kelly09 said:I hope he doesn't run. He is hard to take but he's been better than Obama. There's a bunch of Republicans I like.bearister said:
Kelly09, are you voting for tRump in November?
Rubio, Cotton, Haley, Noem etc
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/opinion/coronavirus-lockdown.html?referringSource=articleSharesmh said:
thanks but Big Pass on realclearpolitics magic.
bearister said:kelly09 said:I hope he doesn't run. He is hard to take but he's been better than Obama. There's a bunch of Republicans I like.bearister said:
Kelly09, are you voting for tRump in November?
Rubio, Cotton, Haley, Noem etc
Please elaborate why you think the current POTUS is better than Obama.
Hmmm...they have no answers?bearister said:bearister said:kelly09 said:I hope he doesn't run. He is hard to take but he's been better than Obama. There's a bunch of Republicans I like.bearister said:
Kelly09, are you voting for tRump in November?
Rubio, Cotton, Haley, Noem etc
Please elaborate why you think the current POTUS is better than Obama.
Why is it that questions that move the inquiry to the next level past the talking points usually remain unanswered?
Read his comment. He is doing math, not predicting anything.kelly09 said:Here's an Obama guy.bearister said:
kelly09 said:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/opinion/coronavirus-lockdown.html?referringSource=articleSharesmh said:
thanks but Big Pass on realclearpolitics magic.
kelly09 said:I hope he doesn't run. He is hard to take but he's been better than Obama. There's a bunch of Republicans I like.bearister said:
Kelly09, are you voting for tRump in November?
Rubio, Cotton, Haley, Noem etc
I completely disagree with this. Both parties put up their worst candidate out of any reasonable options. Before election day I was saying that the election would be over if either party had nominated ANYONE else because virtually any Democrat but Hillary would have easily beaten Trump and virtually any Republican would have easily beaten Hillary.BearForce2 said:kelly09 said:I hope he doesn't run. He is hard to take but he's been better than Obama. There's a bunch of Republicans I like.bearister said:
Kelly09, are you voting for tRump in November?
Rubio, Cotton, Haley, Noem etc
I thought Cruz would have been a better choice back in 2015. But none of those guys would have been able to beat Hillary and stand up to the fake news mainstream media except Trump. The left wing establishment helped create the political climate that allowed a DC outsider and TV personality to rise to power. They are partly to blame and now they are suffering from TDS.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/95185/replies/1747001bearister said:
" 5.6 do-able."
bearister said:
The coronavirus will change the economy, our jobs and our health care system - Axios
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-lasting-changes-3b24d031-9acf-4ba2-9028-671e02fbdf5f.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top
the number of infected could be 82 million (25% of US population, 328.2 million (2019)GBear4Life said:Which would make the death rate and hospitalization rate....?sp4149 said:You can't count what has never been tested.kelly09 said:bearister said:
Here's an Obama guy.
If we ever get a valid anti-body test, the number of people infected may
be pretty high, maybe one in four.
bearister said:
The coronavirus will change the economy, our jobs and our health care system - Axios
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-lasting-changes-3b24d031-9acf-4ba2-9028-671e02fbdf5f.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top
Are you kidding me? The only plausible scenario is that there are more infected than reported, not less.sp4149 said:the number of infected could be 82 million (25% of US population, 328.2 million (2019)GBear4Life said:Which would make the death rate and hospitalization rate....?sp4149 said:You can't count what has never been tested.kelly09 said:bearister said:
Here's an Obama guy.
If we ever get a valid anti-body test, the number of people infected may
be pretty high, maybe one in four.
without statistically valid data collection death rates and hospitalization rates are meaningless.
It seems COVI-19 patients dying in nursing homes have been excluded from the totals; testing for
COVID-19 in nursing homes has been sporadic as has been data collection.
SOCAL is having a spike in COVID-19 cases since they recently started to test and inspect nursing homes.
