Slashdot Mirror

Here is a very interesting article I found in that Wikipedia article. It's the U.S. Dept. of Labor definition of the "Computer Software Engineer".

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos267.htm

Here is a more detailed description of the household survey. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Even this shows how the survey can be bad. For example look at the section on how the determine who is unemployed:

Passive methods of jobsearch do not result in jobseekers actually contacting potential employers, and therefore are not acceptable for classifying persons as unemployed. These would include such things as attending a job training program or course or merely reading the want ads.

That right there. THAT ALONE shows that the statistics they gather are ABSOLUTELY DISTORTED! They are leaving out an entire class of unemployed ... INTENTIONALLY!

Thank you for the evidence that I can now take to my Congress person to show that the BLS is pulling a sham on the American people.

"First, the government gathers statistics in a number of ways."

Of course. And unemployment claims or numbers collecting benefits are a useful statistic. But that is not how unemployment rate generally is calculated.

"The typical survey method is by telephone."

You can criticize any method used to gather unemployment rate data. But if you have a professional statistician doing the analysis there is also no question that biases in the data can be accounted for.

Here is a more detailed description of the household survey.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

The main thing here is to dispell the common myth that unemployment rate is determined by the number of people collecting unemployment insurance. It just isn't so.

Your argument is hand-waving dismissal of real data, or just flat out urban myth. For example:

"The government also has incomplete figures on people out of work. When someone who had a high-tech job loses it, and applies for unemployment benefits, then they get counted. But when the benefits run out, they aren't counted anymore."

This is just not true. US Bureau of Statistics unemployment figures are based of household surveys, NOT numbers of people collectiing unemployment benefits.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

If you love coding and troubleshooting computers all day, then maybe comsci is for you. All I can say is research!!!!!

START HERE: http://www.bls.gov/oco/

That will give you REAL statistical census info that will tell you career outlook FACTS, not bias propaganda spewed from some think tank. Comsci is on the rise, but not as much as other fields, biotech, business admin etc. How long will it apply?

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos110.htm

MANAGER$ MAKE MORE MONEY!!!! If you love to code, code, if you think you can manage the geeks rather than coding, for heaven sakes, let someone else read those java books, and go read some finance/managerial/economic books!! The person who wrote this article is a VP, and is most likely heavily into communications/public relations (pseudoscience) and they are a propagandist, not an economist, take data from economists. I could continue... the fact that I can pay someone $2000 salary in India to piece together code should scare anyone. Business never outsources the core: VPs Directors leaders in Finance CFO CIO CTO COO CSO... they do however outsource anything that is manufacturing related. Think maintance/continuance (the structures are there to build on), versus constructing something someone will do or already has done, unless your a genius like Torvaldis or Bill Joy, etc then you have nothing to worry about.

If you love coding and troubleshooting computers all day, then maybe comsci is for you. All I can say is research!!!!!

START HERE: http://www.bls.gov/oco/

That will give you REAL statistical census info that will tell you career outlook FACTS, not bias propaganda spewed from some think tank. Comsci is on the rise, but not as much as other fields, biotech, business admin etc. How long will it apply?

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos110.htm

MANAGER$ MAKE MORE MONEY!!!! If you love to code, code, if you think you can manage the geeks rather than coding, for heaven sakes, let someone else read those java books, and go read some finance/managerial/economic books!! The person who wrote this article is a VP, and is most likely heavily into communications/public relations (pseudoscience) and they are a propagandist, not an economist, take data from economists. I could continue... the fact that I can pay someone $2000 salary in India to piece together code should scare anyone. Business never outsources the core: VPs Directors leaders in Finance CFO CIO CTO COO CSO... they do however outsource anything that is manufacturing related. Think maintance/continuance (the structures are there to build on), versus constructing something someone will do or already has done, unless your a genius like Torvaldis or Bill Joy, etc then you have nothing to worry about.

can you say "20%+ unemployment,"

Fifty percent of working-age adults in the U.S. are not employed in full-time "permanent" jobs.

As the AC said, where's your source? As of February 2006, unemployment was at 4.8%. My source is here. Put up or shut up.

If you make it impossible to fire potentially shiftless/lazy employees

Shiftless/lazy employee: Anyone who is not a powerless, hungry, indebted, fearful, easily controlled slave.

Are you sure that chip on your shoulder isn't what's keeping you out of work? If I were in a position to have any say in the matter, I wouldn't hire someone with your lousy attitude.

The Consumer Price Index shows increases from 2001-2006 of: 1.6%, 2.4%, 1.9%, 3.3% and 3.4% (second last column).

Keep in mind that inflation has raised the costs for the company as well. And if the "going rate" for a person of your caliber has gone down, then inflation is really irrelavant.

Too often people use the CPI (consumer price index)to compare two markets. While this is a good start it does not present the entire picture. I recently moved from Harrisburg PA to Tampa FL (3.3% higher CPI in Tampa) but reality is that I can afford to live in Tampa, but I will never build any real wealth as I could in Central PA.

From the BLS (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm#Question_4)

Is the CPI a cost-of-living index?
"The CPI frequently is called a cost-of-living index, but it differs in important ways from a complete cost-of-living measure. BLS has for some time used a cost-of-living framework in making practical decisions about questions that arise in constructing the CPI. A cost-of-living index is a conceptual measurement goal, however, not a straightforward alternative to the CPI."

Marx predicted this exact thing. He's been wrong for over 100 years in a row, so pardon my optimism.

Marx was wrong for 100 years, because the Left took non-revolutionary paths to their goals such as unionization, collective bargaining, and welfare state programs (back when they worked and were "with the times"). These may have been imperfect, but they worked, and they made radical leftism unnecessary and Marxist analysis incorrect.

