recruit FPGA design engineer in Scotland

[Paul Colin Gloster]

On 2012-08-22, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"Paul Colin Gloster wrote: |
|> On 2012-08-21, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> sent: |
|> |---------------------------------------------------------------------------||
|> |"Paul Colin Gloster wrote: ||
|> |> On 2012-08-21, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> posted: ||
|> |> |----------------------------------------------------------------------| ||
|> |> |"[. . .] | ||
|> |> | | ||
|> |> |[. . .] USD 40,000 per year | ||
|> |> |which is not even starting salary for an engineer in the US. I'm not | ||
|> |> |surprised they are looking around the world. | ||
|> |> | | ||
|> |> |Rick" | ||
|> |> |----------------------------------------------------------------------| ||
|> |> ||
|> |> Ah, jobs are located away from the shores of the U.S.A. because people in||
|> |> the U.S.A. charge too much. ||
|> |> ||
|> | ||
|> |If that were actually true," |
|> |---------------------------------------------------------------------------||
|> |
|> It is actually true. I once worked in a 3Com factory. It was not |
|> located in the U.S.A. U.S. companies find that labor outside of the |
|> U.S.A. is cheaper, so they use factories outside of the U.S.A. |
|> |
|> |---------------------------------------------------------------------------||
|> |" the US would have 100% unemployment. ||
|> | ||
|> |-- ||
|> |Les Cargill" ||
|> |---------------------------------------------------------------------------||
|> |
|> The U.S.A. would have 100% unemployment were all jobs located away |
|> from the U.S.A. That is different than what I had claimed. |
|> |
| |
| |
|You said - and I quote ( the text is even in line above ) - |
| |
|"Ah, jobs are located away from the shores of the U.S.A. because people |
|in the U.S.A. charge too much." |
| |
|Again - if that were true, then all jobs would be located away from the |
|US." |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Again that is not true. Again please read what you quoted twice. "Ah, jobs" /= "all jobs".

|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[. . .] |
| |
|Baristas at our Starbucks chain make close to $10USD per hour. If Scots |
|or German FPGA designers are working for $10 per hour, then they |
|are *paid too little*. This would also be true for $20 per hour. |
| |
|-- |
|Les Cargill" |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

At a rate of $10 (or $20) per hour, they would be paid too little if
and only if they are doing work worth more than $10 (or $20) an
hour. If I am forced to wait in a store because the staff is too slow
to deal with the customers, then I do not give the shop more money for
the extra time I was waiting there.

 

[rickman]

On 8/23/2012 3:38 AM, MK wrote:

On 22/08/2012 20:01, Gabor wrote:

I actually live in Scotland (about 100 miles south of the OP's location).

The money offered is absurdly low - they are offering a 5 month contract
at the (very) bottom end of the graduate starting salary range. I would
expect an advertised rate of at least Ł30 per hour but personally would
charge (a lot) more.

If it's a scam they could at least have offered a decent rate !


Michael Kellett

If Ł30 per hour is the same as $48 per hour (from the exchange rate in
another post elsewhere here) that is around what I would expect for a
regular full time job. Contract pay is sometimes less, oddly enough.
Consulting is quite a bit more. I've never figured out the difference
between contract work and consulting except for the middle-man usually
involved in contract work and the difference in pay...

Rick

 

[rickman]

On 8/22/2012 1:46 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

Paul Colin Gloster wrote:
On 2012-08-22, Rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> sent:
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[. . .] |
| |
|My understanding is that the cost of living in most of the US is as low|
|or lower than most of Europe. Around a few of the major cities it gets|
|a bit high here, but then so do most major cities. [. . .] |
|[. . .]" |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

The costs of living in different places in Europe are not the same.

As for Europe and the United States of America, did you take hospitals
into account?



People who are careful in purchasing health insurance in the US don't
pay all that much.

--
Les Cargill

"Careful"? I'm not sure what that means. I can't even get insurance
here except for Maryland offering the new "Affordable Healthcare Act"
policy. In the neighboring Virginia and West Virginia you can't get
insurance at all if you have pre-existing conditions.

I don't want to turn this into an insurance debate, but the difficulty
of finding health insurance outside of an employment group is the single
biggest failing of this government in the last forty years. Well, except
for a war or two we never needed.

Rick

 

[Les Cargill]

rickman wrote:

On 8/22/2012 1:46 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
Paul Colin Gloster wrote:
On 2012-08-22, Rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> sent:
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

|"[. . .] |
| |
|My understanding is that the cost of living in most of the US is as
low|
|or lower than most of Europe. Around a few of the major cities it gets|
|a bit high here, but then so do most major cities. [. . .] |
|[. . .]" |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|


The costs of living in different places in Europe are not the same.

As for Europe and the United States of America, did you take hospitals
into account?



People who are careful in purchasing health insurance in the US don't
pay all that much.

--
Les Cargill

"Careful"? I'm not sure what that means. I can't even get insurance
here except for Maryland offering the new "Affordable Healthcare Act"
policy. In the neighboring Virginia and West Virginia you can't get
insurance at all if you have pre-existing conditions.

Gad. That's terrible. We found something, but I don't precisely recall
the cost - something like $6k a year. It was very high deductible.
That's fine - no point in paying an insurance company to finance the
small stuff.

I don't want to turn this into an insurance debate, but the difficulty
of finding health insurance outside of an employment group is the single
biggest failing of this government in the last forty years. Well, except
for a war or two we never needed.

Rick

--
Les Cargill

 

[Les Cargill]

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)
"Careful"? I'm not sure what that means. I can't even get insurance
here except for Maryland offering the new "Affordable Healthcare Act"
policy. In the neighboring Virginia and West Virginia you can't get
insurance at all if you have pre-existing conditions.