Seems nursing homes have been exempt from testing and reporting. When they do, it shows some have a real problem. Exactly who in CDC, HHS, WH exempted extended care facilities/nursing homes from reporting deaths. etc... has not been revealed. Also ICE is not reporting and in San Diego they have prevented local charities from providing detainees with masks. Prisons are undereported COVID-19 vectors. Someone, somewhere is keeping the COVI-19 numbers artificially low.
kelly09 said:https://amgreatness.com/2020/04/25/post-hoc-vs-propter-hoc/bearister said:
For you, Barrister
I have expressed this elsewhere, but I drastically disagree with this. I work for a company that sells tools that support a company (among many other things) in outsourcing and teleworking. We went through the predicted outsourcing revolution. It failed. Do you notice that the frequency of calling a company and getting an Indian accent on the line has dropped tremendously? Some things can be outsourced. Many, many cannot. As I said, we did a lot of business with companies who wanted to outsource and then we did a lot of business for customers who wanted to bring operations back on shore.dimitrig said:bearister said:
The coronavirus will change the economy, our jobs and our health care system - Axios
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-lasting-changes-3b24d031-9acf-4ba2-9028-671e02fbdf5f.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top
On the subject of white collar workers working remotely, I think that this will - in the medium-term - lead to outsourcing. I know that a lot of employees in tech for example have been working remotely for a long time, but a lot of companies were hesitant to embrace teleworking. Some - like IBM - even tried it before abandoning it.
However, as more companies in non-tech industries try it they will see that some jobs previously thought as needing to come into the office really don't. They will also look at the savings in real estate and associated costs such as utilities and maintenance and see that it offsets any inefficiencies.
The next logical step is for salaries in those jobs to fall as workers in low wage areas (domestically at first, internationally later) are recruited to do them for lower salaries. Between outsourcing and automation I think wages will fall which will push more people out of the cities to seek out lower costs of living. How many fewer new grads are going to be excited about moving to work in a big city like NYC now?
Overall, it may improve quality of life for everyone to be able to work from home in a low cost area even if wages fall but it could prove to be economically devastating for business owners and homeowners in large metro areas.
As an aside, I was a person who only shopped online when I needed something rare or unusual - or maybe if there was a big discount available online. I would never shop for essentials online and thought it was a weird (and wasteful in terms of packaging and fuel to ship) millenial thing to setup essentials like toilet paper to autoship. Now that I have had to do it I am warming up to the idea and I will probably continue to do more of it even after this pandemic.
To tie into the above discussion about telework, one reason I like living near the city is that I actually like to shop and having a diverse and eclectic variety of stores in the city is a big plus for living there. However, I have discovered that these days you can get almost anything you want online and the shipping is dirt cheap. I just bought two Swiss-made toothbrushes online. I have a hard time finding them in the stores. How Amazon can afford to ship them to me for free (well for the cost of my Prime membership) in two days (sometimes even same day) is amazing. This reduces my incentive to want to live near the city except maybe to engage in activities like people watching.
I think your first sentence is somewhat at odds with your last paragraph.OaktownBear said:I have expressed this elsewhere, but I drastically disagree with this. I work for a company that sells tools that support a company (among many other things) in outsourcing and teleworking. We went through the predicted outsourcing revolution. It failed. Do you notice that the frequency of calling a company and getting an Indian accent on the line has dropped tremendously? Some things can be outsourced. Many, many cannot. As I said, we did a lot of business with companies who wanted to outsource and then we did a lot of business for customers who wanted to bring operations back on shore.dimitrig said:bearister said:
The coronavirus will change the economy, our jobs and our health care system - Axios
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-lasting-changes-3b24d031-9acf-4ba2-9028-671e02fbdf5f.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top
Due to data security issues, many major corporations are not only keeping operations onshore they are disallowing vendors from serving them off shore. If you think there are too many countries that want anyone working in a home in a third world country, let me tell you, you are wrong. Telework by white collar workers is done over computer systems. Companies do not want people accessing their computer systems from countries that will offer cheap labor. Your system gets hacked and customer data is breached, good bye to everything you saved by outsourcing. THIS IS A HUGE IMPEDIMENT TO OUTSOURCING WHITE COLLAR WORK. If you don't understand the impact of data security in today's world, you don't understand the challenges of outsourcing anything connected to a computer network.
Real estate costs were always dramatically lower in many foreign countries. Companies always could have saved a ton in theory by setting up an office offshore. Again, many tried it and failed. But seeing that telework leads to saving on real estate makes companies LESS likely to see savings outsourcing.
Outsourcing in many fields sucks because more local knowledge is required to be efficient than you think. Plus, frankly much of the quality of work sucks.
