Offshore software development outsourcing

[Cliff]

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:58:29 -0500, Chuck Harris
<cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

Cliff wrote:


Fascinating! The NAFTA and GATT laws that made this possible were the
spawn of the Clinton administration.


Some neocons been whispering in your ear?

Bush-I did the first NAFTA, Bush-II expanded it.

"President Bush signed the NAFTA agreement on December 17, 1992"
"George W. Bush wants to expand NAFTA. He currently is negotiating a
Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement that will expand NAFTA to 34
Central and South American countries as soon as 2005.

GHW Bush started the process,

President Bush signed NAFTA in December 1992.
How many years do you think it took him to get it
in the first place? Lots of work .....

Clinton pushed it through congress

This would be the Rebublican controlled congress, right?

and signed it into law:

"But Clinton’s real emphasis in foreign policy was on what could be
called economic globalism. He believed that the country’s
security and prosperity depended upon removing barriers to trade
with other nations and upon stabilizing nations with economic troubles.

As compared & contrasted with endless wars based on blatent
lies. And huge deficits (taxpayer debt to be repaid later after the
free money is long gome) & gifts to special interests? Or faith-based
government?

Despite opposition from members of his own party, Clinton pushed
two major trade agreements through Congress in his first term:
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), in 1993, and,
the following year, a global trade agreement that created
the World Trade Organization." - MSN Encarta

GATT was created in 1947.
The WTO came out of this. NEITHER is run by the US.
What parts of "World" and "International" were unclear?

Someone is lying big time <G>.

The organization we call GATT has been around since the '40s, but the
treaty that did all of the damage was Clinton's.

I'm not the one making claims about effects.

Etc., etc., etc.

Bush-II is the one wanting to import slave labor at very low wages
from Mexico as well.


Hillary won't be getting one. They are part of the presidential fleet.


Exactly my point <G>.


She may run for president in 2008, but she won't win.


Looks like the neocons will have worn out the old fleet
(going on all those taxpayer-paid vacations) so she will
need a new one.

You are making no sense!

Too many paid vacations?
--
Cliff

 

[Cliff]

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:17:24 -0500, Chuck Harris
<cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

Michael wrote:


You are imagining things! Clearly you have never been in this bracket.

-Chuck


according to the IRS, the MAXIMUM federal tax (no deductions of any kind)
due on an income of $200k is $53,030.

Like I said--fire your accountant



I can't fire myself. I was working from recollections from the last
time I earned that much. Back then, there was a 33% tax bracket.

Regardless, the point I originally made is still valid, a person
earning $200K per year, and paying $54K per year in taxes is supporting
a whole lot more of the government than one who earns $30K per year.

Perhaps you'd best look at it in terms of percentages and *total*
taxes paid.
And earned vs. unearned income.
Unless you are expecting the poor to pay for your taxes ...
--
Cliff

 

[Chuck Harris]

Cliff wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:17:24 -0500, Chuck Harris
cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

Regardless, the point I originally made is still valid, a person
earning $200K per year, and paying $54K per year in taxes is supporting
a whole lot more of the government than one who earns $30K per year.


Perhaps you'd best look at it in terms of percentages and *total*
taxes paid.
And earned vs. unearned income.
Unless you are expecting the poor to pay for your taxes ...

Percentages mean nothing, unless you think a poor person is a smaller
percentage of a person than a rich one. The costs to society of a
poor person are greater than those of a rich one.

When a rich person pays a larger dollar amount for his taxes than a poor
person, he is paying more than his fair share. Most are quit happy to do so.

I would prefer to have a tax system based on consumption of capital.

-Chuck

 

[Cliff]

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:36:57 -0500, Chuck Harris
<cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:17:24 -0500, Chuck Harris
cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

Regardless, the point I originally made is still valid, a person
earning $200K per year, and paying $54K per year in taxes is supporting
a whole lot more of the government than one who earns $30K per year.


Perhaps you'd best look at it in terms of percentages and *total*
taxes paid.
And earned vs. unearned income.
Unless you are expecting the poor to pay for your taxes ...

Percentages mean nothing, unless you think a poor person is a smaller
percentage of a person than a rich one.

Who gets the expensive imported toys & mansions?

The costs to society of a
poor person are greater than those of a rich one.

Who creates the most total trash & the greatest resource
drain?

When a rich person pays a larger dollar amount for his taxes than a poor
person, he is paying more than his fair share.

What part of "We The People" did you forget?

Most are quit happy to do so.

So you are complaining?

I would prefer to have a tax system based on consumption of capital.

"Consumption of capital"? LOL ...
--
Cliff

 

[Pooh Bear]

Chuck Harris wrote:

Ogie Ogelthorpe wrote:
Boris Olesiyuk wrote:

Our hourly rate is $10. I can send developers' resumes on your
request. We will consider any suggestions of yours but long-term
collaboration is preferable. If you are interested in this offer
please feel free to contact me obb@tut.by.

Sorry to trouble if our proposal is not interesting for you.