I don't want to turn this into an insurance debate, but the difficulty
of finding health insurance outside of an employment group is the single
biggest failing of this government in the last forty years. Well, except
for a war or two we never needed.

I don't want a health care debate either, but it doesn't seem
fair to blame the government.

Had they opened up sales of insurance across state lines,
there's a nonzero probability that it would have improved cost somewhat.
How much is not clear.

Well, we will have to see how
Obamacare works out, but before that there was pretty much no
government in healthcare. (Not counting Medicare and such.)

Most likely it will still need some adjusting, but it seems to
me that Obamacare is a step in the right direction.

All the TV ads about government bureaucrats making health care
decisions, (to convince people that government is bad), but I
would rather that than some corporate CEO whose year end
bonus depends on how many patients' claims were denied.

Note that Obamacare was modeled after the system that Romney
started in MA, and yet he is against it!

Happy election year! It'll be over soon enough.

-- glen

--
Les Cargill

 

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)

"Careful"? I'm not sure what that means. I can't even get insurance
here except for Maryland offering the new "Affordable Healthcare Act"
policy. In the neighboring Virginia and West Virginia you can't get
insurance at all if you have pre-existing conditions.

I don't want to turn this into an insurance debate, but the difficulty
of finding health insurance outside of an employment group is the single
biggest failing of this government in the last forty years. Well, except
for a war or two we never needed.

I don't want a health care debate either, but it doesn't seem
fair to blame the government. Well, we will have to see how
Obamacare works out, but before that there was pretty much no
government in healthcare. (Not counting Medicare and such.)

Most likely it will still need some adjusting, but it seems to
me that Obamacare is a step in the right direction.

All the TV ads about government bureaucrats making health care
decisions, (to convince people that government is bad), but I
would rather that than some corporate CEO whose year end
bonus depends on how many patients' claims were denied.

Note that Obamacare was modeled after the system that Romney
started in MA, and yet he is against it!

-- glen

 

[Mike Perkins]

On 28/08/2012 11:30, Brian Drummond wrote:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 23:45:55 +0000, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

All the TV ads about government bureaucrats making health care
decisions, (to convince people that government is bad), but I would
rather that than some corporate CEO whose year end bonus depends on how
many patients' claims were denied.

I suppose it depends who the bureaucrats are!
I looked into one example during all that shouting how bad the NHS was as
an example of public healthcare. The bureaucrats (aka "NICE") published
the names on the panel deciding the merits of the treatment concerned...
Leading doctors and surgeons, research chemists, professors of medicine.
Not a beancounter or (as far as I could see) paper pusher among them.

Can your health insurance companies say as much?

From this side of the water, it's difficult to see what all the Obamacare
fuss is about.

- Brian

I think this might give a clue:

According to a report by Health Care for America Now, America's five
biggest for-profit health insurance companies ended 2009 with a combined
profit of $12.2 billion

That can pay for a lot of opposition!!

--
Mike Perkins
Video Solutions Ltd
www.videosolutions.ltd.uk

 

[Brian Drummond]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 23:45:55 +0000, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

All the TV ads about government bureaucrats making health care
decisions, (to convince people that government is bad), but I would
rather that than some corporate CEO whose year end bonus depends on how
many patients' claims were denied.

I suppose it depends who the bureaucrats are!
I looked into one example during all that shouting how bad the NHS was as
an example of public healthcare. The bureaucrats (aka "NICE") published
the names on the panel deciding the merits of the treatment concerned...
Leading doctors and surgeons, research chemists, professors of medicine.
Not a beancounter or (as far as I could see) paper pusher among them.

Can your health insurance companies say as much?

From this side of the water, it's difficult to see what all the Obamacare
fuss is about.

- Brian

 

[rickman]

On 8/27/2012 7:45 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)
"Careful"? I'm not sure what that means. I can't even get insurance
here except for Maryland offering the new "Affordable Healthcare Act"
policy. In the neighboring Virginia and West Virginia you can't get
insurance at all if you have pre-existing conditions.

I don't want to turn this into an insurance debate, but the difficulty
of finding health insurance outside of an employment group is the single
biggest failing of this government in the last forty years. Well, except
for a war or two we never needed.

I don't want a health care debate either, but it doesn't seem
fair to blame the government. Well, we will have to see how
Obamacare works out, but before that there was pretty much no
government in healthcare. (Not counting Medicare and such.)

Most likely it will still need some adjusting, but it seems to
me that Obamacare is a step in the right direction.

All the TV ads about government bureaucrats making health care
decisions, (to convince people that government is bad), but I
would rather that than some corporate CEO whose year end
bonus depends on how many patients' claims were denied.

Note that Obamacare was modeled after the system that Romney
started in MA, and yet he is against it!

-- glen

As we tread further into a discussion we both acknowledge we don't
want... the reason we need the government to get involved in healthcare
is because that is the only way this country will ever be able to
provide healthcare to the full population rather than just those who
have the sort of jobs that provide insurance or those who can pay for
healthcare out of pocket. That latter group includes Bill Gates and
Warren Buffet and that may be the full list. <g>

I firmly believe that the real reason healthcare is not available to
many is because it is for-profit based. That goes directly against the
goals of universal healthcare because it goes against maximizing profit.
The only way this country will ever be able to afford universal
healthcare is to adopt a national healthcare system like so many other
countries have. But this will be fought tooth and nail by everyone who
has a profit motive in healthcare, doctors, other caregivers, insurance
companies, drug companies, etc.

Of course all the associated rhetoric will polarize the voters and widen
the schism already existing in politics. I don't relish the future.

Rick