Living in a dream world, are we? If they brought in someone with less experience or less education or from overseas who would be willing to do your job for a lot less money then aren't you, by your own definition, screwing your employer by demanding to continue receiving your current salary, a salary far in excess of the new prevailing wage?
Should this occur, the questions I'll ask, what have I failed to do to keep myself competitive? what should I do now to make myself competitive again?
The answer to that is simple. Slash your salary by 10% or 20% or 30% or whatever the new prevailing wage is. Not hard at all. In the overwhelming majority of the cases that is all that is necessary.
That is not what most IT people do, and certainly not most posters on such thread.
I've seen outsourcing up close. In the overwhelming majority of the cases the company laid off well trained, capable, competent, motivated programmers and analysts and replaced them with IBM assets who were no more motivated, no more competent, no better trained or capable but who were paid a lot less. That was the only difference I could see and the only thing that mattered. And the IBM assets were difficult to communicate in many instances and did not know the business or the systems. But since that knowledge base is hard to put a price on it didn't factor into the equation. I left that company on my own, and much to my amusement the company in question (and their outsourcing partner) have listing after listing in Hotjobs.com that they can't fill because they can't find people interesting in working there. At any price.
...to protect those whiners, poor soles that cannot any longer make $150,000 while often not knowing how to read or communicate well.
Isn't stereotyping fun?
Well, for someone that does not have a clue about economics, information must look like a dream.
If they brought in someone with less experience or less education or from overseas who would be willing to do your job for a lot less money then aren't you,
That is where you error lies: NOBODY would be willing to do that. I gave enough even quantitative examples in the previous posts for you to see: the question is whether someone can produce the SAME output for less money. If someone else is willing to produce as much and CAN do so for less money, than MY services are indeed overpriced and I am NOT worth my keep. My duty is to ensure that this does not happen by remaining competitive.
You don't know how to compute economic costs and benefits, which leads you to an incorrect reasoning.
The answer to that is simple. Slash your salary by 10% or 20% or 30% or whatever the new prevailing wage is. Not hard at all. In the overwhelming majority of the cases that is all that is necessary.
Correct. That is what I previously said. What are you arguing against?
I've seen outsourcing up close.
Well, you know what happens when you look at the trees up close: you no longer see the forest.
Please go to your car, start the engine, and look at it really, really close. Now that you looked, do you understand the physics of combustion? Of course not. To SEE that, you've got to go elsewhere --- to the classroom and the laboratory.
I suggest that you do the same with economics: study it a little. Looking "up close" at the economy does not give you any more knowledge than looking "up close" at the working engine.
Isn't stereotyping fun?
Here too you do use the word the meaning of which you know not. Stereotyping is making conclusion about an individual on the basis of some representative of a class. Statistics, which I referred to earlier, are an altogether different animal.
Learn something about the subject matter and suspend judgment until then: you cannot learn management or economics by observing what your managers do.
Have a good day.