Yours sincerely,

Boris Olesiyuk
Team Leader
Belasoft International FV

37-88 Skariny av., Minsk, Belarus, 220003
tel: +375 17 2848804
e-mail: obb@tut.by
ICQ: 76130091


Try www.elance.com

Ogie

In the US, for $10 per hour, you can eat, or live indoors but not
both.

We need to start applying duties and tariffs to this stuff.

It annoys me that I cannot get small runs of PC boards made here in
the US as cheaply, or as easily, as I can get them made by Olimex
in Bulgaria; yet they can ship to the US duty and tax free.

It's called globalisation. It's why you can buy say a microwave oven for
around 40 bucks. You want it made in your own country ? It'll cost more.


Graham

 

[Pooh Bear]

Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:37:52 -0500, Chuck Harris
cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

The guys in Belarus either need to start charging $70/hr, or we need
to levy $60/hour in duties and tariffs.

What do you have against free trade republicans?

Looks like the neocons are outsourcing Hillery's
new helicopters (Marine one fleet of 23) too.

http://tampabay.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2005/01/31/daily4.html
"Lockheed Martin team awarded Marine One contract"
[
The overall contract, worth $6.1 billion, consists of $3.6 billion for
the fleet of helicopters and $2.5 billion for research and
development. The Lockheed team will receive $1.7 billion initially to
begin manufacturing the 23 helicopters, which are to be completed in
2009.
]

Is Lockheed Martin well known for their quality helicopters?
Naturally, much of it will be outsourced by the neocons .....

How much per at $6.1 billion/23 helicopters? Why does she need 23?

Can't she take the bus instead?

The helicopters you mention are Eurocopter ( Agusta Westland ) designed and
well proven unlike the Boeing offer which hasn't even flown.

You dislike a free market ?


Graham

 

[Pooh Bear]

Tony Williams wrote:

In article <la2vv0tam6h0cft6eq5fub4qksrckjod1u@4ax.com>,
Cliff <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote:

Looks like the neocons are outsourcing Hillery's
new helicopters (Marine one fleet of 23) too.
[snip]
Is Lockheed Martin well known for their quality helicopters?
Naturally, much of it will be outsourced by the neocons .....

Reported here in the UK as an Augusta/Westland helicopter.

The twirly bits (rotors,etc) by Westland in the UK, and
the rest by Augusta in Italy.

That's Agusta actually !

http://www.whl.co.uk/eh101.html


Graham

 

[Pooh Bear]

Chuck Harris wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

But, you see, old chap, being forced to pay $70/hour for $5 or
$10/work would really cut into the business of others. That's why, for
example, candy manufacturers have abandoned the US in droves- they
can't get sugar (their main ingredient) at anything close to world
price, yet they have to compete directly against those who can.
Erecting trade walls around a country is believed to cause really
serious problems in the long run. Cutting you loose is just the lesser
of two evils.

No doubt, but as I recall, you too are engaged in the engineering field.
What do you plan to do to steel yourself from forced retirement?

Every single field I can think of that is technical in nature is being
attacked by current trade and immigration policies.

Commonly called globalisation.

It was fun while it worked in *our* favour wasn't it ?

I don't think plunging toilets is going to do it, because we have more
than enough resident aliens in this country that are willing to do that
for less money than your friend.

It strikes me that the only hope is for the US dollar to be come so worthless
that we cannot afford to buy $10 per hour Belarus labor, and will have to
settle for $100 per hour US labor.

Basically you're screwed.

Graahm

 

[Pooh Bear]

Chuck Harris wrote:

Misha wrote:
The question is do enought own a North American car or do we have a foreign
car.

Hmmm which North American cars are made in the third world, what % of the
rest contain a majority of forign parts?

Personally, I drive a Chev Astro?

Do we own third world produced stuff (I DO), are we willing to pay ten or
twenty dollars for those dollar store items.

Either we all must accept these developments or we must try to buy from our
companies its not a pick (Buy 3rd world, limit outsourcing )and choose.
Are we going to choose not try to save $$$$ personally, not too likely.


Most of us are guilty, we should change, but will we?

Given the opportunity, I always buy American made products. However,
I am not always given the opportunity.

It used to be possible to buy a new car that was entirely made in the USA. Now,
you cannot. It can be difficult to even find a car that has the majority of
the parts of US manufacture. Including your Chevy Astro.

The car I am currently driving is made from 51% US made parts, and was assembled
in the USA... Which of the big 3 do you think it is made by?

WRONG! It's a Subaru. The Japanese cars are frequently more made in America
than the cars made by the big 3. The small Fords are made by Mazda (owned by Ford).
The big Fords are made in Canada, Brazil, Mexico, and even partly in the US.

Every major auto manufacturer is a global player now.

Parts are sourced where they are least expensive to make or where there has been product
specific specilaisation.

A GM model could contain components from the US, various countries in Europe, Australia
or Korea for example. It might also be manufacturered in any of those countries.


Graham