Slashdot Mirror


Dot ComBack, Or More Of The Same?

adamsmith_uk writes "The FT features Wall Street's renewed love affair with dotcom stocks on Monday with the latest in a $6bn string of acquisitions that has helped set light to the once-defunct online commerce sector. Could this be the signs of the tech ComBack ?" But hold onto your hopes; ekarjala writes "According to this CNet article, a recent survey by theInformation Technology Association of America indicates that IT hiring in the US is expected to remain flat or decline slightly over the course of 2003. The main drivers are lack of demand for IT products/services and outsourcing IT functions offshore."

244 comments

  1. Am I the only one... by BHearsum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who fails to see how a buncha people buying/selling shares will determine if a company sells things or not?

    1. Re:Am I the only one... by spectral · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You don't seem to realize that that wasn't what the .com bubble was all about. It burst because there WASN'T stuff being sold (or at least, not sold properly). It was all lies and hype, and buying/selling of stock to go along with it.

      Therefore a 'ComBack' of that would be with people buying and selling stock. It doesn't matter if the company sells stuff or not :)

    2. Re:Am I the only one... by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Buying/selling shares only reflects others' opinions about that company's prospects.

      One must consider:

      1. Why are they in a position to consider prospects? If they are educated, have some insight and idean, they probably do have a good idea.

      2. Do they have any conflicting interests?

      3. In the long run they will be shown out, almost. The short run can determine the long run (e.g., restrict capital raising thus preventing a company's growth), and the long run can never truely be achieved is perception stays out of line with reality.

      Take the US stock markets. They are all (ovrall) over valued. Yet if that's what's people (or their pension funds) are prepared to pay, they will stay overvalued, forever, ceteris paribus. And overvalued companies can raise more money and employ more people in unproductive roles.

    3. Re:Am I the only one... by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Whenever a "quantum leap" in communications technology takes place, economies suffer until the market learns to adapt to this new communications technology and the speed with which information can now be disseminated.

      It happened with the advent of the Railroad, and it happened again with the advent of the Internet.

      The problem is the time between news breaking and a market reaction. Thanks to the Internet, it is now incredibly small, and in many cases negative, and that creates difficult conditions for companies to work in.

      This will be the case until market forces figure out how to operate a stable economy under these new conditions. This will happen "naturally", it won't require any one person or body to anything in particular.

    4. Re:Am I the only one... by kholburn · · Score: 1

      Just like the Asian economic crisis and probably many other bubbles before that, it was created by people (like banks) with huge amounts of money looking for somewhere to put it. This is the real problem. (Well, when they take it back)
      The market is probably just starting to get over it's reverse hype of technology after the dotcom bubble burst.

    5. Re:Am I the only one... by pacman+on+prozac · · Score: 1

      Thats the joys of the modern business world.

      If a company can make enough noise it can become huge without even having a product or taking a single cent from customers.

    6. Re:Am I the only one... by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      >Buying/selling shares only reflects others' opinions about that company's prospects.

      Don't forget that a large part of it is other's opinion of other's opinions about the company.

      The whole bigger-fool principle...

  2. Remember.. by Metallic+Matty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its not a comeback for some, just some more growth: Not all those DotComs were DotBombs. Look at Ebay, quite possibly one of the most successful internet businesses ever.

    1. Re:Remember.. by bobbozzo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Look at Ebay, quite possibly one of the most successful internet businesses ever.

      Unfortunately, even now, it's one of the VERY FEW that are making a profit.

      Amazon is still struggling to break even.

      The sad fact is the huge majority were bombs.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    2. Re:Remember.. by Blaine+Hilton · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "majority were bombs"

      This is very true, but the problem was exaggerated by investors that were too gung over "dot com hype" to carefully look at the financials that they would have done with any other sector.

    3. Re:Remember.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe Ebay was a dud?

    4. Re:Remember.. by thogard · · Score: 1

      ebay is doing ok because they used stock holder money to destroy virtually every small book store in the US by selling at a loss for so long. The result is that now in small towns, there is no place to buy any books except online or at the local Wal-mart which may be an hour away.

    5. Re:Remember.. by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about Amazon.com instead of Ebay? And in any case who cares? The result is cheaper books. I'm not willing to pay more just to keep some inefficient mom and pop in business.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    6. Re:Remember.. by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This is very true, but the problem was exaggerated by investors that were too gung over "dot com hype" to carefully look at the financials that they would have done with any other sector.

      Unwise investments weren't limited to the dot bombs.

      Look at energy, for instance: Enron. I'm no accountant, but I can usually read a balance sheet. Theirs was written with the intent to conceal a whole mess of liabilities and inflate the stock price. That's exactly why Arthur Andersen is in a boatload of trouble and a bunch of their execs are facing criminal penalties.

      And the analysts and professional investors should be able to read understand this stuff. They SHOULD have been able to see a company with a very badly mangled balance sheet, and recognize that a company not forthcoming about its financial situation probably has ample reason to lie or at least obfuscate.

      Look at telecoms. How many other people here watched Qwest go tits-up? And being a Qwest customer, the notion of seeing Nacchio and Anschutz in Canon City married to the self-respecting armed robber with the most cigarettes doesn't offend me as much as it probably should.

      It wasn't just techs. There were plenty of other sectors in which investors didn't do the due diligence.

    7. Re:Remember.. by pyrrho · · Score: 1

      only in comparison to your expectations.

      I look back fifteen or even ten years ago and I'm blown away that we have a ubiquitous global network that is a household word. It's stunning.

      Btw, the huge majority of businesses, in general, fail within five years. With the internet bubble, they were just all synched to more or less the same five years.

      --

      -pyrrho

    8. Re:Remember.. by knobmaker · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm not willing to pay more just to keep some inefficient mom and pop in business.

      It's not because they're inefficient that they can't compete on price. It's because they don't buy as many books as Walmart or even Borders and the other chain bookstores, and therefore they can't force the publishers to give them the same discounts the chains get.

      Still, some folks would prefer the independent bookstores to stay in business for reasons of self-interest, and so we're willing to pay a little more for our books. Among those reasons: ambiance-- if you spend any time at bookstores, you'd like the experience to be as pleasant as possible, selection-- the chain bookstores seem to have a lot of books, but they buy books based primarily on which books sell the greatest numbers, unlike small specialty shops that carry a wider selection in their area of interest, and availability of small press titles-- you won't find small press books in the chain stores.

      Finally, if your interests are primarily financial, reflect on the fact that mom and pop won't be able to buy your products if they go out of business. True, their store will be replaced by a chain store, with lots of minimum wageslaves-- but are those your best customers? And the profits from that chain will go elsewhere and won't be spent in your community.

    9. Re:Remember.. by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      The problem was that during the boom, there weren't any reasonable financials to look at. Many of these ventures were speculative plays, and investors were taking a big risk while hoping for a big payoff. While some have survived, like eBay, Yahoo, and Amazon, others flamed out spectacularly (pets.com, etc.). But I don't think that the survivor's financials were necessarily more legitimate - it's that they executed their business plan and won the race...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    10. Re:Remember.. by thogard · · Score: 1

      Opps, that was amazon, not ebay.

      I heard Stephen King talk about the big book stores and he doesn't like them. He dislikes Wal-mart even more. He calimed that the NYT best seller list was a result of thousnads of small book stores all over the US sending in a list of what sold. Then Walmart would go out and buy anything in the top 20 that they didn't have. The results were scewed because of their own sales. He also claims most popular American authros couldn't get publised today. His wife's works were published because of her relationship to him, not that (in his opinion) she is a better writer. If you ever get a chance to hear him speak, go lisen to what he has to say. Its quite interesting. The book store that paid to have him talk was a very large independant that was soon sold out to borders.

    11. Re:Remember.. by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      >>it's one of the VERY FEW that are making a profit

      Most of that profit is due to creative "pro-forma" accounting. That, and not expensing options.

      Still, eBay, is doing better than most. Certainly better than AMZN, USDI, and YHOO. Especially if you use real GAAP accounting, and expense options.

      Even the best of internet stocks are barely profitable, at best. For some reason the market becomes insanely optimistic about these dot-com companies. These companies bring in about 1/5th what other similarly priced stocks bring in; but the market measures them by a different standard.

    12. Re:Remember.. by chez69 · · Score: 1

      Yes, he is a great guy. Truely an american icon.

      --
      PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
  3. US != The world by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IT hiring in the US is expected to remain flat or decline slightly

    Just because people are not being hired in the US does not neccesarily mean the industry itself is going downhill. I know the US is a large chunk, but the IT industry could stage a comeback in the rest of the world while staying flat in the US, couldn't it?

    1. Re:US != The world by Uber+Banker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly. The summary stated "outsourcing IT functions offshore".

      And why not outsource offshore? If a product is homogenous enough to outsource, its up to the individual to use their privilaged position to create as unique and innovative product/service as possible instead of bitching their job is not protected (against others who could probably do it better).

    2. Re:US != The world by letxa2000 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Funny, I just read today that things are going to the crapper in India, too.

      I've believed for some time that "outsourcing offshore" is more an excuse to explain the current situation rather than a real cause. Articles such as the one I just cited only support my belief.

    3. Re:US != The world by AceM2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It could, but it won't. The industry has nothing new to sell, you have to have something people want and are able to buy to be successful. This was the major problem with the original IT burst in my opinion.. Rather, why it crashed.. Anyway, they're mostly hiring people in other countries where they don't have to pay them shit (Or else they'd be hiring right here where they're selling a huge majority of their products).. This isn't the rule, just a thought, but it seems to me that IT-oriented people by IT products.. They hire people in other countries, that can't afford their products.. They try to sell it here in the USA, but the people wanting to buy stuff aren't employed.. I'm all for sharing the wealth, but the way things are going.. We aren't actually helping *anyone* by outsourcing.. I mean do you really think Nike sweatshops are helping any economies? No.. The industry is dead until people want and can buy the products for sale..

    4. Re:US != The world by ShawnDoc · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Its going to crap in India because for the longest time India was *the* place to go to outsource software development. Now other "3rd World" countries are catching up when it comes to programming skills, and many of the contracts that once would have gone to India are now going to Vietnam or China.

      I have a friend who recently went from having a huge office full of programmers to leasing a small amount of office space at another company for him and the other principles as all of the "real" programming is now being done in Vietnam.

    5. Re:US != The world by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1, Informative
      By outsourcing, the money that is supposed to trickle down back into our economy is leaving. Bush gave huge tax cuts to corporations in the hope they would hire more people. They are just pocketing or using the money to cut our services and hire foreigners.

      136 billion being outsourced is nothing to sneeze at. Especially if your out of work.

      If you lose your job from a cheap third world laborer your opinion will change quickly. The only reason companies are doing this is because they want to take advantage of people and raise their stock prices.

      We need protective tarrifs to protect American workers and the economy. We have them for all sorts of imported products already. Since IT is a service we need to do this? Can an Indian or Chinese man do it better then an American? Then hire them. But hire them based on their skills and not "hey we can starve their families by paying them so little so why not?" A protective tarrif will acomplish this. Every country on Earth has them but America has become quite greddy over the years and is losening them due to lobbiest pressure.

      After all a simuliar argument could be made that "why should we buy shoes for $55 each when you can buy Thailand brand for $3?"

      If the product is homogenous enough to buy it outsourced for cheaper why not? Obviously there would be no more American economy if this happened.

    6. Re:US != The world by letxa2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I have a friend who recently went from having a huge office full of programmers to leasing a small amount of office space at another company for him and the other principles as all of the "real" programming is now being done in Vietnam.

      Get back to me in a year and let me know how it went. The two cases of outsourcing overseas I know of first-hand were a total money pit. One of them they finally cancelled the whole thing after throwing $2 million towards India. They eventually did the logical thing: Wrote the damn thing themselves.

      Vietnam? Like I said, let me know how it goes.

    7. Re:US != The world by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Vietnam? Like I said, let me know how it goes.

      After all that bombing we did there in the 60's, don't expect nice code back :-)

    8. Re:US != The world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when the H1B'ers come here, we tell em to go back home to their own countries, and stop stealing our jobs. Then when the jobs go overseas, we all go "what happened?". We don't get to have everything just because we have all the nukes. Damn rest of the world, why don't they stay backwards so that we can afford our big fat gas guzzling SUV's.

    9. Re:US != The world by gaspyy · · Score: 1

      Just curious, why Asia?

      Why not Central/Eastern Europe or Russia?

      I've seen some incredible stuff developed here, both software and design. Plus, there's something that lacks in India: creativity. You won't find people willing to do boring, repetitive tasks, though.

      The firm I work for provides software development for some very big companies, mainly from UK. We aren't just code monkeys, instead we're involved in all stages, from architecture to implementation, including interface design, and so on.

      We're doing this for 5 years and have heard only high praise from our customers.

    10. Re:US != The world by ghjm · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I saw about $75,000 totally wasted on a project in Bangalore. But the thing is, it turned out that the U.S.-based project manager was the whole problem - he couldn't understand or communicate the requirements properly. Once we achieved direct communication with the programmers, it all started going much better. There are some smart people in India, and some idiots, just like here...

    11. Re:US != The world by JanneM · · Score: 1

      Look what happened when the US added protective tariffs on steel. Other stelmaking countries now have the right to impose tariffs of equal amount on american-made goods. Tariffs are a sucker's game - everybody loses.

      Meanwhile, it turns out that the US loses more jobs due to the increase in steel prices than it saves by keeping inefficient steel mills in business.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    12. Re:US != The world by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      Because all the Europeans are outsourcing to there....

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
  4. Reloaded by bobbozzo · · Score: 0, Troll

    The dotbomb has detonated... RELOAD!

    --
    Nothing to see here; Move along.
  5. Just at the right time.. by nother_nix_hacker · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm just about to graduate. This may have come at just the right time for me. I thought McDonalds might be looking at a new employee for a while! :)

    1. Re:Just at the right time.. by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear Nother

      We have become increasingly concerned with your lack of committment to the Fast Food Industry. We feel your desire to become a geek rather than concentrating on your McDonalds smile and practising your "would you like fries with that" indicate you may not be the best candidate for us. Unfortunately after seeing your post on Slashdot we therefore have choosen not to continue with your application.

      Best Regards
      Human Resources
      McDonalds

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:Just at the right time.. by mdwong · · Score: 1

      Too bad Nother, but you can still work your way down the fast food chain. I hear the monarch of ground round is still hiring.

    3. Re:Just at the right time.. by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      I used to be a sys-admin at a small software company who had a big client (AOL) - now I work at a tech support outsourcing company. I'm not alone either one of my co-workers used to design hard drives at Fujitsu. One the most interesting guys to join our team used to be the head of a marketing department at an even larger company - he looks out of place, but he's a good tech.

      To me it doesn't look like things are getting any better.

