NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 12:04 PM) Well, I don't necessarily see that, I see more clients wanting a blend of offshore on shore (clients that only wanted onshore before). They want at least 50% of the work done very very cheap. They also want a lot more types of work done offshore, not just QA or programming. Also, I can get L1 visa holders for 7k a year AND have them work in the US. You can't beat that price. It will take decades to close income gaps with China and India. To be clear, when I said closing, I meant narrowing - not that the income gap on these jobs will actually close to zero. That won't happen in our lifetimes. But Balta is also right, having the Yuan unpegged would help this a bit when it comes to China.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:53 AM) Protests that that inconvenience people aren't de facto illegal. The whole point is to cause disruption of the status quo. Nor are they de facto legal. That's my whole point. Just because it is peaceful in a sense of lacking physical violence, doesn't mean it is fully protected. To be clear here, I don't know all the arrest situations that came up either. If a protest was occurring in a park away from traffic and not doing any damage or causing problems for the public, then in the very general sense, I'd agree with you. What I am taking issue with is your blanket statement about peaceful protests, which is not supported by law or jurisprudence.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:52 AM) I don't know that he really believes that stuff. Most of that came about as he tried to get the attention of the GOP. In general he is very into state and individual rights, versus federal rights. He's definitely a lot closer to Libertarian than most anyone I can think of currently running, or in Congress.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:52 AM) Peaceful protesters of any stripe should be allowed to congregate and demonstrate without fear of backlash or suppression by police. See my post above. There is more to it than that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:50 AM) I don't like suppression of peaceful protests. I don't either, unless they create a problem for the public. I can create a "peaceful" protest in the middle of the Kennedy during rush hour, but I'm pretty sure I'd get arrested, and should be. There is more to determining a course of action with a crowd problem than just whether or not they are committing acts of violence.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:45 AM) There's actually pretty clear evidence in the form of video of a cop walking up to a protester standing there, macing them, and then walking away. And another video of a cop slamming a videographer into a car/the ground for filming them arresting someone else. They should plan for contingencies. Too often, they create said contingencies. Still not a reason not to plan for them. You can't give me a reason why NYPD shouldn't have been prepared.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 2, 2011 -> 10:22 AM) He chose it. Doesn't matter, nor did it matter for Dawson. The Hall chooses, with the help of MLB. The player's preference is irrelevant. So the money argument is just silly in regards to those two and what hat they have in the Hall. But I certainly agree that the way Pudge was dismissed from the White Sox was a factor in how he felt, and therefore what he would have wanted if he had a choice.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:20 AM) Bachmann blames Obama for the Arab Spring I didn't know some people considered the Arab Spring a bad thing? This is the type of thing I was referring to, about certain members of the GOP field not being sane. It's not that she's right-wing, or that she supports Israel more than I might, or that she dislikes the job Obama is doing (right with her there)... it's that shes CRAZY. Crazy as in, not dealing in reality.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:36 AM) Eh I'm not going to trust their intentions after some of the stuff that's already gone down there and long histories of police running false-flag operations at protests to justify retaliation and arrests. edit: there's also a lot of allegations that the police intentionally rounded up a bunch of protesters on the bridge after escorting them there. Intentions? Let me get this straight. Because there is evidence (if even that) that some cops acted badly - which I am sure happens, I've seen it - that means the NYPD should stop planning for contingencies? How is that logical in any way, shape or form?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:26 AM) Because there was no reason to suspect that they'd need to arrest literal busloads of peaceful protesters? Any large scale protest, you can and should assume that you may need to arrest busloads of people. That's exactly what the police should be doing, is being prepared for the worst contingencies. I applaud them for doing so.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:31 AM) Paul is not a right winger. He is a libertarian. Big difference. Sort of. Libertarian is definitely different than "right wing of current GOP", yes. But on the overall spectrum, he's right. In any case, he's not even a true libertarian, as he's espoused some support of various social issues from the right wing (abortion comes to mind).

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:21 AM) That, and the fact that while the shareholders may appreciate dividends, the consumers really don't like talking to someone named 'Mitch' or 'Barbara' that has an Indian accent so thick you can't understand them. That's why I brought up "communications", which is both with customers and internal to the company.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 2, 2011 -> 01:06 PM) I'm personally a fan of how the NYPD had called in the buses yesterday to prepare for arrests hours before the first arrests actually happened. Why is that a problem? Far as I am concerned, that was the smart move.

