can leave my employment at any time, and for any other employer, including a competitor. An employment contract might well restrict that, and even if offered one I would have to seriously think twice before signing it since it might force me into a career change I didn't want should my employment terminate. I can't imagine not having such liquidity in the labor market... it has enormously driven up wages for professionals in my field, and we are also completely non-union, and I've actually never seen a union in the software business, come to think of it.
While it's true top-level executives at large businesses are contracted, the practice is actually rather rare at small to medium size firms, at least in at-will states like Texas, and might be as much poison for the employee as protection, honestly. And, remember that MOST business in this country is small business, and that means those CEOs -- the vast, vast majority of business leaders in America -- have no contract protection at all other than their own hard work and risk taking.
I happen to like my employer, though. It's a nice place to work, they pay well, and I have a high degree of faith we will execute well in the coming years and enjoy a rewarding liquidity event. I'm also offered a career path that doesn't involve a traditional management track (I prefer to be an individual contributor). I get calls every couple of weeks from head hunters, and offer that perhaps they should call my boss instead, since we've been hiring in my role for other regions of late.
Looks like the system is working well again. And, I seriously feel for you if that pessimistic attitude and "they are all out to get me" guard is always up. It's no way to live... |
Freight_dog
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 02:05 am: |
|
OK, lets revisit your numbers. There are actually about 150 million total in the US workforce, with about 14 million of those unemployed. There are only 2.15 million federal employees. Even if you add in all state and local employees you end up just shy of 20 million. So, government employees make up about 13% of the workforce. Of course, we are talking largely about public safety workers and teachers at this point. Certainly many of those government workers fall in your 10% that pay 90% category, dropping the ratio a bit more. So now your two to one ratio sounds a bit more like the hyperbole it is.
Next, you got defensive "I'm the problem?" .
You aren't a Fortune 500 CEO, your last name isn't Koch, Murdoch, Rove, Madoff, Abramhoff, Pickens, Lay, Skilling, Bush... You are an employee, not a "businessperson" for this argument, so no, YOU are not the cheater. Those guys are.
It should have been apparent, but maybe I wasn't specific enough. I was never referring to small business types. Yes, they are generally honest and anyway, they don't have the means to buy influence. Unless of course we are talking about the gigantic "S Corps" that masquerade as small business then yes, they are pretty much corrupt.
I am pleased for you that you have a good work environment and are happy. You may not be aware of how small a minority you are in that respect. The fact is and always has been, that strong unions are the most important tool the worker has to improve his quality of life. There is a direct correlation between the decline of unions and the working American losing ground over the last 30 years. The union devastation preceded the fall. Don't let your own rosy situation color your perception of that reality.
(Message edited by Freight_dog on December 31, 2010)
(Message edited by Freight_dog on December 31, 2010) |
Freight_dog
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 02:52 am: |
|
Let me give you a concrete example of what I am talking about.
I am a highly skilled professional. The company I work for is approaching 200 employees, not really what I would consider "small" anymore. They pay is a bit below industry standard and the benefits are way below industry standard. No doubt this is because we are non-union in a largely unionized industry.
My employer recently announced changes in our terms of employment, among other things due to a 25% turnover rate this year, yes in one of the weakest job markets in history(I wonder why?) and training replacements is extremely expensive.
Did they decide to improve conditions to try to retain people? Of course not, they decided to offset their increased training costs by cutting labor costs, specifically among other things, taking away our vacation days and reducing pay for many. That's right, we no longer get vacation. That's thanking the loyal employees who stuck around with a knife in the back.
I was passively looking for a better job, now they just lowered the bar and increased my urgency. See what I said there? Voting with my feet would result in me "lowering the bar", not improving my situation.
The truth is, the one thing that poses to soften the company's stance is the strong talk of unionizing. Obviously, with a union already on the property, we wouldn't be having these problems. Turnover would be lower because of better benefits and the costs saved on training would offset the additional costs of the benefits and at any rate, the company couldn't just take away our vacation without us approving it first. Unfortunately for everyone, it takes a union and protracted battles to accomplish the things that stupid businessmen should accomplish with common sense.
Did I say stupid? I meant greedy, and that is corrupt too.
(Message edited by Freight_dog on December 31, 2010)
(Message edited by Freight_dog on December 31, 2010) |
Jdugger
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 08:56 am: |
|
Freight,
Let me know how that organizing effort works out for you. I'd have been out of there a long time ago. And, I thought exempt employees were required to have PTO? I don't do HR for a living, but I think unless they are hourly employees you have to provide some PTO. It varies by state.
Sounds like to me the company just sucks so it's best for all if you just move on. But you would suggest we need the government to come in and regulate that?
why work a job you hate? There's too many other good ones out there.
As for not being a business person... well, part of how I got to where I am is by starting my own software company and selling it. Went through three rounds of VC, survived the dot-bomb, and so on. Quite the roller coaster ride. At our peak we were a roughly 7M firm with about 50 people. I was employee number 1 -- it was very much my company.
Also, by day now, my products and expertise are in business process management.
It's hard to imagine how I'm not a business person.
