Tough Choices Have Real Consequences (Part 2)

What defines how successful an immigrant (native) will be?

1. The skills the immigrant has compared to where he immigrates to. This has happened within/outside the US where construction people relocate to build new projects, technical people to factories to build new aircraft or machines, ... A defined need.

2. The education level can define potential positions available. If the immigrant becomes a school teacher or college professor they now shape the education of the new host country. This may not be a desireable outcome, but is a melting pot outcome.

3. Funding and finances the immigrant can bring to the new country. The international transfer of wealth occurs all the time by individuals and businesses, to buy and build business, people "buy" there entry.

4. Luck, being able to have the right stuff at the right time for the right opportunity and the vision to assemble the pieces.

Each person may have a time/age dependent definition of success/goals and what they would "trade" to rebalance there scales changes...

Why would people immigrate from the US to India, when India's people are immigrating to Canada and the US ?

Canada has more land area then the US, as many resources as the US and 10% of the population of the US, our cultures and values are similar, they drive on the same side of the road, they use 60Hz electrical power, what could be better ?

Same is true for the US. One major reason underlying migration is the population density and available land. The US has by far more available land then India, Europe, most of China. The places with available land and jobs are typical direction of migration, but people do not tend to move to overcrowded areas with high densities of labor (even if it is less skilled) to work for less money and live in worse environments. Why would so many Indians want to move to the US still if it was better to move from the US to India. Obviously something is much worse there than in the US. Plus India is just the current Corporate cheap labor state. As Indian labor wages are on the increase, Indonesia or Malaysia is probably the next cheap semi skilled labor market for these companies to relocate to produce mediocre to poor quality products (quality being relative to the standards at that time) that will sell at Walmart.

Because they're Canadians! watch southpark

are people these days not spoiled? how about adaptability? if you don't want work abroad get another job or re-educate yourself for another line of work.

people these days are to focused on status and materialism, one just has to adept, even if that means (gosh the horror) taking a job that is below your intellectual grade or less pay (there is always time to look for a better job)

"we Americans have grown to develop inside of a comfort zone surrounded by as sense of entitlement."

Coming from a family that all my ancestors arrived on these shores before 1750. I have been raised to feel no entitlement to anything. Taught that my own hard work should provide for me.

It is this willingness to go forth into the into the unknown. To make a better life for oneself and family. Is the quality in the person what has made this country great. The entitlement that you speak of is thanks to our government in the creation of its social programs over the last 50 years. When generations start to depend on their government for their welfare. They no longer have the drive to help themselves.

Are you asking if there is still this quality in Americans?

Is it just me or does anyone else read the underlying arrogance of these articles?

This is excellent. Thank you for sharing.

Dr Doug

Also notice none of those were items related to the skill level or competence of the interviewee. this is the problem with having management derived from the bottom of the work force just above the HR people they are working with to recruit personnel. all of the items indicated were interpersonal things that you may not want a Doctor, scientist or Engineer to be particularly proficient in at the expense of technical skills.

I have been to many interviews and never heard anyone ask any questions to evaluate technical proficiencies. I have heard questions like-" you are assigned a project that is over budget and way behind schedule. You do not have any resources av ailable to work on the project, and have a deadline to meet. How would you handle the project?", or "you are having a conflict with a co-worker who you must work with and it can not be resolved, How would you handle this situation?"

I found that the wrong answers included at least- "I personally do not believe projects should be behind schedule and over budget if the project manager was adequately competent, i personally account for project drift in my project schedules and try to accurately estimate costs. However, I would probably just have to stay late and get the work done myself." Apparently, this is not a good answer under a bargaining unit MOU with a large bureaucratic public agency.

"If i could not diffuse the issue and it was escalating or becoming a problem for completion of the project, one of us would need to be reassigned or quit." Apparently, they really didn't mean that it absolutely could not be resolved.

however, none of these types of questions have any bearing at all on technical competency to perform the job. (and we wonder how high school drop outs can forge degrees and get jobs as Doctors and such, it is because no one evaluates technical competency in the interviews any more.)