Problem: Retrenchment of those gains is making Marxism more and more correct. This year 12.5% of workers were unionized. The blue-collar jobs that paid for your family to live mostly no longer exist. The white-collar jobs that are staples of the American upper-middle class (Slashdotter jobs) live in fear of outsourcing and are more competitive than ever. Service industries pay little, but are the main growth industries. The welfare state has been passively retrenched: conservatives have kept it from being updated for so long it has become a zombified hulk of little use for its former applications. Thanks to all of the above factors (especially the tiny union membership) collective bargaining is a joke.

As the gains of the moderate left are lost Marx becomes more and more applicable to our own situation. So forgive me for thinking that one of these days either a parallel economy will form to meet people's needs, shorter working hours will be instituted to increase both leisure and the demand for labor, or workers will take control of capital (probably in the form of cooperatives rather than a revolution) and end the economic problems that oppressed them.

About technology: Technology brings increased productivity, which itself reduces the need for workers. However, you can't run a modern society in which only the ~10% most productive workers actually produce anything and everyone else is unemployed.

When it comes to outsourcing discussions, Slashdot is at its populist worst. No one wants to explain why it's ok to buy PC hardware from Taiwan, but not PC software from India (outsourcing is simply importing a service, and there's no meaningful difference between it and importing goods). And no one wants to explain why, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about outsourcing, unemployment numbers look like they do here:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls

(select the 4th item and have them draw a graph for you!)

When I fill out my IRS tax form, I am required to put my occupation and the amount I made. I believe the government keeps track of this sort of thing at the Bureau of Labor. I used their webform to select all computer and mathematical occupation numbers for all industries and generated an Excel spreadsheet. The data is about a year old. Then it was easy to figure the trend using a little arithmetic. According to my calculations the US gains around 50000 new tech jobs every six months. I suppose it's possible that the ACM study might include investigating an outsourcing of illegal tech occupations to other countries, which wouldn't be reported to the IRS, but that's rather farfetched.

I found this at this site you specified but I could find nothing that says half.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

You say you went to a university, what was your major? My sister went to college late in life...she never even really had a job and was hired on the spot soon after graduation and is working at the same place to this day. I have worked at various jobs since I was 14, sometimes two at once and never had a problem getting a job. Due to a back injury I have been out of the workforce for 5 years but I have been retrained in IT and now hold several certifications. If I was able to return to work today....I could have a job, today.

I have never been fired from any of my jobs. I have always quit to move on to other things.

Would you care to guess how many people are employed in the entertainment business?

---Mind you this includes only those whose stake is directly in production. Not finance, not support services. Not those clerking at Blockbuster or laboring in the mail room at Netflix.

I'll give you a hint: It is big enough to be politically significant and concentrated in the states and cities that elect the President and shape the Congress: Concentration of Entertainment-related Employment by Metropolitan Area

When you consider how many people actively engage in filesharing, it becomes quite clear that the vast segment of the populace does not consider such activities to be morally or ethically wrong, regardless of what the law might be.

My own suspicion is that the file-sharing demographic looks a lot like the stereotypical video gaming demographic: Young, male, and politically impotent.

How about you start by looking at the department of labor statistics for current employment trends for January 2006 (here).

The unemployment rates for adult men (4.3 percent), adult women (4.5 per-cent), whites (4.3 percent), and Hispanics or Latinos (6.0 percent) showed little or no change in December. The jobless rates for teenagers (15.2 per-cent) and blacks (9.3 percent) declined over the month; the rate for black teenagers had an unusual large decline and fell to 24.4 percent. The unemployment rate for Asians was 3.8 percent, not seasonally adjusted.

Clearly I was wrong. Blacks and whites are discriminated against in favor of Asians. On the other hand, most Asians I've known have either been hard workers or intelligent or both, while I've known plenty of lazy and stupid black and white people. Also note that while the unemployment rate among blacks is over twice that of whites, large numbers of those are in the inner cities which have poor economies and are losing jobs at much higher rates than the national average (Heres an associated press newspaper story since you're so keen on them).

So lets take the inner city out of the equation by looking at the geographical and skill data (here). Conclusions? I would say things aren't far off when the statistical margin of error is taken into consideration. And further its obvious those in the more highly skilled professions have much lower unemployment rates, regardless of race.

And this was just in 10 minutes. Research grasshopper. I stopped believing stats from newspapers when they started quoting blogs as informational sources on a regular basis. Just because they get it right 99% of the time doesn't mean I'm going to trust them 100%,especially when my life experience has taught me otherwise.

How about you start by looking at the department of labor statistics for current employment trends for January 2006 (here).

The unemployment rates for adult men (4.3 percent), adult women (4.5 per-cent), whites (4.3 percent), and Hispanics or Latinos (6.0 percent) showed little or no change in December. The jobless rates for teenagers (15.2 per-cent) and blacks (9.3 percent) declined over the month; the rate for black teenagers had an unusual large decline and fell to 24.4 percent. The unemployment rate for Asians was 3.8 percent, not seasonally adjusted.

Clearly I was wrong. Blacks and whites are discriminated against in favor of Asians. On the other hand, most Asians I've known have either been hard workers or intelligent or both, while I've known plenty of lazy and stupid black and white people. Also note that while the unemployment rate among blacks is over twice that of whites, large numbers of those are in the inner cities which have poor economies and are losing jobs at much higher rates than the national average (Heres an associated press newspaper story since you're so keen on them).

So lets take the inner city out of the equation by looking at the geographical and skill data (here). Conclusions? I would say things aren't far off when the statistical margin of error is taken into consideration. And further its obvious those in the more highly skilled professions have much lower unemployment rates, regardless of race.