Those names you mention are in the minority, too. They are cheaters. Even among Fortune 500 companies, the leaders are pretty straight guys. One of the things SOX did was require almost all companies to go back and revisit the books carefully. What was amusing were the number of firms finding overly conservative mistakes.
Hey, you have a chip on your shoulder and a bad attitude about the whole thing. Fair enough. Good luck with that.
Your numbers on the workers are high -- it's a full labor force number, but I'll run with it. We are still talking about a whopping 13-15% of them being public sector. The US government still spends 60% of it's budget on social programs and entitlements. Ugh. It's like going to sea with the anchor down, and you want more? |
Court
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 10:35 am: |
|
My wife started on Wall Street in her teens . . . worked 3 jobs doing "back room" work for trading operations to put herself through St. Johns, slept many nights next to the desk because there wasn't time to get home from the last job and back in the morning in time for the next.
She graduated, was a full partner at Grant Thornton by the time she was 23 and is generally regarded as one of the premier authorities on Wall Street regarding Hedge Funds and Complex Financial Instruments.
The names you cite above are a few of the anomalies. It we were talking cars and bikes . . names like John DeLoren and the Hanlon brothers would pop up. Representing the hundreds of thousands of folks who work their asses off on Wall Street by holding up a couple of known criminals not only fails to paint an accurate picture . . it's deceptive.
Fortunately . . .there is so little fact in this thread I don't think it will matter. Let's just leave it at . . . . "some motorcycle riders believe . . . no shit, they really do . . that anyone who makes over $50,000/year must be a crook".
Note to self . . never alter portfolio based on advice from internet.
} |
Dannybuell
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 10:49 am: |
|
I just spent the last 2.5 years as an agile developer doing a SOX database for a blue cross franchisee. The database output went to the c suite and 4 individual states regulatory bodies plus the national association of insurance commissioners. over 140 tables...
Our socio economic perspectives are revealed. You are a successful entrepreneur with a good situation, count your blessings. I have been bouncing from contract job to contract job for 17 years. we are doing pretty much the same thing.
I would have never become a programmer if I had known that CS jobs were moving overseas.
(Message edited by dannybuell on December 31, 2010) |
Dktechguy112
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 11:41 am: |
|
Freight Dog,
You think unions are a good thing?
Unions are a good idea in theory. But unions are bringing down many companies.
Gm got screwed by the unions.
The state of california, thanks to the firefighters and police unions, they get 110% pensions, that's right, they get a pay raise when they retire at 55, and then most of them go out and get other jobs, its ridiculous.
I understand you situation sucks, but the problem with unions is that they get to much power, and it goes the other way, the employer gets screwed. |
Dannybuell
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Assertions over the accuracy , completeness, validity of facts is interesting. Sources being cited get respect, others not so much.
Apparently the dems drew a line in the sand at $250,000 being the number where social responsibility ends. |
Jdugger
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 12:27 pm: |
|
> I would have never become a programmer if I had known that CS jobs were moving overseas.
Honestly, I'd not worry about it much if I were you.
Sure, there's lots of jobs "moving", but there's lots of jobs here, too, and more of it all the time. If you are talented and on top of your game, there's no lack of work.
I presume you use a recruiter (or three)?
I get calls all the time looking for good engineers and DBAs. I'm not one anymore, and arguably never was, but I know there's a ton of work out there.
A fair bit of it may require travel or relocation, though, and that can be a drag. But, if you end up in a good market -- a place like Austin, Texas comes to mind -- there's a pot full of work.
If you have the skills you say you do, there's no lack of work for you. |
Dannybuell
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 12:59 pm: |
|
THX. Austin CL is better than Portland's!
Happy New Year!! |
Firemanjim
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 03:05 pm: |
|
Dtek, I want to know where my 110% is!!! I am recently retired from fire and somehow missed out on that.What a crock!
I know of not one dept in my area that even comes close to that.
And there is a reason they want us gone at 55--we get old and slow,both a bad thing when confronting a fire or a guy with a gun.I am 57 y.o and beat up from 29 years on the job, but consider myself lucky to have retired normally,as too many of my fellows die way too young from all that lovely stuff we are exposed to, or go out with job ending injuries. |
Dktechguy112
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 08:20 pm: |
|
I know not all the police and firefighters pensions are 110%, but none of them should be. The fact is the police and fire fighter pensions for the state of california are much higher then the military. And the military is also a very dangerous job. I understand that being a firefighter or a policemen is a very dangerous job, but in cali they are in many cases way overpayed. To give an example, I talked to three guys that actually fly in from colorado to california to be firefighters. They live in colorado and fly to cali 2 weeks a month to be fire fighters. They make so much more money in california that they can afford the airline tickets and still make more money. In my opinion that is rediculous. |
Dannybuell
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 08:37 pm: |
|
Oregon is an 'at will' employment state, they all are anymore.
The state of Oregon is so stupid the public employees retirement system (PERS) goes broke and later bailed out by the taxpayers, the brokers get bonuses! Some argument about retaining talent when their performances clearly state otherwise.
The state of Oregon is so stupid a few years back there was a wave of teachers taking early retirement. It ended up they could be making more retired than if they stayed working.
F'up as a State of Oregon employee? Keep your job and get a bonus! Nice work if you can get it. |
|