Wow, I didn't sign onto the site for a few days and somehow Infantry has made it out that my dislike of certain candidates is purely partisan. This despite the fact that I stated quite clearly in my post that I consider a number of people in the GOP field to NOT be crazy. Ron Paul is probably the furthest right candidate, and I while I think his ideas are unrealistic, I don't think he's crazy. Not sure how I can make that clearer. And how did I get lumped in as a liberal anyway? Ask Balta, Sqwert or StrangeSox if they'd label me as a liberal. I've got views that range from far right to far left, because I don't believe my stands should be dictated by a party. I stand for what I think is right on any given issue. I suppose that makes me a moderate, or a centrist, depending on your definition. But a liberal?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 09:10 PM) yea, but if you want cheap, going offshore or with guest workers will cost so much less. being cheap with a US salary isn't really cheap globally. But not as much cheaper as before. The growing trend is a deceleration of the offshore hiring (not that the number is going down - but that the rate is decreasing), and now they are looking at South-sourcing and what not. The pay gap with places like India and China is declining pretty quickly, and with the added overhead of overseas management and the inherent quality and communication problems that often occur, the trend is slowing down.

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 05:45 PM) NSS, from a practical point of view, it is impossible to interview ever qualified applicant. So you start to apply filters to narrow down the list. Whatever filter you use will potentially cause you to overlook the very best candidate. So which filters should be employed first? The unqualified are tossed aside. Then here is the first cut I used, local versus out of the area. Unemployed applicants from out of say a 100 mile area, went in the bottom stack. Employed applicants without specific industry experience were placed on top of them. The top of the stack were applicants from my biggest competitors with three years of experience or less and one promotion in that time. Why? Because that formula worked for me on numerous occasions. In fifteen years I never fired someone who fit that profile. I was 100% happy with each hire. Some left on their own accord, but were considered solid employees while working with me. Any one of those filters may have caused me to overlook someone, but you have to trust your gut and history. Of course. But at least start with job-related qualifications, and see where that gets you. I've been in a position of hiring and firing people for a lot of my career, and I've seen a LOT of resumes. For every job I've ever seen, most applicants lack fundamental things, and your pool decreases dramatically if you use those qualifications. Though I admit, that may not be true of every job in every sector. But in the sectors where a zillion people are qualified, you then look to the intangibles - like hunger and drive. Furthermore, you want cheap. Both, IMO, point TO the unemployed, not away from them.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 05:17 PM) What's insane about them? The fact that they disagree with you? If that's the only qualifying factor for insanity, then I'd say almost the entirety of the left is insane. So much for civility. actually, you will find looking through this forum that I have said good things about some GOP candidates. There are even some I'd consider voting for over Obama, potentially. I think you have me confused with some of the liberals on the board. I am saying that people like Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Santorum all are not just conservatives - they are outright crazy ones. Gingrich, though an arrogant prick, is pretty logical and sane, in my view. Romney is a flip-flopper, but he's sane too. Same with Huntsman. Then there is Ron Paul, who has a certain crazy consistency to him, he's kind of in a different class.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 10:31 AM) I'm not attempting to play devils advocate here, either...just putting this into a real world perspective. The problem right now comes from the sheer number of people looking for jobs, including those that currently have jobs. In the case of those that are already employed, many accepted jobs that pay less than they're worth or were initially seeking (employers market), but took the job anyway so they'd have some sort of income. Many of those people continue looking for a better opportunity, which keeps the number of people seeking employment very high. Again, this keeps the market in favor of the employers, which is somewhat of a negative snowball effect. Now, keeping that in mind, as a person that's had to interview people in the past (and still does from time to time), I know what a daunting, expensive and time consuming task it can be when you're absolutely bombarded with potential candidates. And herein lies the problem. In many cases, I don't want to go through 500 resumes (or more), so if I can quickly/easily cut that number by only looking for currently employed candidates, it might be something I'd consider. For the record, I'm not saying I've done this, but I'll also go on record in saying that it's something I'd consider DESPITE knowing it may potentially cut some of the best candidates. Why? Because the rent...is too damn... Seriously though, it's because there isn't enough time, and the interviewing process consumes a lot of time from many different people, which in turn makes the process insanely expensive. This is a problem a lot of companies are running into right now. While it would be awesome if we could slow down time and run through thousands of candidates while ignoring the cost, it's simply not reality. Sometimes, great people fall through the cracks in times like