And this was just in 10 minutes. Research grasshopper. I stopped believing stats from newspapers when they started quoting blogs as informational sources on a regular basis. Just because they get it right 99% of the time doesn't mean I'm going to trust them 100%,especially when my life experience has taught me otherwise.

A six-fold increase in price over 40 years is just 4.5% increase per year. Cumulative inflation from 1965 to 2005 would have resulted in a 6.2-fold increase in the value of the camera if it was just sitting somewhere in a box.

So your camera actually lost some value in real-dollar terms, although very little.

As there is no minimum wage in some of the competing countries ...
So abolish minimum wage, and let americans work for 90 cents an hour so we can "compete"
Simplicity applies again here, try to afford a house or car on 90 cents an hour .


Your analysis only has part of the story, though. Couple of things:

1) The minimum wage has almost nothing to do with the American labor market, and it has no impact on whether we're all making $0.90/hour or more than that. Gets some facts here:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2002.htm

Only about 3% of Americans workers earn minimum wage or less. So even if you eliminated the minimum wage, it would only potentially impact a fairly small portion of the working people. And many of those people have their own "minimum wage", below which they won't take the job. That percentage, plus some of the other stats (showing that minimum wage earners tend to be really young, uneducated, and immigrants [lack English skills, etc.]) suggests that the American economy can support its current wage structure pretty well on a market basis.

2) Globalization of capital, labor, and goods markets is far from complete, and it probably will never be complete. There are lots of real-world obstacles to perfect liquidity of markets, many of which can't be solved by just removing trade barriers. Capital markets are a great example: in countries that don't have good property-rights protection, contract enforcement, law enforcement, and stable civil society, it's a lot riskier to invest your capital. The United States has those factors in spades, so it's a safe place to invest--foreign capital loves to come over here.

You're probably more worried about liquidity in the labor and goods markets--Chinese and Indian software guys stealing our jobs, right? But there are barriers to that, too: language and social differences can make dealing with foreigners kind of trying, and sheer distance can make communicating requirements and project management difficult. Also, the American educational system (recent ID furor notwithstanding) has built an incredible supply of proven engineering talent; we've been learning lately that foreigners who can write C++ may not necessarily be on the same level, skills-wise.

Long story short, the American economy isn't going to see the bottom fall out anytime soon on account of globalization. There is no Armageddon.

It seems that rampant Xenophobia is alive, well and being modded up on Slashdot.

As a business owner located in the EU, I'd be very interested to see evidence of any 'harsh and irrational restraints' that I'm under, as I'm not currently aware of any.

The EU monopoly abuse laws that Microsoft are so dismissive of are pretty much exactly the same as the US, it's just that we might actually be enforcing them.

As for unemployment rates, our 4.7% unemployment rate here in Britain is lower than the 5.5% in the USA. The high rates (which are lower than 10% according to the US Govt.) in France and Germany have far more to do with local left-wing economic policies and the absorption of communist East Germany respectively than EU-wide laws.

millions of American jobs are lost

If millions of American jobs are lost, why is total payroll employment at an all-time high? Why is the unemployment rate going down, and still much lower than it was during much of the 1970's?

Employees are more likely to have health care through Wal-Mart than through those mom-n-pop style retail shops, and are making more as well.

Face it, the "economic degredation" of Wal-Mart is anti-capitalist hype.

I live in a city with a Wal-Mart Supercenter, a Target, a Giant Food and a Shoppers Food Warehouse (two unionized grocery chains), and every one of them is doing fine. The poor people get great deals at Wal-Mart, and the rich people blow their money at Giant Food on stuff like organic produce.

Regarding health care, it is experiencing massive inflation in part because of government regulation and interference. Doctors are regulated, drugs are regulated, and 50% of every US medical dollar comes from government driving moral hazards and distorting the market. Even basic tax policy distorts the medical market by making employer-paid health insurance untaxed while individual medical costs are paid from taxed income.

The other reason medical care is becoming more expensive is because it is becoming technologically and scientifically better, and can greatly extend the life of people. In the US, people's time is becoming more valuable as the economy expands to allow them to make more, thus the life extension is doubly more valuable, so it is no surprise it costs more.

millions of American jobs are lost

If millions of American jobs are lost, why is total payroll employment at an all-time high? Why is the unemployment rate going down, and still much lower than it was during much of the 1970's?

Employees are more likely to have health care through Wal-Mart than through those mom-n-pop style retail shops, and are making more as well.

Face it, the "economic degredation" of Wal-Mart is anti-capitalist hype.

I live in a city with a Wal-Mart Supercenter, a Target, a Giant Food and a Shoppers Food Warehouse (two unionized grocery chains), and every one of them is doing fine. The poor people get great deals at Wal-Mart, and the rich people blow their money at Giant Food on stuff like organic produce.

Regarding health care, it is experiencing massive inflation in part because of government regulation and interference. Doctors are regulated, drugs are regulated, and 50% of every US medical dollar comes from government driving moral hazards and distorting the market. Even basic tax policy distorts the medical market by making employer-paid health insurance untaxed while individual medical costs are paid from taxed income.

The other reason medical care is becoming more expensive is because it is becoming technologically and scientifically better, and can greatly extend the life of people. In the US, people's time is becoming more valuable as the economy expands to allow them to make more, thus the life extension is doubly more valuable, so it is no surprise it costs more.

"2004 saw 220,000 fewer employed U.S. electrical engineers than in 2000, despite falling unemployment, according to BLS data." http://www.todaysengineer.org/2005/Sep/pulse.asp

Notible things are that the US Department of Labor statistics which are stating that there are more engineering jobs are really not tracking that. They are tracking that a person who has an engineering degree and worked as such until he/she was laid-off simply has a "job" (any job, flipping burgers, parking cars, clearing tables, etc.), so the data there can only simply state that these engineers have found a way to gain some form of income, nothing other then that.

