Let's in-source our projects!!!

[ikinman]

Ernest,

 

Get off the pulpit. When are you going to wake up and "smell the coffee"? There really is no debate or argument to be made. When you saw our operation in Miami wasn't it blindingly obvious that outsourcing works? Why start a debate that is only opening wounds and making everyone nervous? Furthermore, Jim Chen spilled his heart to you and all you can say is "I appreciate it". Do you really care?

 

 

Stay classy, Eddie.

 

I've made the decision that this is an important discussion, but that it has become buried under too many strong feelings about important but related topics. So I've started up a reboot on another thread in General Discussions. The impacts and merits of outsourcing can continue to be discussed here and in other threads, but Ernest has raised some specific questions about organizing individuals into groups that merit a more focused look, In my humble opinion.

 

Oh, and by the way, it's quite true that health care is a not a right that is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Neither is your right not to have me smack you in the head with a tire iron. Compassion is a virtue.

 

Thanks, and I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

 

Ian

[Devin Johnston]

 

Oh, and by the way, it's quite true that health care is a not a right that is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Neither is your right not to have me smack you in the head with a tire iron. Compassion is a virtue.

 

Ian

 

Yes it's called socialism; I live in America no thanks.

[ikinman]

No thanks to socialism? Or no thanks to compassion?

 

-Ian

[Ernest Burden III]

I've started up a reboot on another thread in General Discussions.

 

Thank you for that. I should preemptively ban myself from that one, though I will read it.

[Ray]

. . . Oh, and by the way, it's quite true that health care is a not a right that is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Neither is your right not to have me smack you in the head with a tire iron. Compassion is a virtue.

 

Thanks, and I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

 

Ian

 

But there are laws about smacking people in the head with a tire iron, and there is a constitutional right that allows me to own a gun to protect myself from said tire-iron-wielders.

[AJLynn]

Yes it's called socialism; I live in America no thanks.

 

You've got a whole lot of rights that aren't explicit in the Bill of Rights - which is not meant as a limitation and doesn't cover all of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". I take a pragmatic/compassionate approach - we've tried it this way and all we've got is way more cost than ever before and a constantly decreasing level of care, and that's for us who are fortunate enough to be covered. Maybe Michael Moore is right and as a society, when we're free to decide how to set up a system like health care, we're nuts to decide that what we need is a bunch of guys with a profit motive. Given how screwed up the whole thing is right now, if we did a real study of the situation we're likely to be able to decrease the total cost of the system if we change to a setup that's non-profit, run for the public good and involved everybody covered and everybody paying.

 

I joke about this stuff all the time - metric is for commies, etc. - and there's a truth behind it, that it's important to maintain our identity as a society. But given a choice - pay a lot for lousy service and leave out a bunch of people, but we get to call it "capitalist", vs. paying less for better service and including everybody, but it's "socialist", is it even a debatable point?

[Devin Johnston]

No thanks to socialism? Or no thanks to compassion?

 

-Ian

 

 

I'll let you pic

[Hidden_Pixel]

Talk about getting off the subject.

[Devin Johnston]

You've got a whole lot of rights that aren't explicit in the Bill of Rights - which is not meant as a limitation and doesn't cover all of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". I take a pragmatic/compassionate approach - we've tried it this way and all we've got is way more cost than ever before and a constantly decreasing level of care, and that's for us who are fortunate enough to be covered. Maybe Michael Moore is right and as a society, when we're free to decide how to set up a system like health care, we're nuts to decide that what we need is a bunch of guys with a profit motive. Given how screwed up the whole thing is right now, if we did a real study of the situation we're likely to be able to decrease the total cost of the system if we change to a setup that's non-profit, run for the public good and involved everybody covered and everybody paying.

 

I joke about this stuff all the time - metric is for commies, etc. - and there's a truth behind it, that it's important to maintain our identity as a society. But given a choice - pay a lot for lousy service and leave out a bunch of people, but we get to call it "capitalist", vs. paying less for better service and including everybody, but it's "socialist", is it even a debatable point?

 

Some of that may be true but look a who your asking to make it all better, the government has no competence in running any program. Every agency the government has is bloated and inefficient, if you want to get anything done it takes an eternity and no one cares because they have a secure government job. Prices won't go down they will go up and guess who pays for it all, the tax payer. If you socialize medical care sure you'll cover everyone but the quality of care goes down and the wait time goes up because everyone in the system is making the same money and the incentive for being creative and working hard has been taken away. Look at the programs the government currently runs, social security, Medicare, education, national defense and on and on, they are all over budget and in the red. I guarantee you that if you socialize medicine it will be in worse shape than it is now, that is not the answer.

[EddieLeon]

I would like us to move beyond the emotional arguments and take an honest look at where we are as arch-vis providers in the major-market countries with respect to outsourcing.

 

There you go again. Words are very powerful. When you decide to make this a business discussion for "archviz providers in the major markets". You are essentially saying how can I compete with "them" or how can I avoid dealing with "them". The nature of your question is divisive even though you are covering yourself by saying "they" are not our enemies.