  6. What's that smell? by core+plexus · · Score: 1
    It's the stink of rotten deals on Wall Street, still thick in the air. New stories of other rotten deals are coming out all the time. No, thanks. I'll invest my time and money in something tangible, like precious metals.

    Beer prize bungle is hard to swallow

    1. Re:What's that smell? by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 1

      Got some shares in a can't-miss gold mine (or was it silver?) I can let you have, cheap!

    2. Re:What's that smell? by core+plexus · · Score: 1
      I don't see where in my post I mentioned 'shares'. Or is that a take off of Mark Twain? No, I'm pretty sure I meant something I can carry and use, like gold coins and gemstones. Shares are useful as buttwipe and starting fires, but other than that I don't see the value. Kinda like printing your own money, if it isn't backed by anything but faith (as is the U.S. dollar) then the value is whatever you can convince others it is. And that's the reason wall st. tries so hard to convince people that buying stock is better than tangible assets.

      Beer prize bungle is hard to swallow

    3. Re:What's that smell? by 17028 · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're going all philosophical on us, why not continue your argument? Indeed every institution and organization, including the good ol' government of the US of A, is a mental construct in the minds of the people. If everyone ceased to believe in it, it would no longer exist. So you better start stocking that log cabin in the woods, brother!

  7. Employment lags by PD · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Even if the economy starts growing faster, it'll still be a while before companies start hiring. That's usually the last thing that gets better after growth resumes. Even now there are signs that things are getting better, but there's still a hell of a lot of people without work. That sucks. I didn't work between August and December of 2001, and that was bad enough.

    1. Re:Employment lags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Even if the economy starts growing faster...

      I love the crowd that thinks the economy has been growing at all. Look at tax revenues falling faster than a rock. What with taxes so maximally collected on everything even remotely economic, only one conclusion is possible.

      The US economy has NOT been growing. In fact, it has been shrinking for some time. If it were growing, TAX REVENUES WOULD BE GROWING IN KIND.

      Tax revenue, sans tax law changes, are one of the very few unbiased measures of economic status.

      Nearly 1% of the US population is now considered "long term unemployed". These are not the deadbeats, home makers, and such. These are people seeking work for which a job simply does not exist.

      Historically, these people didn't exist much. They were caught up in what would be the "unemployment rate" rotation. We can fire 6% of the population, forever, every 6 months and the unemployment rate remains a "healthy" 6%. The numbers chosen to represent the economy are selected most carefully.

      Why so many long term? Well, either an industry has collapsed or a portion of the overall economy has. In fact, this time, it is both. IT is topping, and worse, it has put substantial numbers of people out of work. "Productivity" is only good so long as it is focused on growth. When it is focused on cost cutting (as it is in our now somewhat less than competitive corporate environment) it is remarkably bad.

    2. Re:Employment lags by _PimpDaddy7_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's very correct. The labor market really lags the economy. Sad to say, but that's how it goes. I was unemployed from March 02 to Jan 03. It's a very bad market. What I saw was very SPECIFIC skills companies wanted. If you didn't have A,B, and C, and I mean all three, they wouldn't even look at you. But, someone with good experience(I have 6+ years) could easily pick it up. Everyone agreed on this, but the hiring managers. Regardless, they left the requisite open. I've seen job openings STILL open since March 2002.

      And now, I have good sources telling me companies are putting out FAKE open positions to make it look that they are busy.

    3. Re:Employment lags by PD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I love the crowd that thinks the economy has been growing at all.

      Fortunately, the numbers are on my side. April saw growth of the service sector:
      http://reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jht ml?type=e conomicNews&storyID=2684060

      If it were growing, TAX REVENUES WOULD BE GROWING IN KIND.

      What tax revenues? Sales tax? Is it not clear from the previous discussion that jobs (and therefore consumer spending) are late to pick up after a recession?

      Property tax? Housing values are down, but some of that is the large numbers of houses on the market because of the wonderful interest rate situation. Not necessarily a problem with the economy, or an indicator of retraction.

      Income tax? How often do you pay taxes? Do you suppose that would track the economic performance of last month?

    4. Re:Employment lags by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Income tax? How often do you pay taxes? Do you suppose that would track the economic performance of last month?"

      The aggregate withholding figures would damn near be a real-time indicator.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:Employment lags by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >I was unemployed from March 02 to Jan 03.

      I'm interested in how you came through that.
      Where did you live? How exactly?

      That would be enough time that for me, I would seriosly be considering going TO India, Mexico, or Africa. Maybe I can have food and shelter in return for teaching English or something.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    6. Re:Employment lags by PD · · Score: 1

      Except that you're once again tracking employment, which can lag a recovery by a full year.

    7. Re:Employment lags by thx2001r · · Score: 1

      Very true, it seems that companies (well, at least hiring managers) are seeking people that require minimal training to do their jobs.

      They seek a jack of all trades and expect to pay them less than what used to get higher wages for far less responsibilities.

      Companies are trying to reach an equilibrium... right now they are pushing as hard as they can on IT personnel to see how much they can accomplish with the fewest amount of people. Of course, the chances of effective organized labor to bring the balance back will likely never materialize when the company holds the threat of deportation over the heads of non-US citizen workers that are being sponsored by the company.

      --

      -Joe
      If we're all god's children, what's so special about Jesus? - Jimmy Carr

  8. Wall Street enthusiasm != hiring of workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In fact, if there is a relationship it's an inverse one.

    Seems that the money folks have forgotten that a CEO with no employees is as worthless as tits on a bull...

    1. Re:Wall Street enthusiasm != hiring of workers by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      tits on a boar.. but anyway, I agree with you.. In the old days, people cared abou their business.. now it's just profit profit.. They you think you don't increase your bottom line by hiring people.. You increase it by efficiency, computers, lying cheating stealing etc ;) but yeah.. I always say.. if you don't have employees.. who's going to afford your product?

  9. Ship all our jobs overseas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we should ship all our jobs overseas for cheaper costs. Then the companies can wonder why the fuck no one is buying thier products. It might be because we can't afford them.

  10. Oh yeah? by Ribo99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Make up your mind people.

    Just pointing out the humor of two (sorta) contridictory stories here on /. Nothing to see, move along :)

    OK it's a boring day

    --
    I wear pants.
    1. Re:Oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be far more worried if all the storys had a consistant party line, so I'm not sure I really understand your gripe. Do you think the rest of Slashdot (other than you) is one big group mind?

    2. Re:Oh yeah? by Ribo99 · · Score: 1

      not a gripe, just a humorous observation...as I said it's a boring day ;)

      --
      I wear pants.
    3. Re:Oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more funny if you consider that majority of the people argue "NO" in both cases.

    4. Re:Oh yeah? by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      Just pointing out the humor of two (sorta) contridictory stories here on /.

      250,000 people, two conflicting opinions. Damn that's illogical!

  11. You don't need to tell me... by fatwreckfan · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...I've been looking for a summer job for a month and a half, and considering I almost have my Bachelor of Computer Science you'd think I could find something...hell no!

    My only prospect told me they didn't have the money to take anyone on for the summer.

    How the hell am I supposed to pay rent, let alone save enough for my outrageous tuition for next year if I have no options but flipping Big Macs??

    1. Re:You don't need to tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...considering I almost have my Bachelor of Computer Science you'd think I could find something...hell no!"

      Maybe it's time you took your head out of your ass and appreciated reality. This *isn't* the 90's you know. A degree doesn't guarantee you a job!!

    2. Re:You don't need to tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How good is your Indian? Feel like working for $10/hr over in Hyberbad?

    3. Re:You don't need to tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your not... you're a student, you're sposed to either work for a Prof, or flip the big macs while volunteering your time to projects so you can build a portfollio/resume and have something to set yourself apart once you do graduate.

    4. Re:You don't need to tell me... by slaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In my area, the engineers that Lucent and Motorola laid off are fighting over $7/hour retail jobs. The guy I bought a suit from Friday had 12 years' experience programming embedded systems (I am really not kidding).

      I'll bet those guys are asking the same question you are, only they have families, mortgages and car payments.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    5. Re:You don't need to tell me... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Do what the rest of America does. Go in debt and hope for a rebound.

    6. Re:You don't need to tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The world has gone nuts.

      Here's what my local government is doing to address the jobless situation in Peoria, IL

      http://www.icecentricnews.com/workforce/e_article0 00067705.cfm

      To summarize their findings: Jobless problem is due to lack of qualified people. People aren't educating themselves enough, so companies aren't attracted to the area. They go on extensively how to create better educated people.

      Meanwhile, large employers such as caterpillar, Maytag, Butler, and others, have been closing shops here and moving them to Mexico.

      And the only answer they could come up with: "People aren't qualified enough!" I'm convinced the people running things have gone nuts. Have completely lost traction with reality. Chicago Trib often lets staffing companies publish "helpful hints" for job seekers. One gem went like this: "Consider taking a vacation if your job hunting as a break from job-hunting." Let them eat cake! Crazy people.

      I don't know what to tell you. Stay in school forever. Avoid Illinois like the plague.

    7. Re:You don't need to tell me... by bdhein · · Score: 1

      Try doing this when you are expected to pay for your tuition. For my university, tuition alone is roughly $4,800/year (excluding housing). Now, making $6.00/hour should give you $12k gross for a full time job. You try to finance your way through college on $12k/ year. It doesn't work.

    8. Re:You don't need to tell me... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      Summer job my ass...

      I've been looking for a job for two and a half months (I know it's not long yet), ever since I was laid off (after 19 years of employment!)

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    9. Re:You don't need to tell me... by beakburke · · Score: 1

      there is this thing called student loans that the rest of us had to take out...

      --
      ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    10. Re:You don't need to tell me... by Restil · · Score: 1

      There are better paying jobs in the summer than mcdonalds that fewer people want to do, and therefore more positions are available.

      Of course, you probably wouldn't want to do them either, but they pay better!

      Try UPS. Get paid to work out, AND they even have tuition reimbursement.

      And some people have been known to work 3 jobs just to make ends meet. Of course, that would suck greatly, but you WERE concerned about HOW you would pay your bills. There are always options, and some of them involve flipping burgers. When burger flipping becomes a coveted job, THEN you can start whining.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
    11. Re:You don't need to tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $4,800 a year? Oh boo ho. Try $27,000 a year with 4%-6.37% increases every year. I am lucky making $12 an hour, but with only 20 hours a week. Guess what, that pays food, housing, electricity etc. Doesn't pay for tuition, at all. I have $700 saved over an entire semester and still owe $3000 to the school. And this is after loans, grants etc.

    12. Re:You don't need to tell me... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >$4,800 a year? Oh boo ho. Try $27,000 a year
      >with 4%-6.37% increases every year.

      Now, you are the one who chose to go to an expensive college. I don't think your backlash at the O.P. is at all reasonable.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    13. Re:You don't need to tell me... by Jewbird · · Score: 1

      There's plenty to whine about already. And no, there are not options as you naively imply. Flipping burgers is not a fucking option! Even if it were, that shit's fucking beneath me and motherfucking cocksucking retards who think educated individuals should have to flip burgers to survive should crawl into a ditch and die and spare the rest of us your monumental stupidity.

      --
      For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods
  12. Dot-com; but with an INNOVATIVE new TWIST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Are you bright? witty? Do you have friends that laugh at your jokes? We at lrse hosting" are looking for a select few individuals to join our ranks at the internet's premier source of wit and style.

    Do YOU have what it takes? Register TODAY and FIND OUT!!!!

  13. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not trolling! honest!

    -phaeton

  14. LNUX by utahjazz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Looks like someone's got their eyes on Slashdot.
    Up 22% today...Hmmmm.

    (Yes that's right, Slashdot's ticker symbol is LNUX)

    1. Re:LNUX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Even better, check out this chart of their price since 2000. Yowza!

      So put that 20% increase in some perspective, eh?

  15. looks like a bit of a comeback... by GC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used to work for what could be termed a .com company that is listed on the NASDAQ.

    I got made redundant with 2000 or so shares which I still happen to keep. Those shares have risen 80% or so since I left the company late last year.

    I realise that I can't place my experience as the norm, but it is at least one example of a company recovering and nearly reaching profitability.

    Overall, in my view, the companies that have thus far survived the crash of the .com boom are probably more likely to survive in the future as they have had to re-work their business plans and be more conservative about their growth prospects and, as such, not leading (misleading) the market makers into over-valuing their stock. This then generates these companies some respect and their stock rises.

    Go figure :-)

    1. Re:looks like a bit of a comeback... by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      Up 80%...making the stock value $0.50 up from $0.27

    2. Re:looks like a bit of a comeback... by thx2001r · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      I think that economic slumps or dumps in a sector (or economy-wide) are the natural way to purge and expose businesses with poor leadership and inefficient ways.

      The companies that survived the dot bomb are alive and running as efficiently as possible to cling to life. This is great news for them once the market recovers a bit! Look at how efficient Dell has become... because of their business deals and efficiency, they've been able to STILL be highly profitable despite the current economy.

      Once their is increased consumer and business spending again the survivor companies will see record profits and may begin hiring people again (but truly, will they learn from their mistakes and hire again based on needs, not because of their success?) Only time will tell.

      --

      -Joe
      If we're all god's children, what's so special about Jesus? - Jimmy Carr

  16. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by PD · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is not possible to send all jobs overseas. There are real limitations such as communications, schedules, culture, and language differences that serve to mitigate the cheapness of labor. Also, the more jobs that are sent to India, for example, the higher the price labor will demand there. There's not that many places in the world where you can find large supplies of high quality programmers, so once you exhaust a particular region, you have to move on. At some point every company is faced with the fact that they can get better programmers for a lower total cost right here at home.

    It sucks to personally lose your job because it went overseas. But there's no reason to panic about all jobs moving overseas. It just can't happen.

  17. Don't call it a ComBack... by theoddball · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...they've been here for years.

    /LLCoolJ.

    Seriously, it's a matter of stocks getting back to realistic values. Investors are taking a look, and seeing a realistic chance for profit--so they're returning, albeit cautiously. Where there's money, the market will follow, eventually.

    1. Re:Don't call it a ComBack... by yourruinreverse · · Score: 1

      Well, let's hope then that this time most of those stockbrokers will actually take the time to read through the business plans of the dotcompanies they buy shares of. And maybe check out some of the excellent critical newsites out there on the Web, that blew those whistles long before the bubble burst.

      --
      JeR
    2. Re:Don't call it a ComBack... by mnmlst · · Score: 1

      I am kicking myself now because when the big names were down in the dumps (Cisco, Amazon, Yahoo, etc) I kept thinking that I should buy them since they had built up such solid brand names. Now I read at ft.com that some of their valuations are up 5X from the dumps.

      On the plus side, I had the good sense not to invest in I.T. since I was already working in it. Growing up in the oil patch and watching that rise and fall at least gave me some sense of caution about these bubbles.

      Next time I am going to be ready to come down on the carrion like a good vulture after the bubble has burst.