this, because as I said, when 5000 resumes hit my desk because of the sheer number of people looking for jobs, the unfortunate reality is 90% of them aren't going to get a fair look. So yes, while it cuts down on the talent pool, it's considered acceptable risk to keep things in order, on time and possible. Not to mention, I'll find a great candidate anyway, only in 1/10th the time and at an acceptable cost in time consumed by the many people they'd have to interview with, etc. This makes sense, I agree that is largely what is happening. But then, I also think that companies, in general, don't invest enough in their recruiting procedures. I think that money pays for itself, when your screening processes are better and you get better employees. Just my view after spending quite a long time in business, managing people, recruiting, hiring and firing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 10:29 AM) I'm pretty sure I've been writing that we're in an oil-supply-constrained economy since the 2008 price spike. The corollary to your statement is that any time the global economy tries to grow, if it doesn't become more energy efficient, it will cause a price spike that will cause yet another fall off. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 10:30 AM) So clearly we should protest and halt all efforts to increase supply. On this point I am actually going to side with Balta AND ss2K5. Darn right we should increase supply... but adding supply that isn't from a limited-supply fossil fuel. I am still 100% convinced that if the US government should be supporting any line of business right now, at all, it should be renewable energy. The positive impacts are simply huge.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 10:24 AM) Of course, you really don't think it's going to be hard for me to find 2009 and 2010 vintage quotes from Chairman Plosser arguing that fiscal and monetary stimulus had served their purpose, we'd average 3-4% growth in 2010 and 2011, and the Federal Reserve should pull back on its QE1 programs and not do QE2 because it will drive massive inflation...do you? Here's his argument in 2009 that it was time to start pulling back (I haven't excerpted his predictions about growth, which were also missed). ANd here's him in 2010 on how QE2 would overheat things. What does that have to do with my post?

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 11:48 PM) I think Iowa State should be pretty popular, because fact is, if you follow college basketball, someone on your favorite team has transferred to Ames to play for the Mayor. on Soxtalk, it's still just you and me on that boat. But I wouldn't be surprised if they start getting more TV time with the talent they are loading up.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 09:12 AM) Some leaked character details from Prometheus: Michael Fassbender plays the android, and a lot of the movie perspective comes from him. Charlize Theron plays the corporate entity, not unlike Paul Reiser from Aliens. Some good quotes from Damon Lindelof http://screenrant.com/prometheus-plot-damo...of-benm-133845/ Good choice on Fassbender. Too bad Lance Henrikson is like 200 years old now, he was fantastic in that role.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 10:07 AM) Guys, I want to get the wife a forerunner, as she's obsessed with working out. Any recommendation on models? There's a bunch, and it's hard to tell which are worth it. I'm happy to spend up to $300. Suunto makes some products for that as well that are quite good, but also pricey. Might want to check those out too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 09:33 AM) You can't possibly be as obtuse as you're being here...should the Fed be narrowly focused on monetary policy? You're literally asking whether the Fed should ignore 1/2 of the law. Remember, the guy with that quote was justifying his vote against additional monetary stimulus measures, in this case the "Twist". For each of those two items, monetary policy has the ability to play a role. But that role can vary a lot, and in both cases, you have the problems of limited armament available, and of extent of effect versus other actions outside the Fed. When it comes to stable prices, monetary policy plays a big role (though there are other factors as well). That role has relatively predictable effects, and it is a direct action. Therefore, the actions take on that side are much more clear in need and response. But even in that case, other factors play in, and you do not have unlimited abilities. But when it comes to maximum employment, the effects of monetary policy are much weaker. If one believes that other actions - whether tax cuts or governmental stimulative spending, for example - would be more effective, and leave the Fed with more flexibility, then you have to weigh those. Just because certain members of the Fed board feel that other methods may work better, that doesn't mean they are "ignoring half the law". It means they think that further action on their part in regards to employment is either too risky, or has too little effect, to be a worthwhile endeavor. This is just not as black and white as you are making it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 09:25 AM) Inflation has been running below the Fed's 2-3% long term goal for at least a year now and has been below that goal on average since 2008. It has done wonders for job growth. Missing his point though. For one, he never said anything was great about the economy. Didn't even hint at it. That was entirely made up by you. For another thing, what he is really getting at is, what is the Fed's role in this? Should they be narrowly focused on monetary policy (inflation, currency balance risk, etc.), or should they also use monetary policy as a tool to shape the broader economy? And I know, that you know, that is what he meant. You are being intentionally obtuse.