Bowling for Columbine is a movie worth watching

[Frackal]

WTF? Taxation penalties for outsourcing? Are you sick? Outsourcing provides a way for companies to discard services (internal / external) services that they aren't good at to focus on core business. Outsourcing also provides for a flexible workforce that can be trimmed and increased through good times and bad. For example, if a major retailer has their own IT shop or own HR benefits department; then they would have to pay to upkeep those skills. Given that IT or HR isn't the major retailer's core business, wouldn't it make more sense for them to hire out those functions and invest in business development? This way, they can hire companies who specialize in those skills and pick and choose which one they want.

Here's an easier example. Do you have the skills to maintain your car or house? Maybe or maybe not. Could you learn? Sure. However, fixing your car / house may not be a value add skill given that it won't affect your earning power. Thus, wouldn't it be better for you to hire a mechanic / contractor who has specialized skills for the job and allow you to focus on core skills that will increase your earning power?

The knee jerk reaction for outsourcing is that the worker is negatively affected. Outsourcing just means that the worker will have to adapt to their conditions and adjust their strategy accordingly (learn new skills, move, choose another vocation, cry, etc.).

Interesting point. I edited my post to be more accurate. However your post does not convince entirely because outsourcing (at least from my understanding) means sending money and jobs overseas anyway you look at it...there are only so many higher-level positions available in one company, and even if OS allows it to grow, I still dont see the new jobs created matching the deficit left by outsourcing practices.

 

[gymrat]

I found it interesting how he often compared the US to Canada. It was striking to see the differences.

 

[slickdadd]

Whether you agree or not, it is an eye opening movie that makes some good points. You don't have to agree with it. You can make your own assumptions through what it says. It's very interesting though.

 

[atlantabiolab]

His point is that big business is swallowing up everything in site...if you are working for a big corp. and then they decide to cut back or down-size or modernize by replacing workers or move their companies out of state or country- your basically screwed...

Incorrect. If big business is so powerful, where is Woolworth's, TG&Y, K-Mart, Enron, WorldCom, etc. Big businesses come and go, it is called competition.

Also, if a big business decides to downsize or move off shore, what is the problem...do you have a right to THAT job??? I don't think that there is a right to a particular job. You are given, in a free society, the opportunity to compete for desires, not the right of entitlement.

People who can't adapt to changes will fail, but it is not the right of government or society, to hinder others from change.

big business is on its way to being only a few large conglomerates...and then you'll know what communism is....definition: COMMUNISM- AN INTERNATIONAL, CONSPIRATORIAL DRIVE FOR POWER ON THE PART OF MEN IN HIGH PLACES WILLING TO USE ANY MEANS TO BRING ABOUT THIER DESIRED AIM-GLOBAL CONQUEST....just my .02

This only occurs with the assistance of government. Only government can create such a monopoly, through legislative force and coercion. Government granted protectionism, government subsidies, government regulation aids in the formation of entities who are shielded from having to compete in a free market.

Left unhindered, the competitive market reduces the chance of such monopolies.

 

[Frackal]

True ABL... I try to dip shallowly in this topic but havent we had things such as foreign import tariffs in place since the beginning of the Union itself to offer a bit of practical discouragement to sending money overseas?

 

[EnderJE]

Interesting point. I edited my post to be more accurate. However your post does not convince entirely because outsourcing (at least from my understanding) means sending money and jobs overseas anyway you look at it...there are only so many higher-level positions available in one company, and even if OS allows it to grow, I still dont see the new jobs created matching the deficit left by outsourcing practices.

First off, my are you sick comment was unnecessary. My bad. What can I say, I'm a Canadian.

In your post above, I'm reading that you assume that all companies will outsource and get rid of all lower level functions. Thus, you have some concerns that there are only so many higher level functions available at one company. You also mention that you are concerned that companies are sending jobs overseas and no net new jobs are being created in their place. I'm guessing that you are refering to the rash of news stories about IT outsourcing to Inda over the last little while.

New jobs / opportunities are being created, but it would depend on where you are looking. The outsourced people will have to be more resourceful when working to find these new jobs. For example, in ON, they could open a stone masonery contractor shop as the rush for white collar work has left several openings in the manual trades.

Another possiblity could be that the person could start a consulting business and compete with the outsourcers. How, you may ask? By focusing on their specialized skills or abilities. For example, anyone can get a run of the mill coder who knows the latest and greatest programming languages; but few can get a supply chain IT process analyst who specializes in transportation optimization (for someone who worked on supply chain applications).

Another way they could compete is by focusing on is their greatest selling point, local presence. I think it will be a few years until the business realizes how to deal with shops overseas as my impression is that they are used to dealing to face to face contact. Thus, the outsourced IT person could work more as an analyst by gathering the requiremetns from the business and translating them to "geek-speak" to the outsources IT teams.

However, those who decide not to adapt (or who are unlucky) will be severely impacted.

Please note I didn't say any of the above would be easy. It will take work.

 

[atlantabiolab]

True ABL... I try to dip shallowly in this topic but havent we had things such as foreign import tariffs in place since the beginning of the Union itself to offer a bit of practical discouragement to sending money overseas?

We have, but this does not mean that even then men were not arguing for the benefits and liberty of free trade.

I was at one time very in favor of tariffs and protectionist policies, but after reading more about it I disfavor the idea. It promotes the consumers interests, it discourages inefficient systems, it encourages innovation, and it is simply conducive to liberty.

 

[BoneCruncher]

I really enjoyed the film, the fact that it has generated so much debate is great.

I found it a little confusing how he suggested Americas high murder rate is a result of availability of guns and ammo (taking those two kids to kmart etc.) Then at the same time dismissing his own argument by pointing out Canadas similarly high availability of guns and ammo yet lower rate of murder / violent crime.

I also thought placing that girls picture outside of Charlton Hestons house was way out of line.

I read stupid White men and was largely dissapointed, I will probably read his new book at some stage regardless.

 

[Tiervexx]

What, then, should we do about guns?

First, we must realize that there is no Utopia. Pandora's box is open. Guns are here to stay. We can't eliminate illegal drugs and guns in prison; so how can we expect to do it in a free society? The answer is: You can't.

We must realize that more laws would not work. Criminals don't care about breaking a law. Did you know that the students in Littleton broke 19 different laws?. Do you think they cared? More laws would only impact law-abiding citizens -- because they abide by the law -- and not the criminals -- because they don't.

So what, then, do we do about guns? The best programmer I ever met once told me a fundamental truth, useful not only in programming, but also useful in life. He said, "More important than solving the problem correctly is to solve the correct problem."

So when it comes to guns, what's the problem that we're solving here?

Do you know what problem I'd like to solve? 40,000 people die every year from firearms. THAT is the problem to be solved. To my mind, all our actions must be aimed at reducing the number of deaths as best we can.

And who could disagree? I don't know about you, but I'm tired of hearing about dead children on the 6 o'clock news.

So what can we do to reduce gun deaths? We need to look at the things that have already worked. What successes have there been in America recently?

Without a doubt, the most astounding success, statistically speaking, is occurring in Florida. According to the FBI, over the ten years between 1987 and 1997 their handgun homicide rate dropped 41% while the rest of the nation's rose 24%; and it continues to drop today, 5% a year, while the rest of the nation's continues to rise. And before 1987, their rate had pretty much gone along with the rest of the country.

How did Florida achieve this boon, you may ask? How did they reduce their handgun homicide rate to its lowest level since 1933? What did Florida do in 1987 that started their contrarian trend?

They made it legal to carry a concealed handgun.

Surprised? I was shocked; I couldn't believe it at first. But the statistics are there, plain as day. An armed society is a safer society, 41% safer. Some local communities have eliminated over 90 percent of gun deaths that way. But don't take my word for it; ask the FBI.

But we have to be careful when we rely only on statistics like these. Statistics can be very cold. So let's take a look at what happens in real situations with real people. Let's look at a few of the recent school shootings, for example.

In Pearl Mississippi in 1997, 2 students were killed by a fellow student. But the vice principal ran out to his car for his gun, then held the killer at bay for 5 minutes until the police arrived. If he hadn't stepped forward, how many more people would have been killed in those 5 minutes?

In 1998, a little closer to home in Edinboro Pennsylvania, only 1 student was killed because a neighboring merchant with a shotgun held the killer at bay for 11 minutes until the police arrived. How many more people could have been killed in those 11 minutes?

This year, in Littleton Colorado, there was no one there to stop them. Thirteen were killed.


http://www.kenk.org/gun.php

 

[canadianhitman]

I refuse to watch that movie, based on that asshole director's little speech.