The only area where I can say that a US engineering job is secure is in the defense sector where the engineers are required to be a US citizen to obtain a security clearance. If you are working anywhere else, well, you are replacible by a H1B or off-shoring of the department.

Now speaking about the department of labor:

"Employment of materials engineers is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos034.htm

"Employment of aerospace engineers is expected to decline over the projection period." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos028.htm

"Employment of civil engineers is expected to increase more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos030.htm

"Employment of electrical and electronics engineers is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos031.htm

" As with other information technology jobs, employment growth of computer software engineers may be tempered somewhat by an increase in contracting out of software development abroad." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos267.htm

"Computer hardware engineers may face competition for jobs because the number of degrees granted in this field has increased rapidly and because employment is expected grow more slowly than average." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos266.htm

"Overall engineering employment is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations over the 2002-12 period. Engineers tend to be concentrated in slow-growing manufacturing industries, a factor which tends to hold down their employment growth. Also, many employers are increasing their use of engineering services performed in other countries." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm

Now, why don't we start this conversation again. The jobs for US engineers are simply not there. The companies that can off-shore, have been doing so, claiming that there are not enough US engineers. The IEEE charts show that there are about 120,000 EE's over the last 4 years out there who are not employed as EE's anymore. Yes, a portion of that may have died, gone to management, etc., but I would suggest that there is probably 50% of that number who would still work as an EE if the job opertunity was there... This is the reason why their salaries have not increased as "demand" increases, because the demand is false.

"2004 saw 220,000 fewer employed U.S. electrical engineers than in 2000, despite falling unemployment, according to BLS data." http://www.todaysengineer.org/2005/Sep/pulse.asp

Notible things are that the US Department of Labor statistics which are stating that there are more engineering jobs are really not tracking that. They are tracking that a person who has an engineering degree and worked as such until he/she was laid-off simply has a "job" (any job, flipping burgers, parking cars, clearing tables, etc.), so the data there can only simply state that these engineers have found a way to gain some form of income, nothing other then that.

The only area where I can say that a US engineering job is secure is in the defense sector where the engineers are required to be a US citizen to obtain a security clearance. If you are working anywhere else, well, you are replacible by a H1B or off-shoring of the department.

Now speaking about the department of labor:

"Employment of materials engineers is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos034.htm

"Employment of aerospace engineers is expected to decline over the projection period." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos028.htm

"Employment of civil engineers is expected to increase more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos030.htm

"Employment of electrical and electronics engineers is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos031.htm

" As with other information technology jobs, employment growth of computer software engineers may be tempered somewhat by an increase in contracting out of software development abroad." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos267.htm

"Computer hardware engineers may face competition for jobs because the number of degrees granted in this field has increased rapidly and because employment is expected grow more slowly than average." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos266.htm

"Overall engineering employment is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations over the 2002-12 period. Engineers tend to be concentrated in slow-growing manufacturing industries, a factor which tends to hold down their employment growth. Also, many employers are increasing their use of engineering services performed in other countries." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm

Now, why don't we start this conversation again. The jobs for US engineers are simply not there. The companies that can off-shore, have been doing so, claiming that there are not enough US engineers. The IEEE charts show that there are about 120,000 EE's over the last 4 years out there who are not employed as EE's anymore. Yes, a portion of that may have died, gone to management, etc., but I would suggest that there is probably 50% of that number who would still work as an EE if the job opertunity was there... This is the reason why their salaries have not increased as "demand" increases, because the demand is false.

"2004 saw 220,000 fewer employed U.S. electrical engineers than in 2000, despite falling unemployment, according to BLS data." http://www.todaysengineer.org/2005/Sep/pulse.asp

Notible things are that the US Department of Labor statistics which are stating that there are more engineering jobs are really not tracking that. They are tracking that a person who has an engineering degree and worked as such until he/she was laid-off simply has a "job" (any job, flipping burgers, parking cars, clearing tables, etc.), so the data there can only simply state that these engineers have found a way to gain some form of income, nothing other then that.

The only area where I can say that a US engineering job is secure is in the defense sector where the engineers are required to be a US citizen to obtain a security clearance. If you are working anywhere else, well, you are replacible by a H1B or off-shoring of the department.

Now speaking about the department of labor:

"Employment of materials engineers is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos034.htm

"Employment of aerospace engineers is expected to decline over the projection period." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos028.htm

"Employment of civil engineers is expected to increase more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos030.htm

"Employment of electrical and electronics engineers is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos031.htm

" As with other information technology jobs, employment growth of computer software engineers may be tempered somewhat by an increase in contracting out of software development abroad." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos267.htm

"Computer hardware engineers may face competition for jobs because the number of degrees granted in this field has increased rapidly and because employment is expected grow more slowly than average." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos266.htm

"Overall engineering employment is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations over the 2002-12 period. Engineers tend to be concentrated in slow-growing manufacturing industries, a factor which tends to hold down their employment growth. Also, many employers are increasing their use of engineering services performed in other countries." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm

Now, why don't we start this conversation again. The jobs for US engineers are simply not there. The companies that can off-shore, have been doing so, claiming that there are not enough US engineers. The IEEE charts show that there are about 120,000 EE's over the last 4 years out there who are not employed as EE's anymore. Yes, a portion of that may have died, gone to management, etc., but I would suggest that there is probably 50% of that number who would still work as an EE if the job opertunity was there... This is the reason why their salaries have not increased as "demand" increases, because the demand is false.

"2004 saw 220,000 fewer employed U.S. electrical engineers than in 2000, despite falling unemployment, according to BLS data." http://www.todaysengineer.org/2005/Sep/pulse.asp

Notible things are that the US Department of Labor statistics which are stating that there are more engineering jobs are really not tracking that. They are tracking that a person who has an engineering degree and worked as such until he/she was laid-off simply has a "job" (any job, flipping burgers, parking cars, clearing tables, etc.), so the data there can only simply state that these engineers have found a way to gain some form of income, nothing other then that.