 

I believe he spilled his heart because he read my posts and saw that I do, but for the record, yes, I care about how people in our industry treat each other.

 

I personally introduced you to Jim and his wife Niki at DMVC. We had dinner together with them. Do you remember? I think his response merited a little bit more from you...

 

I wasn't thinking about Spine3D in the advice I gave a few posts back because you have already got things in place with priority on customer attention and responsiveness. You have arranged the process to serve the top business goals rather than trying to fit a business around doing what you love to do.

 

Talk about cheap shots. Are you insinuating that I don't love 3d? Also, are you separating me aside also because I am too successful? Wow...that's amazing! For a person with almost 5,000 posts on this forum and so many years of experience I would have expected more. Good thing I don't follow your advice.

[Ray]

Some of that may be true but look a who your asking to make it all better, the government has no competence in running any program. Every agency the government has is bloated and inefficient, if you want to get anything done it takes an eternity and no one cares because they have a secure government job. Prices won't go down they will go up and guess who pays for it all, the tax payer. If you socialize medical care sure you'll cover everyone but the quality of care goes down and the wait time goes up because everyone in the system is making the same money and the incentive for being creative and working hard has been taken away. Look at the programs the government currently runs, social security, Medicare, education, national defense and on and on, they are all over budget and in the red. I guarantee you that if you socialize medicine it will be in worse shape than it is now, that is not the answer.

 

Nail. Head.

[Hidden_Pixel]

Relax Eddie, you make it hard to have open discussions when you basically verbal bully people who may have different opinions to yours. I think this whole forum will agree that Ernest does not employ these same tactics. I know you love to have heated discussions but throwing about terms like "enemy" seems glib.

[AJLynn]

Some of that may be true but look a who your asking to make it all better, the government has no competence in running any program. Every agency the government has is bloated and inefficient, if you want to get anything done it takes an eternity and no one cares because they have a secure government job. Prices won't go down they will go up and guess who pays for it all, the tax payer. If you socialize medical care sure you'll cover everyone but the quality of care goes down and the wait time goes up because everyone in the system is making the same money and the incentive for being creative and working hard has been taken away. Look at the programs the government currently runs, social security, Medicare, education, national defense and on and on, they are all over budget and in the red. I guarantee you that if you socialize medicine it will be in worse shape than it is now, that is not the answer.

 

Respectfully, I disagree. Medical insurance now is inefficient in that it does not effectively perform the function we tend to believe it should, which is to turn our money into medical care. It has become increasingly better at performing the functions the insurance companies believe it should, which is producing profit. The profit motive is contrary to public interest.

 

None of these socialized medical systems is perfect, but it's a fact that there are many countries with socialized systems that provide superior service to ours at a lower cost. The "everything government run is inefficient, everything corporate is efficient" idea doesn't work. As Americans, we should be able to do better at this - I see no reason why Europeans should be considered inherently better at managing government run entities than we are, which is a necessary assumption if we are to believe that even though many European countries have government run systems superior to our corporate run system, we can't do the same.

[EddieLeon]

Don’t make this geographically dependent. Instead operate virtually, and create a virtual community of modelers and such (perhaps working with schools). Basically set up a website that matches a client with a modeler over the web and take a cut to pay for organizing the whole thing.

 

This is a brilliant idea. It would be a great resources that everyone can use and be a part of...

[EddieLeon]

Relax Eddie, you make it hard to have open discussions when you basically verbal bully people who may have different opinions to yours. I think this whole forum will agree that Ernest does not employ these same tactics. I know you love to have heated discussions but throwing about terms like "enemy" seems glib.

 

I'm not a bully and Ernest is the one that used the term "enemy". I was just quoting him.

[RyanSpaulding]

Some of that may be true but look a who your asking to make it all better, the government has no competence in running any program. Every agency the government has is bloated and inefficient, if you want to get anything done it takes an eternity and no one cares because they have a secure government job. Prices won't go down they will go up and guess who pays for it all, the tax payer. If you socialize medical care sure you'll cover everyone but the quality of care goes down and the wait time goes up because everyone in the system is making the same money and the incentive for being creative and working hard has been taken away. Look at the programs the government currently runs, social security, Medicare, education, national defense and on and on, they are all over budget and in the red. I guarantee you that if you socialize medicine it will be in worse shape than it is now, that is not the answer.

 

So, to continue with the OT discussion, what's the solution? The MAJOR problem with insurance and medicine right now is precisely what we're talking about. The complete GREED of the privitized sector creates a system where they attempt to deny you the coverage you need...in ANY way possible. If you lose your job, your insurance, and have a medical need of insurance....too bad. I'd rather pay more, have it take a bit longer, if it ensures everyone, my parents, grandparents, friends, ect...wont be out on their ass because of some greedy companies viewing their needs as 'profit drains'.

 

You can place incentives on specific doctors and businesses that help the most people...thus encouraging them to speed it up and make the process faster.