      --
      In principio erat Verbum.
  18. There will always be startups. by faust2097 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a new group of companies that are doing a lot of the same things as the original dotcoms did, they're just not hiring 100 people to implement online want ads or make an invitation web page. A small amount of individual angel investors are willing to sink a couple hundred grand into starting a small company now that you need something better than a business plan drawn on a napkin. Most are under 10 people and either profitable or have immediate revenue.

    It's not like 1998-2001 showed that internet-based companies can't be successful, it just showed that you don't need to be a publicly traded company to sell mail-order dog food.

    1. Re:There will always be startups. by Ranger+Rick · · Score: 1

      Yup, although there are also companies like where I work. It was formed about 3 years ago (right as the dot-com bubble was heading to the peak) but we actually had a business plan. We didn't do crazy things, and we're now working our asses off towards profitability. Whether or not we make it is up to us, but at least we didn't jump in with bad expectations, and we're in a position where we can actually make it happen.

      Our first CEO has now passed off control to one with more experience growing small companies to medium-sized businesses, and gone on to start another business.

      Now he's doing exactly what you're talking about, starting with just a few people, putting together a service people will actually use, and handling funding himself. The goal is to start off with something immediately (albeit marginally) profitable, and then talk with venture capitalists when it's time to grow the business.

      It's certainly a lot saner than "here's a huge wad of cash, start a company!"

      --

      WWJD? JWRTFM!!!

  19. A Koan for you. by gantrep · · Score: 1

    Wakuan complained when he saw a picture of bearded Bodhidharma, "Why hasn't that fellow a beard?"

  20. A little advice for all the out of work techies.. by fadeaway · · Score: 4, Insightful

    can be found in my little rant in this thread right here.

  21. Does this really surprise anyone by Walter+Wart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back in the day, before globalization, before the demise of family-wage jobs, before the unions were smashed flat there were other possibilities.

    One of the purposes of tariffs and trade agreements, back in the day was to keep jobs from leaving the country.

    But that day is past. The race to the bottom has been enshrined not merely as a matter of current policy but the cornerstone of international law (cf. GATT, NAFTA, WTO and so on). Here in the States most educated White men vote Republican. Most IT people educated White men. If we voted against our best interests we have nobody but ourselves to blame.

    Early on we thought that we would be safe. Steel and textiles might go overseas, but not high-tech. Then semiconductors moved away. And consumer electronics. That's alright, we said, the engineering and design, the programming and the day-to-day business of managing information will stay here. They followed. Because jobs like those are even easier to move - you don't even have to absorb the fixed costs of a factory, just phone lines.

    And the jobs that stayed? Wages are sinking there because we weren't politically active. We let the big employers pervert the H1-B visa program EXPLICITLY to cut our wages and job security.

    The action by Sun employees to fight back against job destruction fell off the screen. Largely because we didn't keep attention on it.

    So look for a recovery in the IT industry. But don't ever look for a recovery in salaries or security. At least not until people pull their heads out and undo the disastrous effects of the Reagan "revolution" and its sequels.

    For a couple good if older references take a look at "America, What Went Wrong" and "America, Who Really Pays the Taxes".

    --
    The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
    1. Re:Does this really surprise anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      natall

      -----------
      Mod Me up

    2. Re:Does this really surprise anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gave China MFN status? Just wondering. What about NAFTA? Oh yeah, didn't veto that...

    3. Re:Does this really surprise anyone by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      Wages are sinking there because we weren't politically active.

      No, wages are sinking because of the same old boring factors of supply and demand. Protectionist measures can mitigate the problem by delaying the inevitable - for example, to give workers time to retrain for a different job. It cannot change the fact that somebody in India or China is willing to do the same job for less money. The work is simply worth less money because of that.

    4. Re:Does this really surprise anyone by benzapp · · Score: 1

      No, wages are sinking because of the same old boring factors of supply and demand.

      I know isn't it sad? We have 3 billion people on this planet, and somehow we need to find work for them? We had 100 years of making human labor obsolete through the machinery, now our own brains are becoming obsolete due to computers. What happens in 50 years when the human being as a productive instrument is no longer necessary for anything other than prostitution and food service? What happens if the demand for humans sinks so low a BJ costs you $1 from a blondie, and you can hire a whole cadre of servants for $1 a week? Meanwhile, that apartment still costs $500 a month? Thats going to take a lot of whores to fill up that studio apartment.

      Do we just jack up on heroin all day and forget about it? but wait, how do we afford the drugs???

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    5. Re:Does this really surprise anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your thoughts, though interesting, appear to be mainly fuelled by your desires for the baser offerings of life...

    6. Re:Does this really surprise anyone by router · · Score: 1

      If everyone only got paid a dollar a day, 30$ a month, then rent would drop to 4 or 5 dollars a month. Taxes would be 10-15$ a month. Rent is only unaffordable because "you" can't afford it; someone else can. Otherwise the landlord misses his mortgage payment. The idea that millions of minimum wage slaves will support a modern country is rediculous; nor will it come to pass in any of them unless they go dictator. Current inefficencies aside, everything remains the same. Get back on the good economy hallucination and miraculously, the economy improves....

      andy

    7. Re:Does this really surprise anyone by benzapp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The idea that millions of minimum wage slaves will support a modern country is rediculous; nor will it come to pass in any of them unless they go dictator

      Go to Mexico.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
  22. You're forgetting the main cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The main drivers are lack of demand for IT products/services and outsourcing IT functions offshore.

    You're forgetting a huge factor. Our President's economic policiy has completely and uterly failed to help anyone but the very rich.

    I calculated my potential savings from his dividend tax cut. $60 last year. And I'm one of the few people I know who actually owns stock that pays dividends.

    Half the people I know are unemployeed, I've been looking for work for 4 months (average time of unemployment around here is 8 months, with an unemployment rate of 10%), I'm in danger of losing my house, and this dumbfuck is telling me to enojoy a dividend tax cut.

    Fuck you Bush, you're an asshole. Now that the war is over, people will stop supporting you with their 'rally to the flag' additude, and will start questioning your policies. You better be prepared.

    What good things have you done for the country since you've been in office? I see nothing but a path of destruction and nepotism...

    1. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The president may or may not be responsible for the current state of the economy. Perhaps he is completely impotent and could have done nothing to reign in the gross corporate corruption that caused the dot.bom, Enron's energy market manipulation and Enron-esque accounting fraud.

      However, he is in control of those bills that he writs and sponsors himself. If you think "the very rich" is defined by Bush II as someone who makes more than 50K, then you really need to get your head out of your *ass.

      Bush is currently pandering to people that make at least 10 times that much. It's not at all clear that any of that will do anyone else a d*mn bit of good either.

      As far as the "war president" goes. Bush II has been riding a war rally wave since 911.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can you provide any proof it is only benefiting the rich? because i sure cant.

      i mean PROOF. not some person simply stating "it will only benefit the rich"

      btw, the Democrats defined rich as anyone over $50,000 a year. and bush is not pandering the 500,000 a year folks. that is a flat out lie.

    3. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be ignorant. The dividend tax cut is designed to make investment in corporations more attractive to everyone (not to save you $600). This will lower companies' cost of capital and allow them to take on more projects (and hence hire more people).

      Some advice for your time off, read a book and then post when you know what you are talking about.

    4. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      bush is not pandering the 500,000 a year folks. that is a flat out lie.

      Then explain how the bulk of the tax cut goes to the very rich. Normal people like you and me get about $1000.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    5. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Bush is currently pandering to people that make
      >at least 10 times that much.

      But there are a lot of them. And they tend to participate in the political process.

      If the rest of the people would genuinely participate in the political process (which STARTS with voting in EVERY election, but continues from there, into developing and maintaining relationships with those who represent you in government, and even, includes running for office yourself or getting behind a credible candidate who represents your interests.)

      But we don't do any of that. If we DID, then it would take more to succeed in Washington than just "stroke the rich."

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    6. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by Samrobb · · Score: 1
      Then explain how the bulk of the tax cut goes to the very rich.

      Maybe because the "rich" - the top 20% of the individual earners in the country - pay over 65% of the income taxes collected each year?

      If everyone has their taxes reduced by 10%, well, that means that someone who pays more taxes than you do will get more money back. If you compare the percentages, it's a fair deal. If you compare the scalar quantities that result from those percentages and start talking about "the rich" and "the poor", you've stopped talking about the math, and started trying to manipulate people's emotions.

      Since taxes are always computed as percentages of income, falling back to talking about relative scalar quantities for a tax cut or tax increase is a pretty good sign of someone who wants to muddy the issue.

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    7. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      precisely.

      its not the millionaires getting the breaks, but it is the top tax payers (well that would exclude the very rich anyways). The more tax you pay, the more you get back.

      makes sense to me, but some people feel that cuts should be given to those that paid little if any taxes, ie "the poor"

      it makes sense to give a cut to the people that paid the most in taxes. they are not in dire needs, but they will be willing to buy that car they almost had enough for. Which is very good, you want people to spend the tax cut money, not save it because they are worried about the future.

    8. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Maybe because the "rich" - the top 20% of the individual earners in the country - pay over 65% [taxpolicycenter.org] of the income taxes collected each year?

      The top 10% pay half of the taxes - so what? They own 80% of the property.

      If everyone has their taxes reduced by 10%, well, that means that someone who pays more taxes than you do will get more money back. If you compare the percentages, it's a fair deal.

      You're ignoring the social consequences: the tax cut is pitched as an economic stimulus, but it doesn't put money in the hands of those who will spend it. A rich person is less likely to buy another car because he's got slightly more money - he'll bank it or invest in some offshore opportunity. A poor person, on the other hand, will pay off some debt and buy the new sofa he's been looking at for 6 months.

      If you compare the scalar quantities that result from those percentages and start talking about "the rich" and "the poor", you've stopped talking about the math, and started trying to manipulate people's emotions.

      That's how this tax cut got sold - by convincing people making 60k/yr that they are part of the rich, and that they will benefit handsomely from it. Don't go condemning critics for the tactics of the proponents.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    9. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by geronimo87 · · Score: 1

      Cheer up! When the economy gets worse, we still have Syria to invade. then we can all rally around Bush again!

    10. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      The dividend tax cut is designed to make investment in corporations more attractive to everyone (not to save you $600). This will lower companies' cost of capital and allow them to take on more projects (and hence hire more people).

      Sounds like Reagan's trickle-down economics, which increased the federal debt immensely, thereby pushing the economic problems of the 80's to the future generations. I fear that Bush's policies will do the same.

      While I think that removing the dividend tax is a good thing in the long run, it does not address our immediate economic problems.

      investment in corporations

      Only the corporations who pay dividends. Right now, most corporations don't pay dividends to their investors.

      The day after the dividend tax cut passes, every-man isn't going to hop out and purchase stock in Blue Chip companies. No, they'll slowly build their portfolio over time. It will take years for 'everyone' to benefit from this, and years more for them to see any signifigant benefit.

      While the dividend tax cut may be a good thing in a few years, we need a solution now.

      But if Bush wants a tax cut, why push so hard for a cut where only a small group of investors will see any immediate benefit?

      Why not lower taxes for everyone?

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    11. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by Samrobb · · Score: 1
      A rich person is less likely to buy another car because he's got slightly more money - he'll bank it or invest in some offshore opportunity. A poor person, on the other hand, will pay off some debt and buy the new sofa he's been looking at for 6 months.

      Does it occur to you that you're making a pretty broad assumption about how people deal with their money? There are "rich" people who prefer to invest locally and would never think of offshore investments [1]. There are "poor" people who would take a tax refund and would never even think of using it to reduce their debts.

      You're assuming that all people in a certain economic class will behave in exactly the same way; in addition, you're assuming that their behavior happen to be exactly the type of behavior that benefits your argument.

      In any case, even if we follow your logic, you're wrong. Assume that every "rich" person takes their tax refund and dumps it into foreign investments. Assume that every "poor" person takes their tax refund and uses it to pay of debts and buy new goods. In this situation, you would still get the desired effect - an economic stimulus. It may not be as large a stimulus as possible, but it will be there.

      [1] Besides, why are offshore investments bad? Aren't we living in a global economy now? Isn't it an ecomonic advantage to have healthy international trade partners? I've noticed that the same people who are pro-NAFTA and pro-globalism also make these same arguments about how bad it is to let the "rich" invest their money in other countries. Doublespeak plusgood.

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    12. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you really don't know, do you?

      1) monitary policy is always long term - only automatic stabilizers like unemployment insurance works in the short term

      2) the basis of stock valuations is future dividends (the stream of dividends at present value) - companies may not pay now, but if they never pay their stock will be worthless anyway

    13. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dividend tax cut is designed to make investment in corporations more attractive to everyone (not to save you $600)

      You just backed up his argument.

      And who's investing in these corporations? The very rich.

      As he said: A tax cut for the very rich, who will turn around and squander it on their new summer house while outsourcing your job to India.

    14. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      For starters, he has yet to address the rather bogus Alternative Minimum Tax. It hasn't been indexed to inflation for years and now it's hammering the working middle class in several high cost of living states. Furthermore, his big tax crusade is not in rolling back the tax tables a few percent but ELIMINATING the taxes on dividends.

      How much are you going to be benefited by such a thing? How rich do you think you would have to be to be benefited by such at thing? Maybe you'll see a small indirect effect if you own a meagre piece of the right mutual funds. However, the bulk of this will primarily benefit the obscenely wealthy who have large stock portfolios.

      Then lets not even get into the "marriage penalty". That costs my parents more than $1000 annually and they are a pair of "working stiffs".

      The tax cuts that Bush II has directed to the middle & working class are much like the deductions for student loan interest.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    15. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that all people in a certain economic class will behave in exactly the same way; in addition, you're assuming that their behavior happen to be exactly the type of behavior that benefits your argument.

      No, it's enough that most people behave like that, and they do. If you give someone making 20k/yr an extra $50 - $100/mo, he'd probably spend it on something, since he's probably got a list of things that he'd like to have, but can't afford. Rich people don't usually behave that way - they've got a pile of cash and all the baubles they can use (that's the whole point). They're more likely to save the extra money or invest it.

      In any case, even if we follow your logic, you're wrong. Assume that every "rich" person takes their tax refund and dumps it into foreign investments. Assume that every "poor" person takes their tax refund and uses it to pay of debts and buy new goods.

      Ok, let's use these numbers, or these numbers

      . The top 20% get about 63% of the tax cut, and propmtly bank it, or send it to elsalvador or India. The rest of us get what's left - up to $74B in 2010 - and spend it. According to the CIA world factbook, Our GDP is $10T, so $74B isn't much. If you check that second link, you'll find that economists favor cutting taxes paid by those with lower income instead of giving it to the rich, who tend to save a lot.

      It may not be as large a stimulus as possible, but it will be there.