The only area where I can say that a US engineering job is secure is in the defense sector where the engineers are required to be a US citizen to obtain a security clearance. If you are working anywhere else, well, you are replacible by a H1B or off-shoring of the department.

Now speaking about the department of labor:

"Employment of materials engineers is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos034.htm

"Employment of aerospace engineers is expected to decline over the projection period." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos028.htm

"Employment of civil engineers is expected to increase more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos030.htm

"Employment of electrical and electronics engineers is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos031.htm

" As with other information technology jobs, employment growth of computer software engineers may be tempered somewhat by an increase in contracting out of software development abroad." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos267.htm

"Computer hardware engineers may face competition for jobs because the number of degrees granted in this field has increased rapidly and because employment is expected grow more slowly than average." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos266.htm

"Overall engineering employment is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations over the 2002-12 period. Engineers tend to be concentrated in slow-growing manufacturing industries, a factor which tends to hold down their employment growth. Also, many employers are increasing their use of engineering services performed in other countries." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm

Now, why don't we start this conversation again. The jobs for US engineers are simply not there. The companies that can off-shore, have been doing so, claiming that there are not enough US engineers. The IEEE charts show that there are about 120,000 EE's over the last 4 years out there who are not employed as EE's anymore. Yes, a portion of that may have died, gone to management, etc., but I would suggest that there is probably 50% of that number who would still work as an EE if the job opertunity was there... This is the reason why their salaries have not increased as "demand" increases, because the demand is false.

"2004 saw 220,000 fewer employed U.S. electrical engineers than in 2000, despite falling unemployment, according to BLS data." http://www.todaysengineer.org/2005/Sep/pulse.asp

Notible things are that the US Department of Labor statistics which are stating that there are more engineering jobs are really not tracking that. They are tracking that a person who has an engineering degree and worked as such until he/she was laid-off simply has a "job" (any job, flipping burgers, parking cars, clearing tables, etc.), so the data there can only simply state that these engineers have found a way to gain some form of income, nothing other then that.

The only area where I can say that a US engineering job is secure is in the defense sector where the engineers are required to be a US citizen to obtain a security clearance. If you are working anywhere else, well, you are replacible by a H1B or off-shoring of the department.

Now speaking about the department of labor:

"Employment of materials engineers is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos034.htm

"Employment of aerospace engineers is expected to decline over the projection period." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos028.htm

"Employment of civil engineers is expected to increase more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos030.htm

"Employment of electrical and electronics engineers is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos031.htm

" As with other information technology jobs, employment growth of computer software engineers may be tempered somewhat by an increase in contracting out of software development abroad." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos267.htm

"Computer hardware engineers may face competition for jobs because the number of degrees granted in this field has increased rapidly and because employment is expected grow more slowly than average." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos266.htm

"Overall engineering employment is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations over the 2002-12 period. Engineers tend to be concentrated in slow-growing manufacturing industries, a factor which tends to hold down their employment growth. Also, many employers are increasing their use of engineering services performed in other countries." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm

Now, why don't we start this conversation again. The jobs for US engineers are simply not there. The companies that can off-shore, have been doing so, claiming that there are not enough US engineers. The IEEE charts show that there are about 120,000 EE's over the last 4 years out there who are not employed as EE's anymore. Yes, a portion of that may have died, gone to management, etc., but I would suggest that there is probably 50% of that number who would still work as an EE if the job opertunity was there... This is the reason why their salaries have not increased as "demand" increases, because the demand is false.

"2004 saw 220,000 fewer employed U.S. electrical engineers than in 2000, despite falling unemployment, according to BLS data." http://www.todaysengineer.org/2005/Sep/pulse.asp

Notible things are that the US Department of Labor statistics which are stating that there are more engineering jobs are really not tracking that. They are tracking that a person who has an engineering degree and worked as such until he/she was laid-off simply has a "job" (any job, flipping burgers, parking cars, clearing tables, etc.), so the data there can only simply state that these engineers have found a way to gain some form of income, nothing other then that.

The only area where I can say that a US engineering job is secure is in the defense sector where the engineers are required to be a US citizen to obtain a security clearance. If you are working anywhere else, well, you are replacible by a H1B or off-shoring of the department.

Now speaking about the department of labor:

"Employment of materials engineers is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos034.htm

"Employment of aerospace engineers is expected to decline over the projection period." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos028.htm

"Employment of civil engineers is expected to increase more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos030.htm

"Employment of electrical and electronics engineers is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos031.htm

" As with other information technology jobs, employment growth of computer software engineers may be tempered somewhat by an increase in contracting out of software development abroad." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos267.htm

"Computer hardware engineers may face competition for jobs because the number of degrees granted in this field has increased rapidly and because employment is expected grow more slowly than average." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos266.htm

"Overall engineering employment is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations over the 2002-12 period. Engineers tend to be concentrated in slow-growing manufacturing industries, a factor which tends to hold down their employment growth. Also, many employers are increasing their use of engineering services performed in other countries." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm

Now, why don't we start this conversation again. The jobs for US engineers are simply not there. The companies that can off-shore, have been doing so, claiming that there are not enough US engineers. The IEEE charts show that there are about 120,000 EE's over the last 4 years out there who are not employed as EE's anymore. Yes, a portion of that may have died, gone to management, etc., but I would suggest that there is probably 50% of that number who would still work as an EE if the job opertunity was there... This is the reason why their salaries have not increased as "demand" increases, because the demand is false.