Telework is a boon to companies to have domestic workers and it could be a boon to small town America. It not only saves money for companies on real estate but it allows them to get the best people wherever they are and to cover time zones instead of tying everyone to an office. I literally know people who left major companies for a job that allowed them to telecommute from a home in a rural community.
I'm not sure why you think working from home changes the outsourcing question domestically. If you can hire a person and have them work from home from anywhere in the country, what is the advantage to outsourcing that position? My last paragraph is not at odds with my first because companies that have lots of telecommuting are HIRING the best people wherever they live. Maybe that means they hire someone in a cheaper location. Why pay an outsourcing company in this situation? You would only pay for domestic outsourcing services where you don't have enough full time equivalent positions to hire and you want to just use a contractor. But you would do that anyway. In fact, some companies just go without if they don't have enough work.dimitrig said:I think your first sentence is somewhat at odds with your last paragraph.OaktownBear said:I have expressed this elsewhere, but I drastically disagree with this. I work for a company that sells tools that support a company (among many other things) in outsourcing and teleworking. We went through the predicted outsourcing revolution. It failed. Do you notice that the frequency of calling a company and getting an Indian accent on the line has dropped tremendously? Some things can be outsourced. Many, many cannot. As I said, we did a lot of business with companies who wanted to outsource and then we did a lot of business for customers who wanted to bring operations back on shore.dimitrig said:bearister said:
The coronavirus will change the economy, our jobs and our health care system - Axios
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-lasting-changes-3b24d031-9acf-4ba2-9028-671e02fbdf5f.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top
Due to data security issues, many major corporations are not only keeping operations onshore they are disallowing vendors from serving them off shore. If you think there are too many countries that want anyone working in a home in a third world country, let me tell you, you are wrong. Telework by white collar workers is done over computer systems. Companies do not want people accessing their computer systems from countries that will offer cheap labor. Your system gets hacked and customer data is breached, good bye to everything you saved by outsourcing. THIS IS A HUGE IMPEDIMENT TO OUTSOURCING WHITE COLLAR WORK. If you don't understand the impact of data security in today's world, you don't understand the challenges of outsourcing anything connected to a computer network.
Real estate costs were always dramatically lower in many foreign countries. Companies always could have saved a ton in theory by setting up an office offshore. Again, many tried it and failed. But seeing that telework leads to saving on real estate makes companies LESS likely to see savings outsourcing.
Outsourcing in many fields sucks because more local knowledge is required to be efficient than you think. Plus, frankly much of the quality of work sucks.
Telework is a boon to companies to have domestic workers and it could be a boon to small town America. It not only saves money for companies on real estate but it allows them to get the best people wherever they are and to cover time zones instead of tying everyone to an office. I literally know people who left major companies for a job that allowed them to telecommute from a home in a rural community.
Ok, for some things maybe you won't outsource internationally - at first, anyway. For one thing, unless it is a First World country the infrastructure just doesn't exist - yet. In India the power shuts off once per day and Internet connections are horrible.
However, you absolutely can outsource domestically. How many people in rural America can do some of the jobs remotely that you'd have to pay someone in California twice as much to do? In the past, this was sometimes done. It's why things like call centers moved to low wage states. I think that this experience has opened the eyes of management that jobs previously thought of as needing to be done at the office maybe do not need to be.
There are a lot of paper pushing jobs whether at the DMV or at Fortune 500 that can be done from home but no one wanted to setup the infrastructure to enable it. I think companies (not tech companies but Old Economy business) are seeing that it isn't that complicated and that technologies exist to enable it and that it's not just payroll, HR, or IT that can be outsourced but even engineering, sales, and marketing. Now, there are reasons to keep some of those functions in-house, but in-house doesn't mean an office anymore. Apple just built a huge campus for 12,000 employees. I think it will ultimately be a relic of a time gone by. Probably only 2,000 of those people (the R&D teams) need to work there.
At my organization for example we have one secretary per N people. It was always just assumed that the secretaries would have offices nearby the people they support because that's how it has always been. I think this shelter-in-place order is proving that that is not really necessary in most cases. Since we are a big organization we have a couple hundred secretaries. Space is also at a premium for us. Offices have been getting smaller and smaller as we have had a need to convert more office space into labs to build and test hardware. I guarantee that upper management is already thinking about "encouraging" administrative staff to work from home as a result of seeing it in action. There were some transient costs to get to this state in terms of training and investing in infrastructure, but we've already paid them. Our organization is over 6000 people and we are finding we can get almost everything we need done with only 500 people on site most days and maybe twice that needing to go on site occasionally.