      That's kind of the point. The tax cut would be more effective if it targetted those who would use it today instead of 20 years from now.

      Besides, why are offshore investments bad? Aren't we living in a global economy now?

      It's great if you're rich, but it sucks otherwise. Anyway, the point of the tax cut is supposedly economic stimulus in this country. I'm sure India and China would like to see more cash, but that's not what we're doing here.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    16. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      How rich do you think you would have to be to be benefited by such at thing?

      I think I stand to gain $500/yr. If I made $1M/yr, I'd gain $11.7K this year, going up to $87K in 2010. Numbers here.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    17. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by Samrobb · · Score: 1
      Besides, why are offshore investments bad? Aren't we living in a global economy now?

      It's great if you're rich, but it sucks otherwise.

      That was menat semi-sarcastically - sorry if that didn't quite come through :-/

      The top 20% get about 63% of the tax cut, and propmtly bank it...

      ...and the bank lends it out to people, and they make their money by charging interest on the loan.

      Those top 20% putting their money into savings will make an additional $200B available for the banks to loan out. They have to do that - otherwise, they can't make the money to pay the interest on that $200B deposited with them. So, banks will do their best to see that they get that money out of their hands and into the hands of someone who can start paying them interest on a loan. That will almost certainly mean lower interest rates - for credit cards, for personal loans, for home loans. Low interest rates spur consumer spending more than a simple cash return, because it encourages folks to get out and make purchases of large, durable goods that were previously perceived as "too expensive".

      Our GDP is $10T, so $74B isn't much.

      By that argument, $274B isn't much, either - same order of magnitude. So, again, your argument defeats itself. If $74B isn't enought to be an agent for "economic stimulus", then even four times that amount probably won't have a significant effect, either. If a tax cut isn't going to have a significant effect, then you have three choices:

      • Give more money back to the rich
      • Give more money back to the poor
      • Ignore economic status and treat everybody identically

      Well, I take that back: there's a fourth option - eliminate all taxes on the first $25,000 of income. That would keep about 40% of the population from paying any taxes at all, without even causing a blip in the tax revenue collected by the IRS. I'd support this in a heartbeat, and I'm nowhere near being able to benefit from this kind of simplified tax scheme.

      But you know what? You'll never see this happen. Do you know why? Folks like you would fight it tooth and nail - because while it provides a tremendous benefit to the lower income earners, it also provides a benefit to the upper income earners. It also means that the government suddenly looses a significant bit of control over a large portion of the population. Can't go after them for tax evasion, can't pass tax laws to encourage or discourage certain behaviors, etc.

      Nope, can't have that. Taxes were about funding the government, long ago... now, they are about control. Which segment of society do we want to reward? Which do we want to punish? Do we want to encourage people to invest, or to spend? To pay for higher education, or go straight into the workforce? To contribute to political parties, or charitable organizations? This is why flat-tax proposals, modified tax proposals, and national sales tax proposals are all vigorously opposed (primarily by the left, but also by the moderate right) - anything that takes away the ability to make exceptions to the tax code as a reward or punishment takes power away from the government.

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    18. Re:You're forgetting the main cause... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Well, I take that back: there's a fourth option - eliminate all taxes on the first $25,000 of income. That would keep about 40% of the population from paying any taxes at all, without even causing a blip in the tax revenue collected by the IRS. I'd support this in a heartbeat, and I'm nowhere near being able to benefit from this kind of simplified tax scheme. But you know what? You'll never see this happen. Do you know why? Folks like you would fight it tooth and nail - because while it provides a tremendous benefit to the lower income earners, it also provides a benefit to the upper income earners.

      Actually, I favor that sort of tax policy. I don't hate the rich, but I see no reason to give them more money.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  23. But did they learn their lesson ... by jrl87 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lets just pretend that this dotcom come back is really happenning and there is no possibility that it won't.

    Did the rookies and experienced dotcommers learn anything from their experiences or those of others; or, will they do the same thing - make a little money, think they're all that (no offense to all you failed dotcommers) and hire people to do things they could easily do themselves and buy a bunch of equipment they have no need for? Thus putting them into dept which they will never recover from and putting their dotcom on that big server in the sky.

    1. Re:But did they learn their lesson ... by YllabianBitPipe · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of the arrogance / greed of the .commers can be attributed to the speed at which they got "rich", not any personal character flaws of those people. I am of the school that power corrupts and riches are no different. You give anybody a pile of money nearly instantly and I guess the majority of them have trouble handling it. Take a look at recent lottery winners and a lot of them say it makes their lives miserable. Now take a million bucks and dole it out at a more realistic rate, like an allowance, and you get much saner handling of said money.

  24. Please, No! by Michael_Burton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A few years ago, pundits said anyone who didn't perceive the internet's magical power to mint money "just don't get the internet."

    Shortly before the first dotcom boom went bust, I saw an enthusiastic stock analyst on one of the financial news shows. He defended his extravagant valuations of companies that had never made a profit and had never articulated when or how they intended to start making a profit. Profit and loss statements and P/E ratios were archaic and obsolete relics of the old economy, he said. "Now it's all about branding."

    Who didn't get it?

    It's likely that the bust left some tech stocks undervalued. There may be some bargains to be had. There are undoubtedly opportunities for real businesses that figure out that the interenet, like the telephone company, lets a company communicate with its customers. That doesn't change the fundamental fact that a company still needs to find some way to actually make money.

    (Personally, I don't think we've let all the hot air out of the bubble yet. Time will tell.)

    --
    When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
    1. Re:Please, No! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      A few years ago, pundits said anyone who didn't perceive the internet's magical power to mint money "just don't get the internet."

      Well, I have been told that I don't "get OOP". So, when will it pop? :-P

    2. Re:Please, No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Shortly before the first dotcom boom went bust, I saw an enthusiastic stock analyst on one of the financial news shows. He defended his extravagant valuations of companies that had never made a profit and had never articulated when or how they intended to start making a profit. Profit and loss statements and P/E ratios were archaic and obsolete relics of the old economy, he said. "Now it's all about branding."

      Who didn't get it?

      Who didn't get it ? Maybe you, depending on what you did during the bubble.

      Chances are that analyst was raking it in bigtime while the going was good. Sure, maybe he's back down to earth now, like the rest of us, but I'd guess his bank account looks healthier.

  25. This is just scavenger hunt by YllabianBitPipe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There isn't going to be a second boom like 1999. The collapse took out all the smaller weaker companies and we're pretty much left with the survivors: Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, heck toss Microsoft, AOL, Dell, Apple in there. Now it's just time for the big companies to pick and choose what stragglers that are still left treading water (which, implies they have something worth owning) and buy 'em. We're just going to see the bigger companies get bigger. Sometime in the next century there will be another speculative boom but I'll doubt it'll be web-based. Anybody pumping net stocks today probably lost a crap load the last time 'round and is bitterly trying to make up what they lost ... or they're just dumb.

    1. Re:This is just scavenger hunt by towatatalko · · Score: 1

      I would pretty much agree with that scenario except that it will take a lot shorter time until the next boom, I predict it about 2035-39, then there will be a tremendous boom in technology especially combined with microbiology, new physics and astronomy, health services and travel, etc., a wonder to behold. I mean the future is bright but it will take a lot of effort to clean up the messes of the present system, which is already too old and corrupt to progress further, so it needs to be crashed completely before a new one comes along. The next year 2004 will probably start that process in a big way. What we've seen is nothing! Just a soft prelude so far.

      --

      IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
  26. Re:A little advice for all the out of work techies by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
    Getting a trade is good advice. Since few do it, tradesmen aren't dime-a-dozen.

    For the folks who have already gotten the degree/student loans/pink slip, here is a rant I wrote about dealing with unemployment insurance in the US.

  27. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by YllabianBitPipe · · Score: 1

    Correct, the key is figuring out which jobs are going to stay here and which can be done elsewhere.

  28. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by Sheetrock · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I just got done watching CNN, where they were perplexed about how our economy seems to be getting back on track amid increasing (domestic) layoffs. They haven't connected the dots, but does anybody here think that this might possibly be because these companies are replacing workers here with others outside the country for pennies on the dollar?

    Political correctness is all well and good, but don't let it blind you to reality. I'm getting the bulk of my telemarketing calls from Newfoundland and India (try asking sometimes, before you hang up), and calls for support seem to be going out of country too. How much of the stuff you buy says Made In USA on it these days?

    Of course the IT industry isn't immune. We ought to fix things by requiring companies who use foreign labor to pay equivalent U.S. for each overseas position into a fund used for improving living conditions in the countries these companies are abusing (or similar causes).

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




  29. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by Uber+Banker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "These are jobs that should be available to citizens of the U.S."

    Why?

    The thing is, 'sending jobs overseas' is seen as negative. Why is that? Why shpould they be saved for US citizens?

    If I fixed your job (and, if extended to everyone then everyone's job) for life, you would get no productivity increases. You would therefore get no pay rises. Where are the increases in revenue for your job if everyone is like you?

    Research would achieve nothing, as if everyone is fixed, we'll never have anyone to increase productivity.

    So... if you don't want jobs sourced overseas, then equally expect no change in job, no productivity increases, no economic growth.

    Do not earn more than your father... be condemned to a life of what has been achieved before.

    The shame is, economists post Ricardp have realised... IF YOU OUTSOURCE YOUR JOB TO SOMEONE WHO CAN DO IT CHEAPER (not only increasing their standard of living) YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ELSE EVEN MORE PRODUCTIVE (unless you are a leech upon your workforce and refuse to change). This ACCOMPANIED WITH DISCOVERY (research) results in ECONOMIC GROWTH.

    Sorry for so many caps... just ppl either don't understand basic common sense or are so lazy they want to preverse their present position without thinking al all.

  30. Re:A little advice for all the out of work techies by the+uNF+cola · · Score: 1

    It depends on who you are and why you are doing this type of work. I like programming.. solving problems.. and implementing stuff.

    I program at home as a hobby. Just got some more source to compile. Hit a milestone. I plan on going to work and programming some more. You mentioned you are 23 (IIRC). I'm a little older and started at an early age.

    In all honesty, if you love to program, the only thing that will affect your opinion is where you work. Some people work in small companies. Some work in large. Some in large groups, some in small. Just gotta find where you fit.

    -s

    --

    --
    "I'm not bright. Big words confuse me. But Wanda loves me and that should be enough for you." - Cosmo

  31. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

    And economic growth, I should have added, means more income FOR THE WHOLE WORLD.

  32. ITAA Lying Weasels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ITAA is to programmers as Tobacco Institute is to smokers. The ITAA has been lying to you about some mythical programmer shortage, while with their other hand paying off congress to bring in millions of H-1B's and L-1's. Their goal is to push the supply of IT workers through the roof, and we all know about supply and demand. In the process they lie like 10 rugs to naive college students. The multinationals just want indentured servants from the third world. See http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html

  33. good point by YllabianBitPipe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Part of the web revolution was supposed to be low overhead. Guess what, low overhead also means less workers. There's simply no reason, when you're focused on-line, to hire a marketing guru, HR guru, caterer, DJ, masseuse and all that other useless crap the .coms got into. What's being found out is these days you have one guy doing five different jobs and he'll do it, because he's paranoid about getting laid off. Did you know all the cool logos that change every day at Google are done by one person? Back in the day, you would have hired an entire design department, each person earning 70K to do that. Seriously. Times have changed ... for the better, in some ways.

    1. Re:good point by faust2097 · · Score: 0
      Did you know all the cool logos that change every day at Google are done by one person?

      It's pretty obvious. I love Google but their visual branding sucks. Of course Google is a good example of how having a valuable service is a more important part of your brand than having a cool logo.

      At least they do the logo in Photoshop instead of the Gimp now, the way too soft drop shadow and fuzzy antialiasing on the older version hurt me.

    2. Re:good point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What's being found out is these days you have one guy doing five different jobs and he'll do it, because he's paranoid about getting laid off."

      Somewhere, the HR head of a multinational is thinking: "Why can't we get more people to be scared sheep like him?"

  34. Re:A little advice for all the out of work techies by asscroft · · Score: 1

    my father was an unemployed pipe fitter most of my childhood. he told me not to go into the trades, as the unions (here in the west anyway) are all getting railroaded by the politicians and the greedy ass developers and people are willing to pay an illegal $7.00 an hour for crappy but cheap labor versus paying an American a union wage. He told me to go to college.

    I think that is good advice too. But, I'd add that to major in something industry specific is not a good idea. Major in something portable like business or marketing. If you're in Marketing you can switch industries without switching careers. Sure there are specifics to learn, but a marketer can go from selling Windows(tm) to selling windows.

    Hell even help desk/IT/network administration is industry portable, as all modern industries use computers.

    Software development/Hardware development on the other hand, all the CS/EE grads are screwed - unless they go into the defense industry. We don't like to outsource missile controls.

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
  35. Anybody get this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    After several months I actually recieved a response from one of the resumes I sent out. I was kind of excited. A real lead! The recruiter said everything looked good except for the year and a half gap in my employhment since my last job. She implied it might be a problem if I couldn't find something to put in there.

    Anybody else get this? What are you supposed to say to a recruiter when they ask this?

    1. Re:Anybody get this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think the recruiter is encouraging you to outright lie, I'd find a different recruiter. If she's willing to lie to the employer, she's willing to lie to you.

    2. Re:Anybody get this? by towatatalko · · Score: 1

      You don't have to lie, just say you were an independent IT consultant, which you were since you have some skills that match that descrption (you know what that is I'm just gessing). Did you do any IT related work at that time even if it was for free? Include those project even if you stayed at home and worked on some problem, it was a project, right? You probably learned something from home-based projects, etc. Not being employed doesn't mean you were not progressing in your chosen discipline or specialization. So, self-employed category is also employment unless someone defines employment as receiving wages for services. But they probably won't ask ab. it. Hey, I'm also unemploled but am not so lucky, I don' get responses from recruiters, etc, so good luck to you.

      --

      IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
    3. Re:Anybody get this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for the tip, I'll try it. She said she wanted some sort of "W-2" experience but the Self-Employed angle might work too.

  36. Grass is always greener. by YllabianBitPipe · · Score: 1

    It's funny how many people, who went to college in the hopes of getting a white collar job are now second guessing for whatever reason and thinking maybe they'd be better off being a carpenter or assembly line worker because of unions. Well ... those jobs aren't all that, either. They are murder on your body, working in dangerous areas, noisy areas, and there's just as much corruption and back stabbing and business politics crap as any other profession. The primary reason why people think these other jobs are better is because of the union.

    What we really need, which I don't get why people can't put two and two together and see, is a freaking tech worker's union. But there are enough people still clinging to the options dream that this obvious solution will be really hard to advertise.

    1. Re:Grass is always greener. by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Right you are, about the blue-collar work not being "all that".

      I'll tell you, most blue-collar workers I know make more cash than I.T. people I know (even I.T. managers in some cases, though they're probaby close to equal).