"2004 saw 220,000 fewer employed U.S. electrical engineers than in 2000, despite falling unemployment, according to BLS data." http://www.todaysengineer.org/2005/Sep/pulse.asp

Notible things are that the US Department of Labor statistics which are stating that there are more engineering jobs are really not tracking that. They are tracking that a person who has an engineering degree and worked as such until he/she was laid-off simply has a "job" (any job, flipping burgers, parking cars, clearing tables, etc.), so the data there can only simply state that these engineers have found a way to gain some form of income, nothing other then that.

The only area where I can say that a US engineering job is secure is in the defense sector where the engineers are required to be a US citizen to obtain a security clearance. If you are working anywhere else, well, you are replacible by a H1B or off-shoring of the department.

Now speaking about the department of labor:

"Employment of materials engineers is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos034.htm

"Employment of aerospace engineers is expected to decline over the projection period." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos028.htm

"Employment of civil engineers is expected to increase more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos030.htm

"Employment of electrical and electronics engineers is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2012." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos031.htm

" As with other information technology jobs, employment growth of computer software engineers may be tempered somewhat by an increase in contracting out of software development abroad." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos267.htm

"Computer hardware engineers may face competition for jobs because the number of degrees granted in this field has increased rapidly and because employment is expected grow more slowly than average." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos266.htm

"Overall engineering employment is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations over the 2002-12 period. Engineers tend to be concentrated in slow-growing manufacturing industries, a factor which tends to hold down their employment growth. Also, many employers are increasing their use of engineering services performed in other countries." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm

Now, why don't we start this conversation again. The jobs for US engineers are simply not there. The companies that can off-shore, have been doing so, claiming that there are not enough US engineers. The IEEE charts show that there are about 120,000 EE's over the last 4 years out there who are not employed as EE's anymore. Yes, a portion of that may have died, gone to management, etc., but I would suggest that there is probably 50% of that number who would still work as an EE if the job opertunity was there... This is the reason why their salaries have not increased as "demand" increases, because the demand is false.

Because only a small proportion of oil and gas in a reservoir will flow out under natural forces, petroleum engineers develop and use various enhanced recovery methods. These include injecting water, chemicals, gases, or steam into an oil reservoir to force out more of the oil, and computer-controlled drilling or fracturing to connect a larger area of a reservoir to a single well. Because even the best techniques in use today recover only a portion of the oil and gas in a reservoir, petroleum engineers research and develop technology and methods to increase recovery and lower the cost of drilling and production operations."

see also http://www.spe.org/

I don't know what country you live in, but here in the US there are no more "production jobs"...factories/plants have all moved production to Mexico, India, and China...

ALL? Com'on, there are plenty of manufacturing plants in all sorts of sectors in the US. Hell, even Japanese car companies build plants here.

I don't know if you've noticed, but unemployment is going up...if all technology brought more employment, we would not have such high unemployment...

I havn't noticed, because IT IS NOT TRUE.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt

Unemployment has historically swung mainly between 4 and 8 %, with a few years in the 1.whatever% and a few near 10. The current rate, 5.5%, is lower than last year's rate, 6%, corresponding to the end of the recession (unemployment, like the economy, is cyclical.)

So, yes, you're full of FUD.

Seems like a bunch of misplaced angst. Unemployment is low in the US. See figures. For good programmers in Silicon Valley, there are lots of jobs, which is a nice contrast after the recession.

I haven't needed to call tech support for any electronics in the last 10 years or so, nor have I found things to be generally crap - maybe I just research more than you before buying.

If people have a lot of credit card debt, that's usually their fault, and can't be blamed on outsourcing.

Trying to block globalization is just the classic error of protectionism - a recipe for bloat and inefficiency. The countries that are trying it are almost always doing worse than the U.S.

I think you've fallen victim to the relentless negativity of our media.

I actually agree with almost everything you said except for the state of our economy; the economy isn't poor by any stretch of the imagination. Home purchases and lots of other statistical goodness are at record levels, or leves not seen in 20 years. I found the Bureau of Labor Statistics to be fairly useful (http://www.bls.gov/ and a Google will find lots of other stuff. Consumer confidence is up, unemployeement is down, interest rates seem to have hit a plateau.

Oh one more thing: the Oil companies don't want to be known as oil companies anymore. They aren't just oil, they are _energy_. When oil runs out or is replaced by whatever else, these energy companies will still have a major piece. Interesting note, it took me several minutes to find the word "petroleum" on BP's website. They used to be known as British Petroleum but you never see that spelled out anymore.

All facts given come from this source: http://stats.bls.gov/

Let's get some facts about job outlooks in IT, specifically in relation to what
would fall under the umbrella of programming or development. There are a lot of
people who talk about the sky falling, how there is no work to be had, how all
the jobs are leaving, and other doom and gloom scenarios.

What are the facts?

The site divides software into the following groups:
1. Programmers, those who translate a document into code.
2. Applications Software Engineers, those who design and build applications.
3. Systems Software Engineers, those who design and build systems.

From the site....

NUMBER OF JOBS
Programmers: 396,100
Applications Software Engineers: 439,720
Systems Software Engineers: 321,120

JOB OUTLOOK
Programmers: Employment of programmers is expected to grow about as fast as
the average for all occupations through 2012.
Applications Software Engineers: Computer software engineers are projected
to be one of the fastest growing occupations through 2012.
Systems Software Engineers: Computer software engineers are projected to be one
of the fastest growing occupations through 2012.

MEAN PAY:
Programmers: $66,480
Applications Software Engineers: $78,570
Systems Software Engineers: $83,460

The +5 insightful Slashdot opinion is most often that there are few if any jobs
on the software side of IT, that the jobs left are going fast, and that the
pay and perks are terrible. These statistics and outlooks contradict those comments.

Let the Feds do it for you - http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab3.htm.