I completely understand the data security issue. Some of our work is classified. However, we are figuring out ways to get that work done without having to send people into a SCIF every day. The data of most companies isn't classified so I imagine if we figured out ways to do it then so can they. No one wanted to be the first CEO to put his job on the line to try it, but now we (and others) have had an excuse to try and it has gone better than anyone expected. I expect there will be more willingness and acceptance to permit remote work now that the genie is out of the bottle - and in many cases (here is where we disagree) remote work will ultimately lead to more outsourcing.
Quote:
The data of most companies isn't classified
Privacy Act Sensitive is not the same as National Security Classified. A Federal Security clearance is not required to access Privacy Act Sensitive information.OaktownBear said:Quote:
The data of most companies isn't classified
I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Every company has personally identifiable information. You have employees? You have their birth dates? Phone numbers? Addresses? There are serious federal regulations and statutes that have serious required protections. Do you have customers? Same deal. Huge liability exposure.
I never said a Federal security clearance was necessary, but I see the confusion. What I meant was "wrong" is the implication that it is easy for regular companies to deal with data security issues. Of course it isn't required to have a Federal Security clearance or most private companies wouldn't be able to work with it. That doesn't mean that data security isn't a major issue.sp4149 said:Privacy Act Sensitive is not the same as National Security Classified. A Federal Security clearance is not required to access Privacy Act Sensitive information.OaktownBear said:Quote:
The data of most companies isn't classified
I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Every company has personally identifiable information. You have employees? You have their birth dates? Phone numbers? Addresses? There are serious federal regulations and statutes that have serious required protections. Do you have customers? Same deal. Huge liability exposure.
This isn't true. There are at least two reported deaths in Santa Clara County from February now, even if they were only confirmed postmortem.bearister said:
I expect countries that have a lockdown to have a lower deaths per capita than those that don't, but it should be noted that there's a Scandinavian country not listed above, Denmark. Their 74 deaths per 1M is twice Norway's and they began their national lockdown one day before Norway. Obviously lockdown status is not the only major factor determining deaths per capita.dimitrig said:kelly09 said:https://amgreatness.com/2020/04/25/post-hoc-vs-propter-hoc/bearister said:
For you, Barrister
"In Sweden, a much milder regime of "mitigation" was enforced. Schools and bars and restaurants remained open. Large gatherings were prohibited. People were encouraged to (and did) practice social distancing. The elderly and ill were protected. The results? Almost indistinguishable from the results in Norway where a much stricter regime of mitigation was enforced."
Sweden deaths per capita: 212 per 1M
Norway deaths per capita: 37 per 1M
Finland deaths per capita: 34 per 1M
Trying to get to herd immunity fast to withstand subsequent waves is like burning your house down o prevent your house from burning down. Looking at the mortality rate in the New York study, you are looking at well over a million people dying to get to herd immunity. Buying time allows us to find treatments and techniques to lower the mortality rate.Cave Bear said:I expect countries that have a lockdown to have a lower deaths per capita than those that don't, but it should be noted that there's a Scandinavian country not listed above, Denmark. Their 74 deaths per 1M is twice Norway's and they began their national lockdown one day before Norway. Obviously lockdown status is not the only major factor determining deaths per capita.dimitrig said:kelly09 said:https://amgreatness.com/2020/04/25/post-hoc-vs-propter-hoc/bearister said:
For you, Barrister
"In Sweden, a much milder regime of "mitigation" was enforced. Schools and bars and restaurants remained open. Large gatherings were prohibited. People were encouraged to (and did) practice social distancing. The elderly and ill were protected. The results? Almost indistinguishable from the results in Norway where a much stricter regime of mitigation was enforced."
Sweden deaths per capita: 212 per 1M
Norway deaths per capita: 37 per 1M
Finland deaths per capita: 34 per 1M
It's also worth considering whether Sweden might be in a better position to withstand subsequent waves of the pandemic until a vaccine is developed and distributed on account of faster building of herd immunity.