      Nonetheless, I've stubbornly stuck with I.T. jobs only, despite the lure of much better pay. Mostly, it's for the reasons you cite. I'm not really fond of working out in the heat and cold, and/or tearing up my body. (Just one hospital stay not covered by insurance could set a person back much further than they got ahead with years of "better pay" in a construction job, for example!)

      I've gone back and forth on that whole "tech worker's union" idea though. Right now, I tend to be against it. Unions aren't much loved or respected by most consumers. Heck, I see the unions putting up billboards all the time begging people not to shop at store X or Y because "non-union labor" was used there. Think anyone cares? No way! Those businesses tend to have the best prices/value for the dollar - and that's all the customer ultimately cares about when shopping.

      I think you'd see plenty of "non-union techs" competing with the "union techs" for work, and winning the contract every time. What is the union supposed to really offer the customer when it comes to PC repair/upgrades? Certifications? Plenty of people have those already (or can go get them easily enough!). Nah, seems to me they'd just offer people an empty promise of "better quality work" - which they wouldn't really deliver on.

  37. My company recently received this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Now I am all for developing nations... but there is no way my company can compete with $18/h

    Here is the letter...
    Dear Sir / Madam,

    We are pleased to introduce ourselves as software-coders, consultants, programmers and allied services providers, based in India, providing software coding and development services. We already have clients in India, Germany, Switzerland, UK and the UAE to whom we provide the best quality at very low costs as outlined below.

    SERVICES

    We provide software services ranging from complete software development of a complete project to providing pure coding services based on a previously analysed and prepared structure. This thus includes the complete spectrum of software development, be it custom or Internet software development. The various software services that we provide are -

    Custom Software Development, Internet / Intranet Software Development and Website Designing and Development Database Maintenance and Handling Testing (Manual) Documentation (Help, Tutorials and Manuals, Demos) Customer Support Services via E-mail and Customer Correspondence Management Representation in India for various purposes

    PRICING

    Software Coding and Development: We offer rates depending on the nature and complexity of the work, but to give an indication we have per man-hour rates varying from US $ 1 to US $ 18. For bulk assignments the rates are worked out accordingly. Generally speaking, the rate for pure coding job is less than a programming job.

    Other Services:
    This depends entirely on the requirements and services required.

    LEAD AND DEVELOPMENT TIME
    Coding:
    For pure coding assignment, when the program structure is clearly defined and outlined, the lead-time is about 7 days and after that a daily update can be sent.

    Other Services:
    The lead-time and development time depends on the labour involved and complexity of the software project.

    TECHNICAL SKILLS AND KNOW-HOW

    OS:
    Microsoft Windows 95/98/2000/NT/ XP, RedHat Linux 6.2 and above .

    Programming Languages:
    Java, C/C++, SQL, Basic, Fox Pro, PL/SQL

    Internet/Intranet Technologies:
    TCP/IP, Servlets, Applets, Flash, Shockwave, ActiveX, COM/DCOM, SSL, CORBA

    Java/J2EE Technologies:
    Enterprise JavaBeans, JDBC, AWT, RMI, Servlets, JSP, Swing, JMS, Applets, JNDI, JNI, JavaMediaFramework, JavaSound, JComm, Image handling and processing, JavaMail, JAXP

    Scripting Languages:
    JSP, ASP, CFML, JavaScript, VBScript

    Markup Languages:
    HTML/DHTML, CSS, SSI, WAP/WML, XML/XSL/DTD

    Application Servers:
    BEA WebLogic, Macromedia ColdFusion, MS Internet Information Server, Apache Web Server, IBM Web-Sphere, JBoss, Macromedia JRun

    Tools:
    Application Development:
    Visual Basic, VC++, GCC, Developer 2000, Delphi, Power Builder, MS VJ++ 6.0, Oracle JDeveloper , Borland J.Builder, Sun JDK 1.0.x - 1.4, VisualAge Java

    Web Development:
    Macromedia Dreamweaver, Microsoft FrontPage, Adobe Photoshop, CorelDraw

    DBMS and Database:
    MS SQL Server, ORACLE 7.x-8.1.x, mySQL, Sybase, Informix, MS Access, ODBC, JDBC, PostgreSQL

    GUI Systems:
    Win32 API, MFC, AWT, JFC

    Software Libraries:
    MFC, ANSI C++ STL, ATL

    We are sure that you would find these rates very competitive and our services up to the mark. However please let us know if you need any clarification.

    Thanking you in anticipation,

    Yours faithfully,

    Navdesh

    beta infosoft services, # 741, Nelson Square, Chhindwara Road, Nagpur , Maharashtra, India 440 013

    Email: betainfosoft@sify.com
    1. Re:My company recently received this... by Angry+Toad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Very interesting. Welcome to the real New World Order. Turns out software coding is a skill which can be easily taken on by developing economies. Skills which earned six figures only a couple of years ago can be bought for $1 per hour. Now that's some unfettered free-market competition for you! LOL.

    2. Re:My company recently received this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually no it's not a free market. We charge import taxes on foreign goods to protect our cherished corporations from a free market, but provide no such protection for people that comprise those corporations.

    3. Re:My company recently received this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got this spam too. Gave it to one of my ex programmers, he nearly shit his pants. Thank god I got out of this mutt business.

    4. Re:My company recently received this... by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1
      Skills which earned six figures only a couple of years ago can be bought for $1 per hour.


      So they're having a sale. That's fine. The price will go up when they find they have fewer programmers than tasks.

      If they can't raise their rates you start wondering what's wrong.
      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    5. Re:My company recently received this... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Skills which earned six figures only a couple of years ago can be bought for $1 per hour."

      I guess that's the theory, but does it hold?

      Can you really get someone who's had university physics, chemistry, calculus, and some experience working in an American corporation for a significant amount of time, for $1/hr?

      Or is there an apples-to-oranges comparison being made somewhere?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  38. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by spectral · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everything can be done elsewhere. There is nothing special about where you live to make it possible to do something ONLY THERE. (Ok, there might be a few exceptions)

    You have to figure which have a decent likelihood of being done elsewhere. Management tends to stay in one spot, since they don't like to vote themselves to having to relocate, and they wouldn't outsource themselves. Lower levels get moved to cut costs.

    Especially if management sees you as a blue-collar worker, you're going to get moved. Unfortunately, programming is often seen by people who don't program as a rather easy process. Ideas go in, program comes out. The programmers are just more people on the assembly line. It's a different kind of factory, but still a factory in the eyes of the management. Factories are staffed by monkeys, monkeys can be hired for cheaper in other parts of the world. Therefore, outsource.

    So yeah, the key is figuring out which jobs management thinks require intelligence and skills, and can't be done by just anyone. Programming isn't one of those.

    I blame the # of people who tried to prove them right by rushing to get a degree in some computers/tech field and polluting the job pool. If your answer for "Why did you get a degree in X" is "For the money", I hate you. I program because that's what I like doing. I don't care about the money, as long as it's enough to eat. Unfortunately people who got their CS degrees (or whatever your university called it) and might have maybe learned the mechanics of writing programs and how comptuers work, but not how to design programs that work well are the problem. Eventually they'll be fired as the incompetents they are, and the people who know their stuff will get hired/promoted.

    At least, that's what I keep telling myself while looking for a job. :) Wow I got offtopic there.

  39. There's gold in Iraq... by dpbsmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    at least according to this Computerworld article, "Postwar Iraq seen as big potential tech market."

    "Every business-minded person is looking at Iraq after the war because it is a very rich country," said Riad Safar... Iraq's market potential, as it moves to replace out-of-date business and health systems, is bigger than that of many of its neighbors, including Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and perhaps Saudi Arabia....
    The senior official at Kuwait-based systems integrator International Turnkey Systems, said in a telephone interview today that he thinks "it's going to be a huge market."

    And that's just one of a number of articles I've read lately salivating over the prospects of Iraq as a market for American goods.

    Maybe the broadband Internet will be up and running before the water is.

    1. Re:There's gold in Iraq... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      And that's just one of a number of articles I've read lately salivating over the prospects of Iraq as a market for American goods.

      Oh great. The Ex Information Minister ("Bagdad Bob") will become yet another H-1B. He would make a good contractor (financial-wise):

      "The dogs that told you that our product is too buggy will rot in the sun and die like the cowards they are."

  40. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by Uber+Banker · · Score: 0, Troll

    "How much of the stuff you buy says Made In USA on it these days?"

    Yeah... I really want cheap plastic toys made in the US of A. Isn't the point of economic growth to mean the USA (and other 'rich' countires) make the complex expensive stuff, our workers are freed to make these 'value added' things by outsourcing cheap things to other countries.

    I really don't mind call centres sourced from other countries... imagine if all Americans had to stitch your clothes instead of all those Mexicans!!!

    Let me do a more valuable job.

    The unemployed in the US are the lazy, stupid (neither which have any sympathy for) or unlukcky (who have fallen on har times and should be helped back on their feet).

    Don't complain your server admin job has been sourced overseas. Accept lower pay or do something that takes some thinking.

  41. Moral of the story by version5 · · Score: 1

    Don't work for the bureaucratic mess that is government operations!

    --

    "It's Dot Com!"

  42. Re:A little advice for all the out of work techies by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
    Out of curiousity what trade are you in?

    I tried help desk, pc repair, copier repair, and merchandising.

    I sucked at every one of these jobs except merchandising where I did ok.

    I have a mild form of autism which makes my eye/hand cordination bad and social skills mediocre at best. Many geeks have this supprisingly and studies are underway to prove this.

    Anyway for me this means the only skill I have is my brain. I am going back to school so I can have a job using it.

    My point is your post is a great idea for those who are good with their hands or can talk really fast( sales ).

    We all have strengths and weaknesess and with the combo of the .bomb and lack of education some of us have, the only jobs available are for skills we do not have.

  43. Agreed. by YllabianBitPipe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I remember back in the 80's every body who was working on the assembly lines making cars was freaking out because the jobs were moving to asia, namely, Japan. People thought the US would be owned by Japan in a decade.

    I take two things from that experience. First, bitching about your job being lost to someone somewhere else for less is futile. It's gone, the company holds the keys to your job, not you. Corporate America cares only about profit and if you and your union job costs ten times what a worker in some third world country will charge; too bad for you. This will never change; politics is corrupt. Hate to break it to you but it's time to move onto a new line of work. So be flexible. Don't expect you'll have one career your whole life. Second, the mighty can and will fall and there is always something else that will rise to take the place of the old. Right now people are scared that India or China will become some economic powerhouse and rule the world ... like the Japanese were supposed to. Didn't happen. Some people are predicting the US economy will run out of steam like we were supposed to in the 80's, or end up like Japan today. I wouldn't bet on it. A turnaround will come from somewhere. Just be ready to work when it happens.

  44. So am I insane? by kotj.mf · · Score: 1
    I guess this is on topic enough...

    I'm a technically inclined dude with a relatively useless history BA. I've been contemplating going for a Master of Library Science, but with all the bullshit going on with the budget in my state, I'm losing some of the passion for it.

    The Business IT track at my local Uni is looking a lot more fun at the moment. Since I've already got a liberal arts degree, I could probably get out with a Bachelors in about 2 1/2 years vs. 2 for the MLIS.

    Am I completely stupid for wanting to get in to IT right now? I mean, nothing will preclude me from getting a MLIS in the future, but I'm not really keen on memorizing Dewey for the next two years.

    --
    hang brain.
  45. Well, maybe in tech jobs, yeah by YllabianBitPipe · · Score: 1

    But when I want my grass mowed, some guy in India ain't gonna be able to do that for me. :)

  46. WE OWN THIS COUNTRY by Cryofan · · Score: 0, Redundant

    >>>

    "These are jobs that should be available to citizens of the U.S."
    >>

    "Why?

    The thing is, 'sending jobs overseas' is seen as negative. Why is that? Why shpould they be saved for US citizens?"

    Umm...because we OWN this country and we, the people, having a govt for the people and by the people...etc etc...

    If we want OUR GOVT to do whatever it can to make sure EVERY SINGLE JOB available in America is goes to an American, then we can do that. That is one of the benefits of being a citizen of a democracy.
    And if we decide we want OUR govt to punish corporations that outsource jobs, then we can do so. You see, we OWN THIS COUNTRY. It belongs to AMerican citizens.
    People, it is time we drive this fact home to people like the above, and like our elected officials. I say we try for economic treason some politicians who have facilitated outsourcing. And if they are found guilty, hang 'em.

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
    1. Re:WE OWN THIS COUNTRY by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

      Yes... you own this country.

      And if you have made sure every job goes to an American since independence goes to an American we'd still have Americans doing menial jobs which have been outsourced to:

      1. Machines (hang the engineers?)

      2. Overseas (if someon in a third world country wants to do a low level job, let them, I'll do something more interesting/valuable).

      If this were the yountry YOU propose, we'd have no economic growth, would still be living in wooden shacks, creating our own products which would be better produced outside.

      Allow me to use CAPS because you seem somewhat thick:

      SENDING LOW VALUE JOBS OVERSEAS MEANS WE CAN DO MORE VALUEABLE JOBS. IF THEY ARE STEALING FROM US, WE WILL HAVE NO INCOME SO CANNOT PAY.

      Take you half-ass degree anywhere you like. Infact, if you're against outsourcing, LEAVE THE US. BECAUSE THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPAL OF FREE CHANCE BETWEEN ALL. Most of us are immigrants, descended from those that saw a good chance. WHAT MADE US [the parent] BECOME SO SMALL MINDED?

      If you want the same job for ever, fine. Do it forever, never pay a low price for goods, never take a pay rise. Fine.

    2. Re:WE OWN THIS COUNTRY by slavitos · · Score: 1

      I love it when Americans want to have to both ways - global economy when it fits them and completely protectionist one when it doesn't. Does it ever occur to you that when you export U.S. goods and services overseas, it means somebody overseas has already lost *their* job because *you* took it from them? Do you have a problem with that? I didn't think so... But if not, how can you have a problem when it happens the other way around? So - yeah, you own this country, but if you want to sell globally (and believe me, you DO - that's exactly how America is able to thrive in a world that's much poorer on average), you have to play by the global rules.

    3. Re:WE OWN THIS COUNTRY by Cryofan · · Score: 1

      >>
      Yes... you own this country.
      >>

      No, *we* own this country. We, the American citizens.

      >>
      And if you have made sure every job goes to an American since independence goes to an American we'd still have Americans doing menial jobs which have been outsourced to:

      1. Machines (hang the engineers?)
      >>

      The Social contract extends to American citizen engineers, but not to non-citizen engineers. I know it is a hard concept, but there is such a thing as a "social contract." As a citzen of a country, I agree to play fair with other citizens, but when it comes to playing fair with non-citizens, they do not get the same deal.

      It is an old, OLD, OLD concept.

      >>
      2. Overseas (if someon in a third world country wants to do a low level job, let them, I'll do something more interesting/valuable).
      >>

      I would prefer to do nothing at all unless I want to do it.

      >>
      If this were the yountry YOU propose, we'd have no economic growth, would still be living in wooden shacks, creating our own products which would be better produced outside.
      >>

      Oh, I be a *decided* technophile, early adopter,etc. See my sig....

      >>
      Allow me to use CAPS because you seem somewhat thick:
      >>

      Doubt it. 200+ hours of college. Widely traveled.
      Multiple degrees in diverse fields. > 95th percentile IQ. Etc.

      >>>
      SENDING LOW VALUE JOBS OVERSEAS MEANS WE CAN DO MORE VALUEABLE JOBS. IF THEY ARE STEALING FROM US, WE WILL HAVE NO INCOME SO CANNOT PAY.
      >>

      WHy would I want to send any jobs overseas? Why would anyone want to do a more "more valuable job"? I would rather do nothing I do not want to do. And I think everyone would agree with me.
      Anyway, your sentence does not really hang together, logically, etc.

      >>>

      Take you half-ass degree anywhere you like. Infact, if you're against outsourcing, LEAVE THE US. BECAUSE THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPAL OF FREE CHANCE BETWEEN ALL.
      >>

      All citizens of America.

      >>>

      Most of us are immigrants, descended from those that saw a good chance. WHAT MADE US [the parent] BECOME SO SMALL MINDED?
      >>

      Let me guess. You live in a house? You bought the house? Well, at some point in time, you did not own the house. Therefore, using your logic, I have the right to live there.

      >>
      If you want the same job for ever, fine. Do it forever, never pay a low price for goods, never take a pay rise. Fine.
      >>>

      End of rant, huh? Look, you are just like I was 15 years ago, politically and philosophically speaking. But you are stupid and ignorant. But don't worry. That is a disease of youth....

      --
      eat shiat and bark at the moon
    4. Re:WE OWN THIS COUNTRY by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

      End of rant, huh? Look, you are just like I was 15 years ago, politically and philosophically speaking. But you are stupid and ignorant. But don't worry. That is a disease of youth....

      So, you became bitter and cynical because your stable life was taken away?

      Your previous life only so existed because others paid for your products.

      I live in a land of freedom and opportunity. A land built on enterprise, innovation and the success of a good idea. As much as corporates want to entrap those ideas, I will never bow to blaming others taking something away from me.

      Because I am an individual. An intelligent (>99.5th percentile of IQ last time I did the test, but I do not believe in IQ as a concept of intelligence, least determination of future), I am creative. I create success, I create value. Anyone can if they are truely open and willing. No one needs to blame others for their lack of success.

      Call it idealistic? Better I live in an idealistic world than a cynical one.

    5. Re:WE OWN THIS COUNTRY by Cryofan · · Score: 1

      >>>
      I love it when Americans want to have to both ways - global economy when it fits them and completely protectionist one when it doesn't.
      >>>

      Yes, that is *exactly* right. And our govt has the power to enforce that desire, if they were not too busy selling out to CorpGovMedia to look out for the American working class. You see, we have the power to throw our weight around, just like the alpha male of a social animal pack can.

      >>>
      Does it ever occur to you that when you export U.S. goods and services overseas, it means somebody overseas has already lost *their* job because *you* took it from them?
      >>

      Just like if I buy a stock or make deal, and then make money off of it, someone ELSE loses money.

      >>>
      Do you have a problem with that?
      >>>

      Not in the LEAST.

      >>
      I didn't think so...
      >>

      Your problem is that you are brainwashed.

      >>>
      But if not, how can you have a problem when it happens the other way around? So - yeah, you own this country, but if you want to sell globally (and believe me, you DO - that's exactly how America is able to thrive in a world that's much poorer on average), you have to play by the global rules.
      >>

      As long as we are on top, we have the most say, and if our leaders do not take advantage of that fact, and instead sell out to globalist labor market vultures, then I say we HANG them, and hifg (after a fair trial in a recognized court of law).

      --
      eat shiat and bark at the moon
    6. Re:WE OWN THIS COUNTRY by Cryofan · · Score: 1

      >>
      "End of rant, huh? Look, you are just like I was 15 years ago, politically and philosophically speaking. But you are stupid and ignorant. But don't worry. That is a disease of youth...."

      So, you became bitter and cynical because your stable life was taken away?

      Your previous life only so existed because others paid for your products
      >>

      huh? I have a good job, with my own office, and a secretary, in a power tower, with a view of the metropolis.

      --
      eat shiat and bark at the moon
    7. Re:WE OWN THIS COUNTRY by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

      > "Just like if I buy a stock or make deal, and then make money off of it, someone ELSE loses money."

      They do not lose money! Why do they lose money? They sold it and made money at a level they were happy with. You bought it and later sold it at a level you were happy with.

      No one loses 'money' - each buys and sells at a level that satisfies their risk tolerance. Do you think there is a fixed amount of money in the world? Afraid not.

      Money:

      Please forgive me as i rip your pathetic argument to shreds... consider a closed single currency economy...

      Is cash money? OK, so I put cash in my bank. They bank don't keep it all in the tills, they lend it out. They reserve only an expected probability that I'll want to withdraw it. As they lend it out, people spend it. The people who sell goods recieve they money so deposit a proportion in the bank... this is then lent out agan ad nausium. This is a money multiplier. The amount of money changes as the amount banks or individuals want to kepp as cash reserves changes.

      Imagine the bank or individual invests in shares. Shares increase in value, money stock goes up (shares could be sold for cash). Shares falls, money is lost. No one 'wins' while another 'loses'. That is pure bull.

      And remember this economy is closed from the outside world or other currencies.

      Money is created and destroyed. It doesn't necessarily benefit others.

      Now foreign trade:

      Imagine a US worker could produce 100 chips or 10 TV program an hour. An American will work for $10 an hour. One Indian worker could produce 50 chips or 2 TV programs an hour. An Indian worker will work for $2.5 an hour.

      Not, the cost of 10 chips is $1 in America or £0.5 in India. Whoa! Produce the chips in India dude!!! Then us American can buy them cheaper! But wait, us American can best produce TV programs, as we can make 1 for $1 but the Indians need $5 to make one program. So, lets make all the programs in the US! Cool!

      Now us American have learnt to do something more cheaply, the old things we did can be moved overseas and both us and the Indians can make more money!

      This is an example of absolute porductivity advantage. Next weeks Economics 101 can be about relative productive advantage, showing how, even though one country may be cheaper at producing both products, the other country still makes money from them (and no, it is a fair-and-square method, it is not invading and stealing their oil by implanting US corporations).

    8. Re:WE OWN THIS COUNTRY by AtariEric · · Score: 1

      If you want the same job for ever, fine. Do it forever, never pay a low price for goods, never take a pay rise. Fine.

      Number one, low value jobs? I lost a $40K salary. Do you consider this to be low value? What do you do for a living?

      Now, what makes you think these cost savings will ever be passed on to the rest of the world? What makes you think the shareholders won't simply horde all that extra money - spend the minimum required to develop shiny new product X and just keep the rest so they can buy yachts, drugs, prostitutes, and politicians*?

      Yes, we could do more valuable jobs, but unfortunately very few "more valuable jobs" exist. When those are all filled, what are the rest of the fully qualified and trained people supposed to do? Work at Lard Burger, eat out of dumpsters, and live in a cardboard box? All because some near-sighted CEO can't figure out that their sales are slumping because the same people who they have cheated out of a salary are the same people who used to buy their product?

      I, for one, am sick of being a toy for the enjoyment of some Caligula-wannabes who are so short-sighted that they make Mr. Magoo look like a visionary.

      Your point would be valid if our corporations were headed by fair and just people, but the plain fact is that they're not - most are headed by extremely greedy old-money types and what few aren't are being hamstringed by stockholders who are the same. They have had any sense of fairness and justice generationally squeezed out of them by parents upon parents who systematically spoiled their children. They want their XYZ, and they want it NOW - regarless of who they inconvenience, crush, or even kill - we're not even people to them anyway.

      If my job was shipped overseas because they were actually more skilled than I was, fine - it instigates me to get my butt back into training and my nose on the grindstone - but the only real difference is short-term cost. It is not about getting the best worker for the job - it is about depressing a subeconomy that was once felt to be too expensive and too out of corporate control.

      *Yeah, redundant. Sue me.

      --
      Don't trust any concentration of power.
    9. Re:WE OWN THIS COUNTRY by slavitos · · Score: 1

      >> Yes, that is *exactly* right. And our govt >> has the power to enforce that desire, .. >> As long as we are on top, we have the most say, >> and if our leaders do not take advantage of >> that fact, and instead sell out to globalist >> labor market vultures, then I say we HANG them, >> and hifg (after a fair trial in a recognized court of law). I understand that you are very proud of being a U.S. citizen (that shows), but how do you envision these rules being "imposed"? For example, what will happen if the gov't actually listens to your advice and prohibits software and IT imports by U.S.-based companies? Well -- within weeks many companies will reincorporate offshore to avoid this restriction. More jobs will be moved offshore and you'll loose out on taxes, too. So, military might is great, of course, but being "on top" it doesn't mean you can control *everything*.

    10. Re:WE OWN THIS COUNTRY by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >LEAVE THE US.

      You capitalize that clause, because the only circumstances you can see around "leaving the US" would involve dyspatriotism or dissatisfaction.

      But I would truly enjoy opportunities to go to another country. Perhaps one that has less of a consumer-oriented society. If I could go somewhere that provided the basics at 1/100th of the base cost, I might be persuaded to go there, as easily as I might be persuaded to go to, say, the midwest. Who knows? Maybe parts of India are nice.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    11. Re:WE OWN THIS COUNTRY by anandcp · · Score: 1

      How would you feel if the World refuses to buy American-made products? Would your jingoistic stand do you good? How many american citizens can buy Abrams tank, Beemer, Ford, F-16's, etc? U expect the world to buy your country's products, but refuse to employ them. You are right in claiming the rights of being an American Citizen and hanging politicians who offsource jobs. So will the other countries retaliate when you throw out their people from your country. What prevents india and other countries from buying things from Russia or china? Jingoism is good, but in todays' connected world it is a myth. Why didn;t you rant against the Japanese when they overtook your Cars/Auto market? Because U made the Japanese THE Frankeinstein ? Try to think before shooting from your hip!

      --
      -------- Cluster bombing from B-52s is very, very accurate -- the bombs always hit the ground.
  47. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hey jack-ass. The people who are doing it for the money hate you too since you are trying to make programming seem as if there is something more to it than there is. Get off your high horse and relieze that programming ain't some type of artistic pursuit.

  48. Re:A little advice for all the out of work techies by fadeaway · · Score: 1

    I certianly understand your position. I couldn't ask people like you to not program any more than I could ask an artist not to paint. If it's what you love doing then you're going to do it regardless of employment prospects.

    My post was intended more for the people who got into the field for the money rather than for the love.. and I know that they're out there. A number of my friends who have tech degrees didn't know a thing about computers before hand.. they just knew that tech was (supposedly) where the money was, and jumped on board.

  49. Re:A little advice for all the out of work techies by the+uNF+cola · · Score: 1

    Oh. well.. um..

    [ insert long flame here insulting many parts of your anatomy ]

    Damnit. I hate being in agreement :)

    --

    --
    "I'm not bright. Big words confuse me. But Wanda loves me and that should be enough for you." - Cosmo

  50. Re:A little advice for all the out of work techies by fadeaway · · Score: 1

    I'm a Gearcutter, which is more or less a very specialized branch of machining.

    I'm sorry to hear about your condition.. and you're right, it sounds like you're physically not suited for trade work. A passable level of hand eye cordination is required.. for both precision requirements and safety reasons.

    You have to remember, however, that the sterotypical "computer nerd" (physically weak, poor cordination, etc.) is no longer the average tech graduate. Since the mid 90's, more and more "average" people have been getting into tech. While, yes, for some tech graduates trade might physically not be an option, it still is for a large number of them.

  51. Should be "Dot Cum-back" by macshune · · Score: 2, Insightful
    A few spurts of overvalued acquisitions does not make for a dot.renaissance.

    Also, as mentioned in earlier threads on different stories, there are a few real profit-generating (though I think overvalued) companies (eBay & the like) that have a proven business model and have expressed stable, steady growth.

    People will still be "eBaying", or something like it in 20 years.

    People in 20 years will still go to the grocery store and not buy their groceries online. It's inefficient, and to me represents the sheer economic waste that went along with the dot.bomb.

    And will anyone be paid $100/hour to make crappy webpages ever again? I don't think so.

  52. Read this book. by Dolemite_the_Wiz · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is the 'interview bible'. This book goes through every situation possible in an interview.

    Dolemite
    ______________________

    --
    Save the World! Use a Quote!
    1. Re:Read this book. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not interested in buying a book. Asking what people would do if faced with that situation. Was that a referrer id in the link?

    2. Re:Read this book. by Dolemite_the_Wiz · · Score: 1

      No, it's a straight link to the site. (Author Rolls eyes).

      Suit yourself if purchasing the book is not an option.

      Dolemite
      __________________

      --
      Save the World! Use a Quote!
    3. Re:Read this book. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. I'm sorry.

  53. bad name by glwtta · · Score: 1
    Information Technology Association of America

    Am I the only one who has developed some sort of Pavlovian reflex where I immediately despise any organization named "Blank Blank Association of America"?

    I know, I know, (- a billion, Offtopic), blah, blah, blah...

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
    1. Re:bad name by Stuart+Park · · Score: 1

      It could be interesting having them fight each
      other..

      ITAA vs MPAA
      ITAA vs RIAA

      Yes, that's some death-matches I'd like to see!

  54. Re:A little advice for all the out of work techies by stuckatwork · · Score: 1

    I worked as an Apprentice Electrician for Local # 6 IBEW, in San Francisco. One of the reasons that I left was that the bids for jobs were so ridiculously under bid to get the contracts. This meant that the companies had to make up the money in other ways.

    The corners we were told to cut by the foremen in electrical construction ranged from minor (dont bother wrapping that outlet or wire nut with elec. tape) to major ("I know the inspector who will look at this...dont bother putting covers on those junction boxes or using conduit on those cables...he wont look at that).

    I was always told be the older journeymen that San Francisco's union electricians were proud of their quality of work, but now times had changed.

    So, I guess my meandering point here was to show that all types of industries are doing everything possible to scrimp and save money, no matter the cost, or who or what gets screwed.
    As many out of work IT techs, I really loved my IT jobs...I felt that was / is my passion in life. So, I hope and wait that somehow, the industry will pick up.

  55. You're trapped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real power in the world pulls the strings of both democrats and republicans. So engaging in partisan arguments gets you nowhere. It only diverts your attention and efforts. Quit regurgitating the stale political slogans and have a look at the world around you. Republicans have sold you down the river, democrats have sold you down the river.

    The two-party system is a sham by people who know enough about the system to play it like a tin whistle. Contribute several million to both parties and what does that reduce the two parties to? That's right, a one party system for those who can afford it.

    This sham will continue so long as there are people like yourself who believe, and revel in the ficticious "debates" between left and right.

  56. mcse by mattite · · Score: 1

    RANT
    Maybe this simply shows that having "MCSE" on your resume isn't exactly desireable.
    /RANT

  57. Want the honest truth? by Glonoinha · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes you are completely stupid for wanting to get into IT right now. If you would like to discuss it in detail go to Austin TX, downtown to any of the nicer resturants and order dinner. Ask your waiter what the IT job market is like and I bet you the price of your dinner and a nice bottle of wine that your waiter IS an out of work IT guy.

    No shit.

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    1. Re:Want the honest truth? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Ask your waiter what the IT job market is like and I bet you the price of your dinner and a nice bottle of wine that your waiter IS an out of work IT guy."

      No shit. Talk to ANYBODY in Austin and ask them where they were born. I'll bet you that same dinner and bottle of wine they tell you someplace else besides Texas. I miss Austin. But everybody from everywhere else moved in in the last 15 years, and ruined everything that was good about the place.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  58. There's one other main driver. by Dolemite_the_Wiz · · Score: 1

    Venture Capitalists aren't giving out chuncks of money to Business Models written on a proverbial napkin.

    Dolemite
    ____________________

    --
    Save the World! Use a Quote!
  59. Oh no! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Not those damned sock puppets again

  60. DOD IP addresses by attobyte · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Have any ever seen how many Class A's the DOD has. If you freed up like half of them we could go another decade with IPv4. :)

    Go vist http://www.arin.net/ and check some Class A's the DOD has like over 18 that I counted.

    Atto

    --
    I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!

    Mike

  61. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by Schnapple · · Score: 3, Insightful
    So... if you don't want jobs sourced overseas, then equally expect no change in job, no productivity increases, no economic growth.
    Except that in some cases it really is an example of "hey we could just make someone else do this cheap and then lay off all the people we've got right now!" - that's what people mean when they hate outsourcing to other countries.

    In an industry where you find it neccessary to have a room full of people scanning medical documents into computers - yeah, outsource that to some other country. It's difficult or impossible to find that many Americans willing to work even minimum wage to do that day in and day out.

    But what about the recent examples wherein a bank has an older system and a team of people who have been programming it for thirty years? They realize that soon these people are going to start to retire and want things like retirement and so forth, plus they want increasing pay scales as time goes on. Instead, fire them all (lay them off) and outsource to India. You pay the Indian workers less and you don't have to worry about retirement benefits for the tons of people you just fired. This is what people are afraid of.

    Plus the modded-down poster said "jobs that should be available to citizens of the U.S." - probably what he really wants to mean is that there are a number of jobs right out of college that can either go to U.S. Citizens or foreigners needing things like sponsorship. It seems like a bad idea to some to sponsor foreigners when so many U.S. citizens are without jobs at the moment.

  62. Re: fake positions by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Oh, absolutely. I've been saying this for a while. Here in St. Louis, Missouri - you can find a pretty good-sized list of "I.T. job openings" in the Post Dispatch (or on their stltoday.com web site, if you prefer).

    Many of these are from the same company (which I'll refrain from naming) that apparently has a policy of collecting up resumes into an H.R. database well in advance of actually having the advertised openings available. The listings aren't exactly "fake". They're simply for positions they could theoretically have open, if existing employees left.

    It probably makes good business sense from their point of view. Why risk missing a superb candidate just because he/she didn't notice the want-ad when they ran it for a few weeks? Instead, get all those people into the database! Then, just search on what you've got when you need somebody, and give them a ring. In today's crappy economy, there's a pretty decent chance they'll still come in for an interview, even if you're calling them 8 or 9 months later than when they first responsed to your listing.

  63. What a great typo! by Dossy · · Score: 1

    From the article, sixth paragraph:

    The LemonTree deal is the biggest financial services website acquisition, [...]

    LemonTree? That's classic. Maybe Diller will re-brand as MoneyTree ...

    -- Dossy

  64. Re: Tech Union by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    What we really need, which I don't get why people can't put two and two together and see, is a freaking tech worker's union.

    Hell, if it gets strong enough to have any influence, I'll join. If I had money, I would join just to help start it.

    While unions are annoying with their silly rules, unemployment is worse.

    While I agree with the other post that marketing is a safer career, it is also something that many geeks don't like and don't have a nack for. We want to *build* things, not persuade stupid people to buy stupid things.

  65. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me do a more valuable job.

    What is it that makes you such a valuable commodity? Be specific. You make some pretty bold claims with very little supporting information. I think you're living at home with mommy and daddy or relying on them to some extent. The way you talk is unusual from someone who has actually had to sink or swim on their own..

    Put up or shut up.

  66. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by Nept · · Score: 1

    The thing is, 'sending jobs overseas' is seen as negative. Why is that? Why shpould they be saved for US citizens?

    The offshore programming scares me. Another entire segment of American middle class is being wiped out. I actually am in favor of globalizing the wealth, just not "Harmonizing Down!" the way we're doing it now. And the execs getting grotesquely richer. Ah well.

    --
    "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
  67. The myth of protectionist tariffs by rk · · Score: 1

    All protectionist tariffs do is protect a certain segment of the economy (those who make things domestically that are imported and therefore tariffed) at the expense of those who buy them (by making those goods more costly in the market) and those who export goods (scarcity of your currency in foreign markets drives up the value of your currency in relation to other currencies, making export goods less attractive.).

    1. Re:The myth of protectionist tariffs by benzapp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All protectionist tariffs do is protect a certain segment of the economy (those who make things domestically that are imported and therefore tariffed) at the expense of those who buy them (by making those goods more costly in the market) and those who export goods (scarcity of your currency in foreign markets drives up the value of your currency in relation to other currencies, making export goods less attractive.).

      Ahh, a college student. He still thinks the fundamental aspect of an economy is based on the scarcity of goods.

      As has been said countless times here and elsewhere, the United States once funded its entire government with tarriffs, and that was when the country was most free. From a purely economic standpoint, tariffs are perhaps a bad idea. But we don't care about economics. We realize that right now, wealth and prosperity is acquired by this thing we call "work". We can't have a society where there is no work, otherwise what the fuck is the point of living? The community is the reason we exist.

      The laws of supply and demand work for people too. Right now, the demand for human ingenuity and artistic vision is very very low, so the majority of people are corporate/government bureaucrats, impotent university drones, or modern day servants. This is not a society of which we should be proud. I mean, look at yourself. Maybe if it was your job, your family, your house, on the line you would think a little differently. Do we really want a society where grown men act like children reading ridiculous economics books until they are 30 years old? How is that life?

      My advice to you, is get your head out of the economics book and learn a little bit about human nature of life. Your senseless faith in the cult of efficiency that is economics is a disservice to your humanity and society as a whole. We don't need people for purely productive purposes, we have more than enough people to produce whatever we could possibly desire. Lets give our own people that work.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    2. Re:The myth of protectionist tariffs by mdfst13 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you really want to improve the trade balance, then increase foreign aid. This seems counter intuitive but is a simple result of looking at the flow of money. We (in the US) would like to do three things (and can choose two, currently 1 and 3):

      1. Keep foreign aid low to save money.
      2. Keep imports lower than exports, so that we produce more stuff and have more jobs.
      3. Act as the Reserve currency for the world. This allows us to largely ignore currency fluctuations. It also means that when we print money that we can buy foreign goods with it.

      To provide the Reserve currency, the US has to export dollars (for other countries to use in their transactions). To export dollars, we either have to buy stuff (i.e. import) or give them away (i.e. foreign aid). We choose to maintain a trade deficit. This results in our receiving goods in exchange for a product with a very high profit margin, money (even if we had to print paper currency, the profit on printing money is over 90%; in point of fact though, the relevant transactions are generally electronic; electronic creation of money is close to 100% profitable; the only danger is that eventually we might have to provide goods for the money).

      Tariffs won't reduce the trade deficit (unless they lower world demand for dollars). Instead, tariffs reduce *exports*. Why? Because they reduce imports and take away foreign countries ability to buy our goods (since they don't provide the world's reserve currency, foreign countries need dollars to buy our goods; unless we send them some, they can't buy). Since exports are five to ten times the size of the trade deficit, we would stand to lose more than we could possibly gain.

      Don't believe me? Perhaps you should take a little look at history. What bill's passage in 1929 led to Black Monday's crash in October? Yes, that's it, the Smoot Hawley tariff act. The domino effect (as other countries responded with their own tariffs) cracked open the world economic system. This was followed by a power struggle between the Fed's Board of Governors (Greenspan is the current Chairman) and the Fed. Reserve Bank of NY, which led to the US money supply being cut in half.

      There is only one way to get out of a recession and that is to increase demand. To increase demand, you need to increase the money supply. To increase the money supply, you need the Fed to release more money. To get the Fed to release more money, you need to convince them that inflation is under control. Since tariffs exist to allow domestic products to be priced higher, they cause inflation. Thus, tariffs will make it harder to get the Fed to increase the money supply and lengthen the recession.

    3. Re:The myth of protectionist tariffs by rk · · Score: 1

      You can set up your strawman all you want, and deride me as a college student all you want (I'll give it a 50/50 chance that I'm probably older than you). I did not argue against tariff... in fact I support a uniform tariff as one of the only just means to support a federal government, as opposed to personal income tax which I view as an invasion of privacy.

      What I oppose is protectionism. And it has been my job, my family and my house on the line as a result of this. I've lost a job twice in the last two years, so I do have a bit of experience with this. I also went through the recession of 1991 which, though no fun, was a walk in the park compared to this one, which is now two years old. I'm a software engineer and have been one for quite some time, so I understand the reaction to want to protect my industry. I'm all for curbing H1-B visas. I'm totally against a special tariff directed at a specific industries.

      You can poo-poo scarcity all you want, but any economic system that does not account for it will set up a distorted economy that will eventually fall into deep trouble, like this one that papers over the cracks.

      You say the demand for ingenuity and artistic vision is very low. I agree, but instead of addressing this problem directly, your reaction appears to run to the very same "corporate/government bereaucrats" you (rightly, IMO) deride. You can't knock the government for its failures and then run to it for help when it's your ox getting gored. I blame a lot of this decline on the same government that runs the "how to be a good little subject" camps that are ostensibly for education, but have progressively dumbed-down a bright, creative and contentious people that live in these United States.

      Regarding you advice to me: Since you couldn't get four words into your post without making incredibly wrong assumptions about who I am, it's quite hard to take it seriously. What's funny is that in reading several of your posts, we probably agree on more things than we disagree on, so in deriding me, you've derided much of yourself.

  68. Union Union Union by HappyPhunBall · · Score: 1

    We need a union, or your children are never going to work in IT if you live in the USA. First the production / assembly line jobs went, and now the skilled labor / tech jobs are going to go also. Soon, this will be a country of only owners and janitors. I would love to see a list of companies who outsource their IT jobs, I would boycott them in a second. Proudly.

  69. Believe it or not it's driven by SPAM .... by adzoox · · Score: 1, Interesting
    A lot of job hiring and technology is being centered on SPAM right now. Lots of companies are hiring security experts not just to combat hacking but most IT Security job descriptions now include "mail security and continuity"

    What's even more ironic about this boom and kind of scarey to me is the same companies that are producing SPAM security/prevention software are also (a few) producing mass mailing software that tricks sendmail. SPAM advertisers are hiring lots of IT people right now, particularly in Texas, from what I can see on hotjobs.com

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
  70. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can tell you that as a server admin it requires
    a great deal of work and considerable thinking
    skills.
    Now for a MCSE job maybe not but you try interpreting a man page without thinking.
    I manage >200 machines, write custom scripts
    and programs in shell, perl, and Java and
    maintain 99.9%+ uptime.
    Sorry, but my job requires a brain, obviously
    your post didn't.

  71. More of the same by hendridm · · Score: 1

    > Those shares have risen 80% or so since I left the company late last year ... but it is at least one example of a company recovering and nearly reaching profitability.

    Yep, sounds like history is repeating itself...

  72. Adapt or Die! by fupeg · · Score: 1

    For fifty years Americans have been crying about jobs being lost for a variety of reasons. The two biggest culprits are technology and globalization. It hasn't killed the American economy as so many people claimed (and are still claiming) it would. Instead the American economy has only gotten stronger. It's called evolution. As less unskilled jobs are available, it forces people to obtain more education and higher skills. This is a good thing. Software has been just as responsible for this as South American farm workers, Chineese textile workers, or Indian programmers. Now we see some of the people who have benefitted from job evolution, software engineers, cry that they are being replaced by cheap labor in India. It's time for you to feel the flipside of evolution, adapt or die. Increase your skills, increase your education, whatever it takes. Adapt or die! As for the American economy... Just as there a billion people saying the sky was the limit back in 2000, there are now a billion people saying the economy will never recover, or its recovery will be diabolical in some respect. The fact is that the economy is very unpredictable. Nobody knows what the economy is going to do yet. Nobody knows what kind of technologies will be important in the future. All the "experts" do is either spew self-serving advice, or just try to apply some small subset of past historical data to the future. That is what produced the tech bubble.

    1. Re:Adapt or Die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Increase your education! Seriously, a lot of these people have education. Have a lot of it. Starting over in a new field is in a way decreasing their education (since they will have to abandone what they already have).

    2. Re:Adapt or Die! by fupeg · · Score: 1

      Increasing education does not imply starting over in a new field. If you have a BS in CS, go get your PhD. Or an MBA.

  73. eBaY? by zogger · · Score: 1

    --I'm not sure on ebays long term viability. As soon as the tagging and tracking and TAXING infrastructure is more in place, I think you will see a serious drop in ebaying. Most people like the "no tax, little or no records" idea behind ebay, plus the low overhead. Once that overhead becomes a normal pain in the tush like any brick and mortar shop, I think it will just be a few (relatively speaking) companies doing it. The US, contrary to popular shilled notion, is NOT friendly to small business, it's a regulatory and over taxed bureaucratic nightmare. Ebay has been a sweet dodge for some people, but the tax man is smelling blood in the water now.

  74. Don't call it a ComBack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been here for years, rockin' my peers!

  75. Funny Typo by renderbox · · Score: 1
    Is this supposed to be an editorial commentary (in reference to LendingTree.com)?

    ...
    The LemonTree deal is the biggest financial services website acquisition, apart from online stockbroking deals, since the height of the boom. Mr Diller said the deal was the beginning of a new era for the group, taking it beyond entertainment and travel retailing. "It is the next evolutionary step for us in being related more to consumers and what consumers do in terms of the acquisition of consumer services."
    ...

  76. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

    "We ought to fix things by requiring companies who use foreign labor to pay equivalent U.S. for each overseas position into a fund used for improving living conditions in the countries these companies are abusing"

    Well, if we do that, then the US companies will go out of business as other countries' businesses will be operating at a much lower cost. You can't beat a free market. Just can't be done, and fighting with it will put your contry behind competing countries.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  77. Re:A little advice for all the out of work techies by primus_sucks · · Score: 1

    Just do what you like to do. If you like what you do then chances are you'll work to be better at it. Then happiness and hopefully earning a decent living will come. I think this is especially true in IT. If you don't enjoy constantly reading computer books in your spare time, you may be quickly left in the dust.

  78. Kozmo, VC's and IPO's. by albamuth · · Score: 2, Interesting
    disclaimer: I'm not going to detail WHY Kozmo failed; i'm writing about it from another angle.

    I started out in the tech sector. Unix helpdesk manager was my previous job. After the bubble burst and the WTC went down I quit the desk job and bummed around for a while until I became a bicycle messenger (that's a whole nother story).

    Anyhow, because of my new job, I've met a lot of ex-Kozmo messengers (in Chicago). They talk about how great it was to get tipped (messengers generally don't) and how dangerous it was to ride at night (when everyone was at home ordering movies). They talk about the times they spent bumming around their base getting paid to do nothing and seeing the company buy progressively more and more shit that wasn't going anywhere. They saw management buy scooters that nobody used, hire extra messengers they didn't need, and all manner of completely idiot things that management types tend to do.

    Coming from this all discussion betwixt the lower ranks is a simple conclusion: the people who started it had no idea what they were doing. It's not a matter of having a business plan drawing a napkin as you say; I mean Kozmo had marketers galore and real potential.

    Too big, too fast. How did they grow so much without profit? Enormous Venture Capital flow. Sure, it seemed like a good idea, heck it was a good idea, but greed was the real impetus and thus its downfall.

    My point is that Kozmo could have succeeded, like ebay, and radically transformed the world of home delivery options. Unlike ebay, it was grown way too fast because of investors looking for quick returns. And possibly CEO's and VP's wanting to make it to that IPO and cash out quick.

    --
    [pink beam of light]
  79. When contemplating the name "Dot Comback"... by Dirtside · · Score: 1

    When contemplating the worth of the name "Dot ComBack," I think it's important to remember this quote from bash.org.

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  80. The next boom... by MickyJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...will be when broadband wireless access is universal, very cheap (or free), and "always-on".
    When your phone, PDA, notebook, computer, watch, gameboy, or whatever can instantly access the internet, anytime, anywhere, and at high-speed then the flood gates will open.

    We're not there yet, but it's not far off.

  81. ITAA by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Information Technology Association of America. The same group that, in the midst of the dot-bomb bloodbath insisted that there was a shortage in available IT labor and lobied for raising caps in H-1B visa allowances. The same group maintaining that there is a current 500,000 worker shortage and expected to champion maintaining the current temporarily increased H-1B visa cap.

  82. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by spectral · · Score: 1

    I love trolls. *smooch*

    Who said it was art? I said it requires some specific skills and ambition, that are hard/impossible to teach. Anyone can learn to write programs. Learning to write programs WELL requires the desire to do so, and probably a specific personality (mildly autistic/majorly masochistic) type and brain patterns as well. (Though the brain-pattern argument depends on the type of program. Obviously people tending more towards artistic stuff aren't going to be working on a pure number cruncher, that's for the mathematically inclined. But if they understand the system well enough, they might make good program designers -- people to plan the overall structure, and supervise.. to make the overall picture look good, while the mathematically inclined lead to 'beautiful' algorithms, etc.)

    But above all else, to do well at something you have to WANT to do it. Doing it just for the money isn't enough. I could probably cram enough to pass the bar exam, given enough time. I could probably win a couple cases. I wouldn't like doing it though, and I wouldn't be as effective as someone who wants to be a lawyer. THAT was my point.

    Money is not enough of a motivator. You can get money by doing it 'good enough'. You can get personal satisfaction by doing the best you can. But if you hate programming and do it only for the money (and I've met so many of the delusional fools, now without the promise of any sort of paycheck after graduation, let alone a decent one), then you don't derive any satisfaction from doing as good a job as possible. Or at least, (probably) not as much as you could.

    If you like what you're doing, you'll do it better.

  83. Can you say "pump and dump" boys and girls? by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

    You don't suppose that this stock analyst had anything to gain by making wild claims with no ground in reality do you?

    Speculation bubbles like this are nothing new. There's no reason for that kind of thing to stop now.

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  84. Heh. Heh. Hehehehehe. He said "Quantum leap" by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

    Nice buzzword. Too bad it means "really small leap," and not "fundamental change in the way things work."

    And no, economies suffer because of blowhards and the massive speculation bubbles they blow, not because of the natural order of things. Unless you include massive, sheep-like stupidity like that as part of the natural order of things.

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    1. Re:Heh. Heh. Hehehehehe. He said "Quantum leap" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually "Quantum leap" can apply suitably. Quatum does *not* mean something small. It simply means, in ordinary English usage, "discrete" or "bit". It can apply when a distrete or sudden transition occurs from one state to another.

  85. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by erlorad · · Score: 1

    Yes, everything can be done somewhere else, but it will never ever happen - not because of communication, skills, language or plain patriotism, but because outsourcing cuts the branch you are sitting on.

    Imagine a software company that is 99% outsourced. What happens with your product when your partner decides that someone else (your competitor?) is paying better and says bye-bye?

    When your core competence is outsourced you have placed your balls in the hands of the people you never saw in your life, and for most managers or "managers" and other control freaks that's not the most comfortable position. So, if you are out of job, wait a bit till they wiggle their way out.

  86. Re: fake positions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah.. you see this is why I keep a list of offending agents and companies :-D

  87. Re:Yeah, offshore outsourcing by erlorad · · Score: 1

    We ought to fix things by requiring companies who use foreign labor to pay equivalent U.S. for each overseas position into a fund used for improving living conditions in the countries these companies are abusing (or similar causes).

    There are no "overseas positions". Companies are paying for services. If you outsource to India for example, you basically can't tell if they themselves outsourced it to China or not.

  88. now you are getting smart by cryofan2 · · Score: 1

    I have been looking into this (I am still employed), but if I were laid off, I may take my savings and go to central america or mexico. You can absolutely make money in mexico teaching english. The best thing to do is teach at a school for a while, then go to private lessons.. YOu can stay in mex for up to 6 months on a tourist visa and can even get health ins. on that visa.

    Your savings may not be all that much when compared to teh average US citizen, but if you have 30K in central america or parts of mexico, you are a rich rich man.

  89. I guess gov't infosec *is* the way to go then... by krinsh · · Score: 1

    Since the government has a hard time handing out clearances to foreign nationals; at least while they remain in their respective countries; and there's a big push by big government to secure all their systems, if you don't mind working for 'the man', then I guess you have a future as a contractor instead of a consultant...

    --
    I think with the interesting people, their lives can't possibly be wrapped up into a nice little package.
  90. The Problem with dotcoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with dotcoms is the amount of money and people poured into them in the first place. Someone will start off with a great idea and then run a successful website for a few months or years and then decide that they want to grow. A bunch of venture capitalist money is poured into the company and spending goes out of control. Then, when the company realizes that other companies are not willing to pay their advertising costs, membership fees, etc they go bust.

    What is unfortunate is that it costs so much money to retain good people. I'm not saying that people should be paid any less because a lot of people are worth the money they are getting paid.

    Every company wants a mindspring dialup Internet service or a Yahoo! or eBay dotcom but small companies can't afford the employees and large companies are just too large to think like small companies any longer. Where is the middle ground for all this?

    AND WHAT'S UP WITH ALL THE YUCKY WINDOWS STUFF OUT HERE IN THE MIDWEST??? Don't mean to scream but I come from a UNIX world and out here in the midwest everyone wants to attempt to run their business on a windows network. Is it time to actually LEAVE the computer industry????

    Beckie
    http://www.geekmom.net
    http://www.ispvi p.biz/geekmom

  91. Investors are smarter now by mnmn · · Score: 1


    They used to pour money into a dotcom just because its a goodlooking dotcom, but its different now. You can buy a dotcom domain for $10, install J2EE servers, register the business and an ecommerce account and pay some marketing people, but the Investors would look at what youre trying to sell. In that sense the dotcom has merged with the rest of the industry, no longer clearly outlined as just IT. The winners should be niche markets like accounting software etc, and maybe video games would move to cottage industries, but their success would depend on their material, and they would have to fight over whats left of IT investors now.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
  92. How to make it big online: by crazyphilman · · Score: 2, Funny

    There is only one sure-fire way to make a lot of money online. Only one. Start a porn site with an attractive hook, like for example, a webcam about an actual couple which sets up a voyeur-type experience. You'd have to build a solid membership system, of course, which is difficult for people to pirate/crack, and that would be hard. But it's doable. Also you can probably get kick-backs from all the adult-check registration systems (which you'd need, anyway, to protect yourself from liability). You could set up "special events" like a threesome with a barfly, "viagara experimentation", "Roman Orgy Night", etc. Plus, you could sell DVDs of clips, and syndicate your better content to other adult sites.

    I'd do this in a second if I could figure out a way to arrange for a female partner (either kinky girlfriend or ambitious non-romantic low-inhibition type). But, I'm a slashdotter -- no girlfriend, no prospects, and I haven't been laid in two years. Oh well... But maybe one of you guys will have better luck. ;)

    --
    Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
  93. You too can find a job, with security, in the US by Krieger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm surprised no one has mentioned it thus far.

    There are IT jobs that can never be outsourced. Why? Because they require security clearances and those can only be given to US citizens. While they may not pay you top commercial dollar, they will certainly pay you well. However you usually must already have a security clearance, but you can't get a clearance without sponsorship. Chicken and Egg.

    However I believe if you are willing to move, you can find a secure job. Possibly even companies that will sponsor you for clearance. Most likely this will mean that you are working for the government or military, and will have to put up with background checks.

    But it keeps you employed, no?

  94. MOD PARENT DOWN by antifun · · Score: 1

    Ahh, a college student. He still thinks the fundamental aspect of an economy is based on the scarcity of goods.

    What _is_ it based on, then, genius? If no good were scarce, there would be no need to work for anything. An economy is a system for distributing goods from those that have them to those that want or need them.

    We realize that right now, wealth and prosperity is acquired by this thing we call "work". We can't have a society where there is no work, otherwise what the fuck is the point of living? The community is the reason we exist.

    This sounds like a halfwit's Marxism. Are we talking about economics or psychology? Humans, like all other creatures, are capable of consuming more than they produce. (I'm talking about economics here, not food-goes-in-poo-goes-out conservation-of-matter stuff.) If you have some brilliant psychomagic that can make people produce more than they consume, I'd love to see it. History has shown us that the most efficent* way to get people to produce more is to dangle the carrot of more consumption in front of them. Oh wait, I'm talking economics again. Silly me! The Bolshevik utopia will be forever out of my reach.

    The laws of supply and demand work for people too. Right now, the demand for human ingenuity and artistic vision is very very low, so the majority of people are corporate/government bureaucrats, impotent university drones, or modern day servants.

    And this is different from history in what way? The vast majority of all people at any given time in human history have been engaged in drudgery. To think of some great human achievements: man on the moon? Takes an awful lot of nose-to-the-grindstone work to make a big-ass rocket. Pyramids? Takes slaves to drag all those rocks. And so on for millenia. The "ingenuity" and "artistic vision" gets all of the praise, but it takes more than ingenuity and vision to make things happen in this world. (Now I sound like the Marxist!)

    The "cult of efficiency" of economics is interested in maximizing the amount of value that people get for their work. When it comes down to it, what's the fundamental value in the system? Human pleasure. The question of _whose_ pleasure it is, well, that's the sticky one, isn't it? It sounds like you think your pleasure is worth more than mine, or of whoever else might take your job. Thus you must be protected. Sounds like a brilliant (and morally justifiable) plan to me.


    *efficient in the sense that you maximize, in whatever scale you are looking at, the values you...well, value. Other concerns (environment, "morality", etc.) might or might not be considered. Such is the nature of a maximization problem.
  95. Not just A,B, and C... by DrCode · · Score: 1

    ... they insist that you've used A version 3.915, B V 6.803, and C version 4.00001. Don't bother applying if you're off by a minor revision.

  96. Austin = mixing pot by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

    Part of that is probably because of the UT Campus ... Longhorns move in but they don't move out. Add to that the pretend tech boom of a few years ago and Austin was a magnet for just about anybody that wasn't going to Silly Valley or Silly Valley Jr (Boston area.)

    Am guessing you are familiar with the Austin area, and as I couldn't hope to get more off topic, how about listing some of the good stuff (cause I have been living here 6 months, in the 'burbs, and am DYING to find fun stuff to do.)

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  97. The weakening dollar will balance all this out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Economists have said that with the current trade deficit, the strong dollar will be impossible to maintain. Check out this graph of $ vs Rupee:
    http://www.x-rates.com/d/INR/USD/graph120. html

    If the government stops proping up the dollar, then we should will see the effects faster. A stronger Rupee (and other currencies) will mean cheaper US goods and services (i.e. US programmers will be more competitive).

  98. Re: fake positions by smagruder · · Score: 1

    Posting jobs that don't exist should probably be made into a crime, as it's not exactly victimless. It borders on out-and-out fraud.

    --
    Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
  99. Re:You too can find a job, with security, in the U by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There are IT jobs that can never be outsourced. Why? Because they require security clearances and those can only be given to US citizens"

    Or to UK citizens. Or to French citizens. Or to Australian citizens. Or to Norweigan citizens. Depends whose government you're working for, really.

    QinetiQ: retirement home for tens of thousands of UK graduates.

  100. Buncha babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not graduated in CS, but I think most of you are all whining babies. All fields have tons of people who can't find a job in their major. CS and IT majors are notorious for demanding too much. My sister graduated in English teaching with a 3.96 GPA, and is earning 26K as a teacher. Would you be willing to work for 26K as a programmer? Heck no! I have a programming job earning less than that as I make it through school, but I am not complaining. Be willing to move, and work your butt off every day 8 hours a day if necessary getting skills and finding a job. I find everyone who can't find a job doesn't look too much. I have always had a job, and a year ago I had to work at a cheese factory, but I had one, and in the process found a web job with little experience, and this is a stable job that I will never lose. A girl here with one year experience just got offered 72k starting at Microsoft. If you want a job, don't just graduate, but get good grades, and prove to people you are worth hiring, otherwise why should they. IT professionals rarely have good people and resume skills. Be thankful you have a degree, and stop whining! And lastly, if you aren't willing to move, and find sectors that need IT(banking, networking among businesses, financial firms, etc) then forget getting a job. In fact, I hope you work at McDonalds.