I believe that the long standing elements of success in America have been rooted two concepts: The freedom of career and educational choices, and the reasonable certainty that hard work and dedication lead to economic and social success. For many decades the Americans and immigrants who took advantage of these two concepts have benefited immensely. Their success resulted not because they were entitled in any way, but because they were humbly thankful for the opportunity. Many who did not understand or courageously employ these concepts missed the opportunity to be successful.

The "entitlement concept" is rooted in political manipulation to gain power and is counterproductive to long term success. If we are approaching the point where a majority of Americans believe they are entitled to a higher standard of living without earning it, it is the beginning of the end of a prosperous America. Sure, we would all love for everyone to have food, a home, a job, health insurance, and a happy retirement, but unless we earn them, we can never tax (extort) enough from the "haves" to support the "have nots" in the life style to which they believe they are entitled. I also believe that if we continue to curtail freedom and discourage hard work, we are headed for a rude and painful awakening.

GA

milo

I was watching Bill Maher last night and the panel was talking about how in europe they have universal health care and it is illegal for Doctors to make a profit. DL Hughley, a over paid marginally funny comedian, began this who rant about universal health care because he thinks Doctor's are over paid to provide a service we should all expect to get for free, because it is something people need. I think there is a belief amongst certain sectors of society, Hollywood being one, that necessities should be provided to everyone for free, and those who work in those field should not see profit not matter the skill, level of education, or work required to get to a point where they could do the job. I think many americans do believe they are entitled to be totally cared for by the government, and then they could choose to do what ever they want for a living or do nothing, but no american should have to pay his way to survive. however, I think there hae been a number of periods where native born US citizenry have begun to feel they are entitled, and some stressor arose that caused and adjustment in societies perceptions. Such stressors remind everyone how delicate these resource were that they needed to survive, and people thereafter had some higher level of respect for the jobs and were more willing to pay for those professionals. I here quite often from older people about how in their opinion nurses are worth more than all these Doctors now a days, but i suspect that if we had some pandemic, that perception would change rapidly (at least amongst the remaining living people, as the ones whose minds did change would likely die off anyways).

"I think there is a belief amongst certain sectors of society, Hollywood being one, that necessities should be provided to everyone for free,"

The word entitlement is a semantic hot button, and one which DR DOUG chose to use as evidenced by his boilerplate ....

Bucky fuller pointed out in one of his books that when necessities become commodities, it usually results in a form of public ownership, so that there is no profit "waste" (my words not his) increasing the cost to all. His example was public water works, and I would add sewerage as examples of this. So is medical care equivalent product of clean drinking water or sanitary sewers?

I guess if I need heart surgery, I'm not thinking that its a commodity... And neither do all the rich folks from around the world who come to Cleveland Clinic when its their health issue.

So Just because we all want something doesn't make it a commodity, But if we want to spread the available resources among all who want them, well, what will be distributed will be undifferentiated 'commodity service' not what we have experienced as "medical care."

Dr's earnings are not spectacular at all compared to the wages paid the thugocracies of the NBA , NFL, and The investment bankers who were packaging home mortgages. And the Dr. have an 8-10 year loss of opportunity in order to earn their right to practice. Plus pay the Extortion level malpractice insurance premiums because everybody thinks we're 'entitled' to "Perfect" medical procedures. The only real cost reduction that socializing medical care will give will be that in implementing it, they will make malpractice suits impossible. Thus lowering the parasitic costs that the legal system has been taking from our medical sector.

Good insights RCE.

milo

Not to mention that doctors are professionals and frequently in partnerships thus business owners. They have to pay for all the staff, whether staff is busy or not. Many General Practioners and Family Doctors actually end up earning less than the RNs they employ, and the RNs have none of the liability (let alone the billing people who bill insurance and have trouble figuring that out).