CAD is hardly niche. AutoDesk (makers of AutoCAD) made $1 billion in profits last year.

Take the US Construction industry, 4.8 percent of the U.S. GDP. That's $1.1 trillion. Now figure that most architectural firms I know (I'm an architect) have a copy for every intern, drafter and architect they have. That's a ballpark of 113,000 people. The same then goes for the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, civil, landscape architect, and survey design professions. Also, most owners have a facilities department, they all use AutoCAD. Nearly all larger contractors have a copy, as well as most smaller specialty shops like cabinet makers, hardware manufacturers, etc. Throw in all the units at colleges and universities for the students in these professions to use. This is just the construction industry! We haven't even counted industries like automotive (not just cars, think parts), transportation, aerospace, electronics, toys, pharmaceutical equipment, and whatever else I forgot.

Free Software versions are not around, but there is a huge market for CAD software. It's not easy, it's not shiney...and it's not niche.

That being said, do I think they purposely skew the data to underreport unemployment? Of course they do.

No, they're very thorough and consistent. They measure unemployement according to 6 different categories. This started in 1994. Before that, they only had one measurement. They currently peg the U-3 category used now against the old system used prior to '94.

If you want, you can see the statistics and descriptions here or even make yourself some graphs here

That being said, do I think they purposely skew the data to underreport unemployment? Of course they do.

No, they're very thorough and consistent. They measure unemployement according to 6 different categories. This started in 1994. Before that, they only had one measurement. They currently peg the U-3 category used now against the old system used prior to '94.

If you want, you can see the statistics and descriptions here or even make yourself some graphs here

The advetised rate of unemployment is 6%, but once people stop collecting their money, they're no longer counted.

Of course this doesn't count the underemployed, and could be construed to not count the people who lost their jobs due to Katrina, as "Prevented from working by bad weather" is listed as a reason NOT to be counted as unemployed.

That being said, do I think they purposely skew the data to underreport unemployment? Of course they do.

Hi, I work for the Radio Astronomy Lab at UC Berkeley, which is the group that runs the Hat Creek Radio Observatory. When the observatory was founded in the 1950's, the primary consideration was radio quietness. The location is in somewhat of a natural bowl, geologically speaking, sheilding it from a lot of radio noise, but by no means all (reflections from airport radars can be seen off of Mt Lassen and Mt Shasta just to name one from many sources).

We already have the infrastructure there, so, it makes sense to build more telescopes there. The primary cost of building has nothing to do with the real estate. Leasing more land from local land owners is a small part of the cost (an extremely small one).

The physical maintenance of the antennas should not be taken lightly. With 350 of them planned for the future, at least a few, perhaps a dozen will be down for maintenance work everyday. We've already done work to streamline the process of building (one antenna a day is the goal). Plus, we simply don't have the money to do one big construction push.

For those comparing to the VLA, the cost of construction for the VLA was about $78 million dollars in ~1975 dollars (http://www.rozylowicz.com/retirement/vla/very-lar ge-array.html). Adjusting for the changes in currency valuation, that's approximately $285million in 2005 dollars (using http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm to adjust). Note, that does not include the costs to research and design the system, which was many more millions.

So far, the ATA has cost less than $20million and at completion should be more capable than the VLA in many ways and cost about 90% less to build.

And, it's primary mission is to do science with SETI operations piggybacking on the surveys taking place.

You are severely underestimating the total data needs of the system. For the ATA to do the best interference mitigation that it can do, the correlator would peak at about 194GB/sec of data throughput. We won't push the correlator to do that for many reasons, but even a data rate of say 100MB/sec means that a possibly typical observation for 4 minutes would consume 24GBytes. As you might imagine, a data feed that could transport
a constant 100MB/sec away from the observatory would be prohibitively expensive.

We've been discussing making the ATA an imaging instrument, in that the raw data is thrown away after a much smaller and easier to handle "image" is generated. These sorts of design considerations will also flow into the upcoming Square Kilometer Array.
To do this imaging may require a small beowulf cluster.

So, yes, you are underestimating the size of the station wagon needed.

And finally, the RAL is a teaching institution, fully part of the astronomy department of UC Berkeley. This means we want undergrads/grads/postdocs/researchers to have access to the site and it be a teaching environment, which means that the telescopes are not just built in the middle of nowhere, to be left alone producing data in the quiet wilderness.

For more info on the array, check out the wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_telescope_array

P.S. Using the CPI conversion for your parents house cost of $37,000 in "the 70's" (I'll use 1975 again), the equivilent amount in 2005 dollars is: $135,068.87.

Do you stil (sic) think the US is 'the richest nation on earth'? Look at unemployment, illiteracy, innumeracy, infant mortality (43rd, after Cuba!) and poverty figures for the last decades. Compare to any other country and then do the same for the added figures for the whole EU.

The United States IS "The Richest Nation on Earth." The value of our assets dwarfs the values of the assets of most nations, with only a couple coming anywhere close (Japan, China, Germany).

Look at the value of our prime assets and liabilities: our owned equity, money, real property, inventories, capital goods, net our net debt. I don't have hard numbers, and I challenge someone to find them. I'd imagine the wealth US owned (by citizens, government, and share of corporations) to be about $100 trillion. I'd estimate that this is 30% of global wealth. Probably only Japan comes even close, with maybe $30 trillion, or 10% of global wealth.

Unemployment: United States labor markets are so efficient, that unlike the socialized economies of Western Europe, if you don't have a job, you can get one. Only in Japan is unemployment better managed (at the cost of growth). Some people might be into something called 'facts' - here you go.
August 2005 - US: 4.9%. Germany: 11.6%. France: 9.9% . China: 23%, +/-20% (pick a number, any number). India: 9%. Indonesia: 9%. Japan: 4.4%.