[ikinman]

Some of that may be true but look a who your asking to make it all better, the government has no competence in running any program.

 

 

True, enough. After all, look what our government’s done to Iraq.

 

And I can think of no better example of the benefits of unregulated and privatized commerce than our nation’s wonderous financial industry. After the dismantling of all of those pesky regulations set up during the New Deal governing the behavior of banks, such as the Glass-Steagall Act, they went rampant in a glorious orgy of unfettered capitalism, creating an unprecedented boom in real estate values that made us all wealthy beyond our wildest dreams.

 

Oh, wait…

[Hidden_Pixel]

I'm not a bully and Ernest is the one that used the term "enemy". I was just quoting him.

 

He did use the word enemy but it wasn't stated as his opinion. He is basically talking about extremes, some people really hate outsourcing and some people really love it and all the rest in between. Don't get me wrong I may sound like I am against it but I am not, if it is done for the right reasons. I disagree with it if it is exploitive.

Also Eddie what's so wrong with Americans potentially competing against outsourcing?.

[Hidden_Pixel]

Respectfully, I disagree. Medical insurance now is inefficient in that it does not effectively perform the function we tend to believe it should, which is to turn our money into medical care. It has become increasingly better at performing the functions the insurance companies believe it should, which is producing profit. The profit motive is contrary to public interest.

 

None of these socialized medical systems is perfect, but it's a fact that there are many countries with socialized systems that provide superior service to ours at a lower cost. The "everything government run is inefficient, everything corporate is efficient" idea doesn't work. As Americans, we should be able to do better at this - I see no reason why Europeans should be considered inherently better at managing government run entities than we are, which is a necessary assumption if we are to believe that even though many European countries have government run systems superior to our corporate run system, we can't do the same.

 

 

Didn't want to get involved in this discussion as it seems to be steering the thread off path but you are both right. Having experienced health care in a few different countries, they are all flawed. There is no perfect system. The best system would be a hybrid.

[EddieLeon]

He did use the word enemy but it wasn't stated as his opinion.

 

It wasn't my opinion either, so why did you bring it up?

 

Also Eddie what's so wrong with Americans potentially competing against outsourcing?.

 

There's nothing wrong with it. They can also go chasing after windmills if they want.

[Hidden_Pixel]

It wasn't my opinion either, so why did you bring it up?

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with it. They can also go chasing after windmills if they want.

 

Your right Eddie, is that what you want hear. I have learned it is pointless trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. There you go, you got your reaction.

[EddieLeon]

Your right Eddie, is that what you want hear. I have learned it is pointless trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. There you go, you got your reaction.

 

No. It's actually sad to see you give up so easily. Maybe that's why people like you just want outsourcing to go away. It's too hard for you to deal with it.

 

So, when did you "learn it's pointless to have a reasonable discussion with me"? I don't know you or recall ever having a discussion with you. Please refresh my memory.

[Hidden_Pixel]

No. It's actually sad to see you give up so easily. Maybe that's why people like you just want outsourcing to go away. It's too hard for you to deal with it.

 

So, when did you "learn it's pointless to have a reasonable discussion with me"? I don't know you or recall ever having a discussion with you. Please refresh my memory.

 

Way to keep proving my point Eddie. Maybe we can now get back to a professional discussion.

[Ernest Burden III]

I don't think we're communicating well today.

 

There you go again...When you decide to make this a business discussion for "archviz providers in the major markets"...nature of your question is divisive even though you are covering yourself by saying "they" are not our enemies.

 

Here I go again, yes. I addressed this thread to a sub-set of the industry, the one I'm part of, the one that is dominant on this forum. The question is for those in this set who are complaining about outsourcing to examine whether the alternative is viable, and above all, to try to remove the us vs them nature of the discussion.

 

I personally introduced you to Jim and his wife Niki at DMVC. We had dinner together with them. Do you remember? I think his response merited a little bit more from you...

 

What he wrote was complete and compelling. I didn't think it needed any validation from me. I meant no disrespect. Writing more on what's going on outside my market is another direction, so I'm not sure how to bring more of that into this topic.

 

Talk about cheap shots. Are you insinuating that I don't love 3d? Also, are you separating me aside also because I am too successful?

 

Quite the opposite--I'm praising you for the success you pointed out to us. You asked why and I said it is your smart business management. I'm sorry you felt insulted. I'm sure you do love 3D, but we are discussing running a business.

 

There's standard business advice that says if you are most passionate about what you can make (design cars, bake pies, draw) you are better fit as an employee. Its hard to do both what you love and run a business at the same time. It can be done, but not always well. I'm better at rendering than the business of rendering. It's been a struggle my whole career.

 

I hope we haven't gone too far off the rails with this. I take responsibility because I started the thread. It may be instructive regardless, in ways I hadn't planned.

[William Alexander]

This is a brilliant idea. It would be a great resources that everyone can use and be a part of...

 

One does exist and is starting to grow... but anything like this takes a mindset way different than this discussion "overall" to be successful