Tom Hula wrote:
> The real problem is that these people running American businesses
> truly think that they can hire these cheaper foreign workers and do
> just as well or even better than with trained experienced American
> technical workers.

<nit_pick>I think you meant English speaking workers since this list
contains some really excellent folks from other countries whose English is
better than many Americans.</nit_pick>

The point of the WSJ editorial is that in order for U.S. workers to keep
their rates up, they have to raise their value.  Right now some companies
are paying less and getting less.  This is why you can get a DLink product
cheaper than many others.  If Cisco/Linksys promised tech support that was
all U.S. labor, would you buy their product instead?  If so, vote with your
pocketbook.  If Linksys offered a premium service that guaranteed you a U.S.
worker, would you pay for it?  Some have already pressured companies to
raise the tech support level or lose business.  That's how it's going to
work.  Better English speaking workers in India will be able to get more
than those whose skills lack.  BTW, how are the American workers answering
questions at HP about the HP 3000?  :-o

IMHO, in the big picture it's better for the U.S. if jobs can move around.
If we sit back and try to maintain the "have vs. have not" status we have in
the world, we put ourselves at greater risk.  It fosters resentment in the
world.  It reduces the market in which we could be selling.  It makes us
lazy.  Sure, some might like to cruise to retirement in just one job but I
suspect that, while it's uncomfortable and even scary, most on this list
find moving to new things rewarding and exciting once they land somewhere.
We don't grow without pressure.  Most of us need external pressures to move
us off our butt and get us to think and grow.  Hell, that's why I got
married.  ;-)

Mark W.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *