Re: someone noticed 90 percent indians posting on asktom.oracle.com

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:32:57 +1000, Noons <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> "quarkman" <quarkman_at_myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:oprtr3s8ukzkogxn_at_haydn...
>
>
>> Depends what you mean by 'starting IT', doesn't it? I mean, if the Uni's
>> churn out yet more tired old DBAs or MCSEs or their equivalents, then
>> those
>> 20 year olds are going to be in deep doo-doo.
>
> You got that wrong: the unis have *never* churned out DBAs or MCSEs.
> Ever.
> It's always been a function of the industry. The darn jobs keep changing
> so much there is no way a uni can get together a suitable syllabus for
> any of those. Not with the current industry definition of those jobs.

A certain university in a certain Victorian city is right now offering classes to produce OCP DBAs (don't scream). Likewise, a certain TAFE in a certain harbour-side city, is also churning them out. Shocking, isn't it?

The example was illustrative, but not totally unrealistic.

>>
>> But how about some research on quantum computing? Or on intelligently
>> applying common tools to uncommon problems? Yadda yadda...
>
> Unis are not mainstream education for the masses. Not now and even less
> the way education is going.

The masses will always be with us. We're talking IT professionals here!

>> the whole point
>> of comparative advantage is that you can find some somewhere... but you
>> have to be prepared to look. And change. And change isn't ever
>> comfortable.
>> So people tend to run away from change, and seek refuge in protectionism
>> or, as in this thread, racism.
>
>
> No, I don't think it is racism. The poor Indians just get singled out
> because they are the ones currently undergoing all this crap. Give
> them another 15 years and they'll start asking for better conditions.
>
> Then they'll lose it and it will be the turn of the Chinese or Africans
> or whatever. The problem is not the Indians, they are just the current
> vehicle. The problem is the marketing forces that cause this to happen.

Which some might say isn't a "problem" in the first place.

>
> As I said more than once: I couldn't care less if it is Indians or
> Innuits, they are NOT the problem. However, given that they are for all
> intents and purposes the current vehicle, their nation gets mentioned.
> That is not racism, that is reality.

I take the point. But when the posts contain references to 'cheap' and 'mediocre' and in the same breath mentions 'Indians', the association is suggestive (and there's been more than one post from particular regulars here making the same connection).

>
> As for protectionism, given that EVERY single so-called "advanced
> western"
> state heavily relies on it for just about everything except jobs, you
> have
> to mount a stronger argument than just claim it isn't good. I know it is
> not
> PC, but it's a fact: protectionism is just about as widespread as claims
> it doesn't exist. It must be good for something, given its widespread
> use.

I don't think it's as widespread as you claim (50 years of GATT and WTO have got to count for something). And yes, it's always a bad idea. Look at the Europeans with their massive farm subsidies: they bank-roll mostly extremely wealthy farmers to over-produce expensive food (so the poor old European consumer gets clobbered), the surpluses then get exported around the world (with yet more export subsidies), thus clobbering the poor old African farmers who'd quite like to sell their runner beans if they could only get a look-in, and everyone ends up poorer (except the wealthy farmers). It's abysmal.

Apart from strategic necessities, there are no good economic arguments for any form of protectionism.

But this is really getting wildly off topic, so I'll stop now. But read 'The Economist' -it's extremely well writen, a good newspaper in its own right, often very funny, and makes the case better than I ever could practically every week.

Regards
HJR Received on Tue Aug 12 2003 - 03:53:52 CDT