Public works, for sewerage at least, on the other hand actually derived from a public health concern by local governments which they addressed, there really has never been a purely private industry there, as the public works have alway been a communal health issue (and most people do not want to pay unless everyone else pays as much or more for such, except when taxed). Priavte industry in Public Works operations, never tend to show an actually profit except when they are marginalizing the city owned improvements and facilities to reduce the maintenance cost on paper. Medical care is not really communal, it is individualize to each person, so there will always be a market for individual treatment. However, some people perceive it as communal except when it comes to the own immediate care, then they want the best they can afford and will generally pay a lot for it there (and later bitch about it as they had planned to by a new sea do or girl friend or whatever with that money). I suspect those rich europeans who could use their universal health care do not use it, because they believe the universal health care have reduced the quality of Doctors to provide service and they want better care.

In trying to understand entitlement better, I came across this article that states, "Entitlement signals a rejection of the very DNA of America. Our national genetic code, at least at one time, was patterned on respect for the common man and woman." Nowadays it seems that the common man and woman is looked down on, even by other common men and women. Appearing common is evidently so distasteful that Americans will mortgage their lives to the hilt to drive a new car and live in a big house in their desperate attempt to live above the common man and woman. And then from their precarious precipice of debt they can comfortably look down on the common man and woman - until their employer decides to move to a more profitable country - preferably a country without oppressive child labor laws, expensive OSHA requirements, and pesky EPA inspections that interfere with the high profit margins they are ENTITLED to!

What about IBM's sense of entitlement to the US market?

The guest in post #9 has good points

But on the other hand

In this world of employment at will, employees are expected to change schedules at a moments notice, embrace whatever the latest consultant is pushing [6 sigma, TQM, blah, blah...] even when it's completely clear mgt. doesn't buy in...... I'm willing to give up the most productive hours of my day [I'll be where I'm supposed to be , doing what I'm supposed to be doing, when I'm supposed to be doing it] & help keep whatever product going out the door.

Loyalty "it's not just for employees"

Management always makes more than talent. The people in charge of the money seem to somehow feel entitled to a somewhat more generous share of the profits. Meanwhile the ideas people & "thems that do" not being solely motivated by money are left to scramble after the crumbs that hit the ground LOL

Free trade should mean more than the rest of the world coming to harvest the low hanging fruit that are our market & the companies [IBM] converting the world's resources into a fat bottom line.

I welcome free & fair trade. Unfortunately I don't think we'll be seeing that anytime soon.

Great insight Steve S!

milo

There is that need for flexibility, though $100,000 a year for a senior engineer isn't particulalrly good pay for such a large metropolis. Standard rates around the San Francisco Bay Area are $90,000 to around $120,000 for associate engineers, Senior Civil Engineers tend to run you $120,000 to $160,000, and Principals are upto around 200,000. I think the payscale issue is relative to perspective. So if you were in some place like Oakland or San Jose earning $135,000 a year in previous job as a Senior Engineer, would you consider moving to Houston for a 30% decrease in pay or would you look locally. And, then there is the house to deal with selling, moving everything, uprooting the wife and kids (and she may work at genentech or somewhere and not want to change her job).

Granted RCE, but that is part of my point. In the debate I was in, one of the things they were saying was that it is impossible for an engineer to make more that 100,000 US per year. As you point out that is patently untrue.

BTW I just sold my house in a nice close in suburb of Houston for $150,000. The house was nice, recently remodeled, 2500 sq ft, on an acre of land near a creek. I sold it for its valuation for taxes from last year (at the time of $150 oil) so it is not a housing crisis issue. Where in San Francisco would you get the same house for that price? No state income tax either. Cost of living in Houston is much less than most parts of the country.

Just saying that there is more to the move calculation than salary, and a pay cut in Houston might end up netting more in the bank.