Slashdot Mirror
The IT Market: Cyclical Downturn or New World Order?
An anonymous reader wrote: "CNN.com is running an interesting story on the heels of a Forrester
Research report concerning the
shift of high tech jobs from the U.S. to places like China, India, and Russia for cheaper labor and got me thinking about the nature
of the current downtrend in programmer demand in the U.S (as opposed to the "morality" of such a shift). While I'm sure the causes for this downtrend are variable, the more important
question in my mind is this -- Is software guru Bruce Eckel correct in
saying that the current downturn represents a temporary blip in the business cycle as jobs are shifted from large and medium companies to smaller companies,
or are Andy Hunt and Dave Thomas correct in recognizing this as
a new reality. Personally I tend to agree with Hunt and Thomas's view (which is not completely opposed to Bruce's opinion, btw) and
I also agree with their viewpoint that protectionist policies like H1B quotas and tariffs won't work to change anything for the better. So what do you think? Is this
just another business cycle or is this a New World Order in IT?"
Bytemonsoon.com is fucked.
Personally I tend to agree with Hunt and Thomas's view (which is not completely opposed to Bruce's opinion, btw) and I also agree with their viewpoint that protectionist policies like H1B quotas and tariffs won't work to change anything for the better. So what do you think?
Who really cares what you think michael? The editor comments really need to stop. They are getting downright annoying.
What's your take on South Park?
hello doggie!
White House Says Deficit Will Reach $455 Billion This Year
By KENNETH N. GILPIN
The Federal budget deficit will be $455 billion, roughly 50 percent larger than the White House estimated in February, the President's Office of Management and Budget said this afternoon.
The sluggish economy, the cost of on-going operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the administration's tax cuts are the primary sources for the rising revenue shortfall.
Advertisement
The projected deficit announced today, for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, is up sharply from the $304 billion deficit the budget office foresaw six months ago. Unless conditions change significantly over the next few months, private analysts said the number could be even bigger.
While drastically bigger than the original forecast, the numbers do not come as much of a surprise. When it offered its last estimates in February, the White House did not include costs related to the war in Iraq. And this year's $330 billion tax cut had not been enacted.
Last month the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said it expected the deficit for the current fiscal year to reach $400 billion.
The new deficit numbers from the Office of Management and Budget contain "about $80 billion due to the tax cuts, and another $45 billion to $50 billion in war-related costs," said David Wyss, chief economist at the Standard & Poor's Corporation.
The economy, which has not grown anywhere near as rapidly as the administration forecast back in February, has also contributed to the rising deficit, as tax revenues have declined.
However, most of the increase is due to "war and taxes," Mr. Wyss said.
The White House is projecting a strong recovery during the coming fiscal year, but even that will not prevent the deficit from widening further.
According to the statistics released this afternoon, the economy is projected to grow at a 3.6 percent rate for the twelve months beginning in October. Still, the deficit is forecast to widen to $475 billion. In February, the White House estimated the 2004 budget shortfall at $307 billion.
Democrats said the projected 2004 deficits may be even higher than current estimates, and they are certain to try to make the issue a political liablity for President Bush next year.
"The projected $475 billion deficit for next year does not count Iraq and Afghanistan, which together are costing $5 billion a month," said South Carolina Congressman John M. Spratt, Jr., the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
War-related costs "could easily push the 2004 budget deficit over half a trillion dollars," Mr. Spratt said.
Many economists and most Republicans argue that the more important measure is the deficit as a percentage of the overall economy. At about 4.2 percent of gross domestic product, the deficit remains less than it was in 1983, when it hit a post World War II peak of 6.0 percent.
Nonetheless, in nominal terms the deficit for the 2003 fiscal year will be a record, easily eclipsing the $290 billion deficit recorded in 1992, when President Bush's father was president.
Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman, told the Reuters news agency earlier today that "the deficit certainly remains a concern, but it is one that is manageable and it is one we are addressing . . . over the next few years we will cut this deficit in half."
Currently, the White House projects the budget deficit will begin to shrink in the 2005 fiscal year and move steadily lower for the following three years, to a shortfall of $226 billion in 2008.
The White House is counting on an expanding economy and a robust stock market to boost Federal tax revenues in order for the deficit to narrow appreciably.
But the economy will have to grow extremely fast, and the stock market will have to resume rising at rates seen in the late 1990's for that to happen.
"From 1995 to 2000 capital tains tax revenues increased from $40 billion