[Foss-cafe] job sites don't work anymore ?

[dep]

quoth Pupeno:

| Ok, they laws are not stupid, what is stupid is the concept of
| country, I totally disagree with it, I consider it a very stupid
| concept that can only live in the minds of very imaginative beings
| (you have to be very imaginative to think and believe such a stupid
| concepts).

with all due respect, your thoughts here might suggest to a would-be 
employer that you do not typically think things out, and this could 
cause some concern about hiring you. it is not a far jump to suppose 
that seeking the abolition of countries would be followed closely by 
the abolition of laws and, who knows, companies. 

| I won't stop complaining against the stupid situation of the world.

nor should you, if that is your conviction. but do not be surprised if 
the "stupid situation of the world" does not, then, provide you a job. 
there are far more applicants for the position of telling the world 
what's wrong with it than there are positions to fill.

| > As for the medical exam, most countries want to know if you're an
| > HIV patient or not and a lot of immigration countries do not give
| > you permission for a residency if you are.
|
| That's discrimination... I thought we agreed that discrimination was
| wrong, but I was wrong in believing that.

discrimination is the ability to tell one thing from another. 
discrimination is why you favor linux over windows. discrimination by 
itself is entirely neutral. it is the *reason* for discrimination which 
is sometimes at issue. for instance, i choose linux over windows 
because it is in my estimation superior in a multitude of ways; there 
are those who choose linux because they can glom off of other people's 
work without paying for it. those causes of discrimination carry 
different moral weights.

| They didn't ask for an employee not in Argentina, they even't asked
| for an employee in Spain. And I consider very shortsighet all those
| people that believe that having the employees closer will give them
| some kind of security.

there are numerous very good reasons for this and of course some bad 
ones, too. right now, in this country, there is a huge political battle 
underway over "outsourcing" to other countries. there are arguments on 
both sides of the issue, but there is no denying that the issue exists. 
if you were employed there and suddenly your job were given to someone 
in a different country who it is perceived would work harder for less 
money, your view might change. if, on the other hand, jobs were given 
to people in another country so that resources could be freed up that 
would enable the hiring of you, your view would be otherwise. it is 
very easy to overgeneralize in matters such as this, and you've made 
some whopping big overgeneralizations.

| Maybe it was time to do some investment in poor countries, or at
| least, countries with poor people (India's goverment is far from
| good) that with high quality knowledge used to starve to death.

that investment is taking place, but it is important not to overlook 
some facts which require a thorough grounding in economics to fully 
comprehend (i'm fairly well grounded in economics, but i do not know 
all the possible permutations of any but a few of them).

let us suppose that there are no countries or that, rather, the world is 
one big country. a microcosm of this is available by looking at the 
u.s.

i am in connecticut. let us suppose that i would like to grow corn and 
sell it to my neighbors. the problem is, growing corn here is not easy. 
the growing season is short and property costs are high. people in 
kansas and iowa, where property is cheaper and the growing season is 
longer, can grow far better corn for far less money, even when you add 
the costs of shipping. now, i might want a law that requires local 
people to but local corn, or i might persuade the national government 
that the law should be that no one should be allowed to sell corn for 
less than the cost of my corn. this would help me, but it would harm 
everyone who consumes corn.

such laws are in effect all over the place. when done over too big an 
area, they do far more harm than good. for example, it costs far more 
to live in new york city or los angeles than it does to live in tupelo, 
mississippi. determining what is a living wage for the entire country 
must therefore get it wrong: there is no generalization that will 
apply. so it is with the world. in some places it costs less to live 
and to have the things persons seek for their idea of a good life than 
it does in other places. i know people in the u.s. who employee 
programmers overseas in what you refer to as poor countries. the people 
here pay the programmers less than they would have to pay local 
programmers -- and the programmers overseas are the richest guys in 
town, living very comfortable lives. the company and its employees are 
very happy, but the people here who would like to be programmers for 
the company are not. and local programmers are so expensive that to 
hire one of them would be to put two overseas employees out of work. 
and the company would therefore get only half the code for the same 
money, an evvective doubling of its programming costs. it is far too 
complicated to be subject to much generalization.

| I think the problem here is that people don't see the world as a one
| interconnected whole thing... the whole world with all it's
| population is like a whole body... would you cut out your leg to it
| because you are hungry ? Well, that's what most powerfull countries
| have been doing for a long time... and now, they run out of legs,
| arms and so on and they are starting to starve.

the number of starving countries is steadily declining, not the other 
way around. and in many cases -- ethiopia in the 1980s comes vividly to 
mind -- the starvation is often due to local political considerations, 
not a systemic lack of resources. the sudan today is another example.

| Maybe the world as a whole will have an oscilation of power... once
| it was the Roman empire, it falled, once was the Turkish empire, it
| falled and so on... till the moment we realize we are a whole body.

if you feel you are more qualified to fill a position than someone else, 
then you have already accepted the notion that people are not the same. 
yet you turn around and presume that a one-size-fits-all way of 
governing the world would be a good thing. the two notions are mutually 
exclusive, because different regions have different interests and needs 
and different ways of living their lives, which defy generalization. so 
which view do you embrace? 
-- 
dep

Overturn Marbury v. Madison!