Jobs, Statehood, and Opinions Better Left Said

Subject: Jobs, Statehood, and Opinions Better Left Said
From: "Thomas Eagles" <tekwriter -at- sympatico -dot- ca>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:19:02 -0400

Tom E's Questionable Opinion #1

(Stick around for all three, folks. I promise to make it worth your
while <g>)

For those whom I have BCCed, this is a series of responses to posts on a
tech writing mailing list to stuff that isn't only relevant to tech
writers. Here we discuss politics, economics, and the mating rituals of
Lower Angolan heffalumps, among other topics.

John Posada replied to Jill J:

> least make it interesting and pick another
>country...poor India has its hands full with Pakistan

Jill Johnson wrote:

>>>Getting a job in challenging times is easy. You have to be
>willing to work cheaper than people offshore in India. If you
>are willing to work for $4 per hour then it is easy.
>You also should be willing to commit to doing fixed price
>work. American's and people from the state of Canada are the
>only ones that are hesitant to commit upfront. <<<

Personally, unless you have gone through a downsizing where your job was
sent to India because the 'planners' neglected to plan past one year of
existence ... and how to score some free government money and scam some
investors, then you know not of what you speak, John. Tech writing jobs
(techwr-l tie-in) are becoming scarce not only because of an Internet
bust after the irrational exuberance boom, but also because companies
are increasingly realizing the opportunity to export labour to markets
that really don't have the skills to do the job - but are convincing
reputed to have those skills, and thus the investors don't know any
better. Hell, these investors were part of the irrational exuberance!
What the hell do THEY know? Who ya gonna believe? Them or Alan

I've worked for a few companies with CEOs who have the Ferrari, the
*large* government startup grant, and the gaggle of investors who demand
an eventual ROI. Instead of an ROI, the CEO gives them a lower 2nd round
of investment by "downsizing." Or, even better, cheap labour in India!
"HEY! Who knew? We don't have to downsize and we can still get the
product made. The quality will suck, the damn thing won't work and we
the user won't know how to use it, but who cares! The stuff doesn't
sell, anyway!"

One company I used to work for sent jobs to India by the score. Each
round of layoffs or job displacement was supposed to result in at least
a plugging of the dyke, and hopefully, eventually, the money was
supposed to fill up the black side of the dam and stay out of the red
side. Instead, each round of layoffs brought more holes, which required
more plugging, which led to more layoffs, more job moves, and less
profit. Then products were dropped one by one. Then more layoffs. I
predict: soon no company; the dam bursts entirely. When I started there,
their stock sold at about $100 a share (it had just split from nearly
$200 a share). Today it trades at less than a dollar a share. All those
layoffs and job moves sure did turn THEM around, eh?

I'm on Jill's side on this one, if you haven't already guessed. We give
these companies nearly tax-free rein to set up shop, and all we ask is
that they create some long term jobs and create some economic stability.
Instead, we get snookered, they get to keep our money, and India gets to
have our jobs. I'm a believer in market economics, but not to the point
that you let your industries and job market get steamrollered by cheap,
incomparable alternatives from the 3rd World. And, yes, India still is
3rd World.

Anyone who thinks that offering grants to companies to setup shop is
"free market economics" is ignoring the fact that free market economics
isn't supposed to include startup grants and tax-free status (even if
only temporarily). So, if you want to benefit from the grants and other
privileges, you have to accept the responsibility, too. Enron, Worldcom
and other companies that benefited without accepting proper
responsibility are our bellweather examples of greed and rot. Are we so
stupid that we are going to just let the jobs march over to India and
not do a damn (dam) thing about it? Time to plug THAT dyke, too!

Without digressing too far (I hope), it sort of reminds me of the
knee-jerk left-wingers who think that Israel is the one commiting the
atrocities in the Middle East, and that *they* are the ones who should
suffer the indignity of UN-sponsored investigations into their
"atrocities" while the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad et al sit back and
laugh at them (and, by extension, us). HELLOOOOOO! Time to stop bending
over backwards and have a look outward instead of at our own navels. The
PLO isn't committing atrocities because they are so hard done by. They
are so hard done by because they continue to commit atrocities. You have
to stop looking for the outside evil (Israel if you are a Palestinian)
and work on fixing things from the inside out (accept responsibility for
your own circumstances).

On a side note <heh> : a company I've recently working for hired a 3rd
party in India to do some of their development because they were
understaffed because had just gone through a 'downsizing'. <ring the
irony bell> The project manager at the Indian company - after accepting
the contract and being a month into it - said that their developers
needed training to code the software because of the proprietary
programming language 'we' use. Er, that 'proprietary' programming
language is C++. It's fairly common on this side of the ocean, fella.

Maybe they shoulda left the jobs over friggin here, eh? It's gonna end
up costing them MORE than the difference in relative salary if they lose
customers because of the Indian snafus.

Question: if you make a coding error in India, do they cut off your
hand, or is that only in Saudi Arabia?