Illiteracy: Literacy rates of countries with population of more than 150 million - US: 97% China: 91% India: 59% Indonesia: 88% Brazil: 86% Pakistan: 46%. While I'd assume EU Literacy rate is 99% (quite commendable), 3% of our population being miseducated is not a condemnation of our wealth - just our education system. Imagine what our unemployment would look like if everyone could read... (Source: CIA World Book)

The main wealth Americans have, however, is institutional. We have the ability to choose from a variety of goods and services, more enforceable rights than almost anywhere else, and impressively low corruption. When the Chinese can buy any American goods, have the right to due process and continuous ownership, responsive government, and don't have to pay off the police on a daily basis, maybe then they could build wealth.

It all depends on the facts you are looking at and the particular way the data was collected. Go to the BLS site if you are interested in actual hard numbers. They pack a lot of information on that site, but when that's your job, you do have to fill the available time ;-).

First of all, it cost them over $155,000, as that is how much prize money they gave out. They also spent quite a bit to fly 100 people to the bay area, put us up in a hotel, etc. Second,

I am willing to bet that the prize, fare and hotel money was dwarfed by the costs of the Google employees that participated.

People underestimate the cost of developing software. Most the money, however, is in overhead. Open source, code competitions and incentive programs (*cough* *cough* pay attention NASA *cough*) are cheap ways to avoid paying overhead yourself. You just let the individual competitors or contributors worry about that.

Consider that 1 full-time programmer is very expensive to care and feed. Typical numbers are $55k for salary and at a minimum (outside EA) another $40k for equipment/electricity/janatorial/etc overhead. The question then is: are the results of the contest more or less than the work that $155,000 would have bought Google on the normal job market?

Uh, sorry, you were corrected elsewhere & I'll correct you here, as well.

Most of the country's teachers do NOT earn upwards of $45,000 for 8 months of work. The median *annual* salary range is just $40-$44k, and starting average salary is $30k. The lowest 10% of teachers make $25-$30k.

These figures are also undoubtedly skewed by teachers who perform extra functions (coaching sports, advising extra curriculars, and teaching summer school) to up their salary.

Source: BLS (numbers from 2002).

Assuming these employees get a teacher salary of maybe $30k, and an IBM pension, and benefits - yeah, that'd be a decent gig. But let's not over-inflate numbers here.

Funny, the BLS
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

says the majority of growth is in the service, hospitality and retail sector.

Are you telling me that Wal Mart is paying people more money?

Or maybe it's the Government jobs that factor highly in the job growth, that is providing the best pay? Can't go wrong on that when your bennies are automatically covered... unlike (nowadays) private industry.

Or perhaps what you're really telling me is a handful of millionaires and billionaires are seriously skewing the numbers...?

The government does not count people if they are past the time for receiving unemployment checks. they become non persons and are not counted


Won't this myth die once and for all?

The government does not calculate the unemployment rate on how many people are collecting unemployment checks. Get that straight. Collecting unemployment HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CALCULATING THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE.

The unemployment rate is determined by a survey of about 60,000 people.

The other bit about EU unemployment rates, is thta they measure UE differently than the US. We generally report the U3 numbers, while they report the equivalent of our U6 numbers.

Currently, the US U6 numbers are 8.9%

Suddenly, we look a lot more like Europe.

The facts that back this up are that employment at will is so common that everyone does^Wshould (Did you see that clever hacker reference?) know about it. Although things may have changed since 2001, this article seems to show that New York is not one of those states in which "Wrongful dismissal" is a serious charge except in the case of an implied contract.

In any case, even if this were the case in New York, most companies make you sign stuff about your usage of email. Any misuse of email is normally an actionable offense "Up to and including termination" (That was the phrase on the last employee agreement I signed.). I've worked at several different places and they all had clauses like this, so I don't know if your company is just really nice or if you just don't have broad experience, but generally speaking, that's the way it is in the States.

May 2004 Metropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Find your city, find your occupation.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcma.htm

Applicable Occupations:
15-1021 Computer Programmers
15-1031 Computer Software Engineers, Applications
15-1032 Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software
15-1041 Computer Support Specialists
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
15-1061 Database Administrators
15-1071 Network and Computer Systems Administrators
15-1081 Network Systems and Data Communications Analysts

Jobless rate hits 4-year low... of 4.9 percent.

Yes, during those four years under Bush the unemployment rate ranged between 4.9 and 6.3 percent. However the the Onion's "Bush: Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over" was talking about the end of the pre-Bush prosperity. Before Bush took office the unemployment rate was at 3.9 percent. So our "four year low of 4.9 percent" is still quite higher than before Bush ended the national nightmare of peace and prosperity.

Here's a US government unemployment graph. Bush takes office and the rate climbs by two and a half percent over two and a half years.

The Onion was quite prophetic, spot on on virtually every point. Everything from the economy to increased air pollution to the sudden end to falling crime rates to divisiveness to the skyrocketing national debt to war(*) and more.

*: The Onion gets credit for there being two wars when there should have been ONE, Bush personally drove move on Iraq.

-

Seems that society has many reasons that it set up a public school system. And that it has somewhat failed to meet the main reason, which was to level the playing field and make upward social mobility more meritorious. The other reason was simply to keep a lot of young people out of the labor pool so that older workers could support families. So, yes we are left with public schools acting as babysitters or as a trial run for those that can afford to go to college.

Kids are on their own for the most part. They need to be told as early as possible that they need to choose their future and start working towards it.

Here is what they should see in junior high school so they can start planning:
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcst.htm

As a short term measure, I think that cities and towns should start graduating kids a year early so they can pursue college early and perhaps spend the 5-10k that would have otherwise been spent on them attending high school as a grant towards a state university.