Tom E's Questionable Opinion #2

Mike MacLean wrote:

>Did I miss a story in the paper this morning? When were we taken over?
>TW tie-in: I guess the gov't is going to need a lot of us to
>update all those documents. Maybe it's time for me to become a
>gov't contractor?
>Jill Johnson wrote:
>> << people from the state of Canada>>

Mike: did you miss it? Where ya been!? It happened somewhere between
1867 and 2002.

Tom Murrell wrote:

>If I had to bet money, I would say that the poster who made
>the comment about "the state of Canada" is not a native
>English speaker.

Yes, it reads like tech writing from across the pond --> stilted,
formal, and drier than beef jerky. Therefore, it's probably written by
someone from Quebec. <vbg>

>Furthermore, as Canada is an independent

Whoa, whoa, whoa... When did that happen? I thought we were supposed to
check with Washington before formulating foreign policy and such? <now
removing tongue from cheek>



Tom E's Questionable Opinion #3

Eric Dunn (like dinner) wrote:

>Nation, State, Country, People. Please for the love of <insert
>favorite deity/entity here> let's not go there. As a resident
>of Quebec

Jeezus, be careful what you're willing to admit!

>I could repeat an
>off-list discussion about the egotistical appropriation of the
>term American by the citizens of the United States.

Yeah, and I could state an off-list discussion of the egotistical
appropriation of the word gay by homosexuals, but it would be pointless
to mention it since it's fait accompli (you know what that means, right

>dictionary definitions we're all americans from the north pole
>to the southern tip of Chile.

I'm sure you have a point here, right?

>Would be interesting if the original poster isn't a native
>English speaker (you know who you are...). But from the last
>time this obnoxious thread was raised by the same individual,

"Obnoxious?" Why, because it doesn't agree with your rose-coloured world
view, you government grant-taker, you?

>it's obvious they won't be very forthcoming with actual
>intentions or reasoning.

I thought that was self-evident. And, no, I'm not the original poster.

>I would suspect that an American
>resident that has a xenophobic outlook about 'foreigners
>stealing our jobs' has a good chance of being fluently
>English. Or, they have some interesting contradictions in
>their logic processes.

I think it's a blatant example of self-interest when someone employed by
a company that benefits from DOZENS of those federal grants I mentioned
earlier talks of xenophobia and the loss of jobs to companies overseas.
Your job is safe... As long as the Liberals stay in power and continue
to give sweetheart grants to Bombardier to keep your job in Quebec mon

So, please, keep *your* self-righteous clap trap to yourself. You don't
have a ski-doo track or subway car to stand on unless it comes from *MY*
Ontario tax dollar... Lest you forget that transfer payments from
Ontario and Alberta keep your poor-excuse-for-a-province afloat. Were it
only the case that Quebec would have separated already! Ontario would be
an American state and the rest of Canada could go to hell for all I
care. <just kidding; Halifax has some great pubs, and Calgary has the
leading scorer in the NHL... Someday, the Habs will win a playoff series
again, too>

>While I may be showing my over-sensitivity, I really meant to
>inject a bit of stupidity into a thread that really didn't
>merit serious consideration.

You've succeeded brilliantly.

>That and to quell the off chance
>the xenophobic navel gazers who think the 'foreigners are to
>blame' really do have some 'manifest destiny' clap trap

You seem to know a lot about it. But as long as those transfer payments
and grants keep pouring into Quebec, I'd keep vewy vewy quiet while
hunting wabbits if I was you.

>Not that we have to worry about that too much. We
>beat them back all the way to Washington last time they tried
>to exercise that option. You do know the reason the Whitehouse
>is white don't you... <LOL>

Heh heh... And do *YOU* know how long it would NOW take the Americans to
permanently setup shop in Canada if they so chose? Oh, I'd guess about 8
minutes. Yep, they've got the drop on us now, eh, tabernac!

>Perhaps the original poster just needs a dictionary or atlas
>to know that <<the people from the state of Canada>> are

Or Quebecois, eh? Hohoho... and pass the Jos. Louis, but hold the Pepsi,
svp. <old inside joke>.

Ta's. If this actually reaches the list, I'll be very surprised.

In God We Trust; The Rest: Bring Cash.

This message has been brought to you by:
Tom Eagles, live, from the state of Ontario

Want to support TECHWR-L? Get shirts, bags, hats, clocks,
and more from the TECHWR-L Store. All proceeds support TECHWR-L.

Save up to 50% with RoboHelp Deluxe. Get 2 great products for 1 low price!
You'll get RoboHelp Office PLUS RoboDemo, the software demonstration tool
that everyone's been talking about. Check it out and save!

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.


Previous by Author: [techwr-l-daily-announce] TECHWR-L Daily Update Posting
Next by Author: RE: Jobs, Statehood, and Opinions Better Left Said
Previous by Thread: Re: NPR program on bad writing
Next by Thread: Re: Jobs, Statehood, and Opinions Better Left Said

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads