Slashdot Mirror
Technology Spending On The Rise
securitas writes "After the technology industry's so-called nuclear winter that has resulted in thousands of lost jobs over the last three years, the New York Times' Steve Lohr reports that technology spending is finally increasing (Google / mirror). Much of the investment in hardware and software is spurred by the natural corporate replacement cycle, but the positive change offers a glimmer of hope for techies everywhere. IBM CEO Sam Palmisano says that IBM plans 'to add 10,000 workers in fields of emerging demand over the next year.' Based on IBM's current Linux advertising campaign and market projections, this will probably mean hiring staff who are knowledgeable about Linux and open source software. Is this just a blip as some analysts believe, or is it the beginnings of a resurgence for the technology sector?"
After over a year out of work I managed to snag a job a few months ago with a good company. What I see starting to happen is some strengthening of the hardware market. Since most Slashdotters are software people, I don't know how far that will lag hardware. But it is certain that once people start upgrading their old boxes, sooner or later they will need new applications to run on them.
I know there seems to be a little pickup in helpdesk and support IT around here, I think it may be related to machine lifespans. If the average company upgraded most of their desktops in 99 out of y2k paranoia, how long before they all start dying and need replacements?
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
Sorry, sorry. That's just the government cheese talking.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Personally, I think the last tech boom was simply all about the hype. People got excited. They blew money. We prospered :)
It took the last few years for everyone to catch a breather and realize that amidst all the hype, there might actually be something in all this hype...
My father (an economist in his day...) thinks that the job market by this summer will be much better than it is now... supposedly the US growth is around 7% of GDB in the *last quarter*
[translation: 'off the charts']
not an expert opinion, but he predicted the bust a year ahead...
Don't get your hopes up... but don't lose hope...
This is just the market in action. Companies hire folks when they need them and release them when they cant afford them anymore. Every other industry operates the same, its just new to us :) In a few short years, there will be a recession of jobs in the technology industry and the whole cycle will repeat itself
flying cars? faster than light travel?
Computers fast enough to run Java without flinching?
The unofficial
to hire 10,000 new employees. The important question is what country will these 10,000 new employees be in, if you know what I mean,
I'm sure many people will flame over this but I think the economy is generaly on it's way up anyways. A lot of the early warning signs have started to show up (Real estate is at a 60 year high, manufacturing is showing vastly increased earnings etc.) I've often been suprised that many people blame the current administration for the downturn in the economy when to signifigantly change the path of the economy takes at least 3 years of work, in my opinion this is just the initial effects of the current economy plan coming in to action.
:-)
Flame if you want but remember, getting the economy to work has never been a set in stone progress... maybe Bush's plan really will work
This is not a sig
Seriously, there should be a lemma or something on Moore's Law that states that because of bureacracy and the pile up of data the business world will always buy technology on a cycle. Seriously. Monitors get old, keyboards get too mungy, your data storage needs an upgrade. Most corps, for upkeep reasons, buy machines in bulk. They probably waited longer this time (due to the recession and all) but still that was three years. That seems to be they average.
No one should be surprised by this. Likewise, no one should be surprised when the computer buying cools down in a year or so. Why? Because you only need so many PCs.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Shit don't stay good forever.
If you're one of the boo-birds that dismisses every indication of improvement, you're an idiot.
If you're one of the optimists that ignored every indication of the "dotcom's" impending collapse, you were an idiot.
Stuff has been bad. Stuff is getting better.
Weither proprietary or open source, the vast amount of programming jobs revolve around custom applications (or customizing applications) for corporations. People have been thinking like you have for at least twenty yars and the amount of programming work has only increased.
Right before I went to college I saw an ad in a compter magazine for a program called "The Last One" meant to replace programmers everywhere. I still got a CS degree, and lo and behold!! There were still jobs, just as there are, now and will be for some time. Even nanotech will not change the need for programming jobs.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Unless you propose the historical cycle is broken, that is what always happens. Put differently, people purchase boxes with new capabilities or more processing power, and they usually want new applications to take advantage of those features. People buying new boxes to run their old applications faster does occur sometimes, but isn't the historical norm.
I think there's chinks in most of the other big company's armour because they each have a 'religious' ball and chain holding them back:
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
Some cycles are routine enough to be usable any time.
The simple fact that there is a growing population as well as a growing government in the US indicates there will be at least some sort of spending to accomodate these people.
Further, the growth of government and associated functions (e.g. financial, medical, personal records accessable for Patriot Act requires more technology) indicates added spending.
The backbreaker is how to make predictions which show growth in one venue (business IT spending) when, on the other hand, so much is being exported overseas, resulting in fewer workers earning higher salaries and fewer total workers contributing proportionally to the tax base.
Bottom line?
Just because some companies are buying more stuff does not necessarily extrapolate to a better life for the worker bees.
In fact, evidence would suggest the typical worker in a civilized country is at greater risk of financial ruin and more likely to be unemployed or underemployed in order for the companies to internalize profit by pillaging the world.
Cynical? You bet!
IBM CEO Sam Palmisano says that IBM plans 'to add 10,000 workers in fields of emerging demand over the next year
Of course he failed to mention that those jobs would be in India.
I'm admittedly in a weird niche (compressed video consulting and training), but the demand for my services has been ramping up nicely since February, and just blasting off in the last month. I expect to bill more Q4 of this year than I billed in all of 2002.
And it isn't just one client. It's coming from a lot of different directions, from a lot of different companies and industries. And nice, juicy, interesting jobs too. It was like the outsourcing switch just got turned on.
Of course, independent consultants like me are often a good six months ahead of the rest of the economy. When things get tight, consultants get cut first, and when things are looking up, consultants get hired before full-time employees, since if things turn out to be not THAT up, we're easier to get rid of.
My video compression blog
. . . people purchase boxes with new capabilities or more processing power, and they usually want new applications to take advantage of those features.
Why?
People buying new boxes to run their old applications faster does occur sometimes, but isn't the historical norm.
Why?
I have not proposed anything. It is not unreasonable, however, to question both historical norms and historical behaviours and assuming historical norms might well get one into trouble.
So, since we're having a bit of trouble over low level questions let me aim one slightly higher above the horizon.
What feature of the new systems (other than speed) do you see as opening support for new apps that answer some need of business?
One can also ask ( and bear in mind that this is a different question) what app do you see business perceiving some need for that the new machines allow that the old ones didn't?
One thing that seems apparent to me is that one of the possible attributes of a new app over an old from the business point of view is that it takes fewer people to implement and maintain than the old one. In the context of jobs newer more powerful machines with better apps may well mean fewer jobs for people.
This has also been the historical norm for sufficiently large quantities of "history."
Do you propose a new historical norm?
KFG
people are about to buy less powerful boxes that are easier to manage, and show a significantly lower TCO.
count on it.
... hi bingo
First off, China has pegged its currency to the US currency and still subsidizes housing. I don't see that happening in the United States. They can't have their cake and eat it too. China's a threat right now.
As for India, you can be sure that the overall poor services rendered and lack of accountability will start stinging companies hard. Go look on www.theinquirer.net and search for HP on the quality of customer service outsourced to India. You can't save a sinking ship when so many people live in poverty like India. In fact, by your implied logic it will only increase the differences between the haves and the have-nots.
I will clear the conscience of anyone who wants to mod the parent down: you are not accepting the viewpoint of the parent, you are simply removing a weakly-worded argument from the view of most.
Perhaps a bit tongue in cheek there, but my upgrades have usually been due to the software I already "owned" which would run annoyingly slow ...
Yes, I think the grandparent poster has it backwards. I buy new hardware because of software I already own. Or, in other cases, I buy new hardware because of software I would like to own. I don't go out and buy hardware and then go out and see what I can run on it. That doesn't make sense at all. I buy hardware to satisfy a need, not to create a need.
"Is this just a blip as some analysts believe, or is it the beginnings of a resurgence for the technology sector?"
Have you Meta Analyzed lately?
Re: The Economy
by Anonymous_Analyst on Thursday, October 30 ,@8:32 AM
I think this is just a blip.
Rating: Insightful.
This rating is Unfair/Fair
What feature of the new systems (other than speed) do you see as opening support for new apps that answer some need of business?
Massive amounts of data storage capacity for the buck. Storage capacity growth has been increasing at greater than Moore's Law rates, and at the same time we have been accumulating 800 MB of data per every man woman and child on the face of the Earth every year. The need to manage all of this with software is a staggering business need, and will lead to lots of new software development.
Another area in computer hardware that has been increasing at ridiculous rates is network bandwidth. This has been increasing faster than even storage capacity. The problem with taking advantage of this has been entrenched industrial concerns. Eventually, although maybe not this business cycle bandwidth growth will trigger ANOTHER software revolution where people will truly become walking network nodes. When that happens most offices will totally disappear.
The fact is I think we haven't seen anything yet, and the Internet boom was just the first and weakest wave of what is yet to come.
Away overseas. The republican administration doesn't seem to care either. Our trade balance is terrible also . IT industry is turning out to be like the TV and other manufacturing industries going overseas by countries that target the US . I see the handwriting on the wall.
Warren Buffet has commented on the IT situation and has said that there should be a tax on companies that send jobs overseas.
It always seems to come down to benefits of cheaper labor making goods less expensive which does help an economy out by making it more competitive . I get kind of confused by it all.
Massive amounts of data storage capacity for the buck. Storage capacity growth has been increasing at greater than Moore's Law rates, and at the same time we have been accumulating 800 MB of data per every man woman and child on the face of the Earth every year. The need to manage all of this with software is a staggering business need, and will lead to lots of new software development.
The vast majority of that data is untouched, and will remain untouched, by business. No business has any interest in storing a duplicate copy of every book on your shelf or a duplicate copy of every CD you own (on a one to one basis).
Only a few megs per person is a business concern.That's still a lot of data.
The technology to handle this amount of data (indeed any amount of data) is already known, although poorly implimented.That's a market issue, not a computing one. A proper implimentation would requiring the hiring of more well educated people, but fewer people overall than is now required. Business resents a dependence on education ("training" is not education. A dog may be trained. A dog can't perform analytical logic), but will resort to it, however reluctantly, when it shows significant financial advantage.
You can always pray for more XML "technology." Yeah, that'll create a lot of jobs for awhile. Pointless and annoying jobs, but jobs nonetheless. (Type "Hello World" in Kword and save as raw XML. Count how many pages of text and files it takes. Virtually all of that text is redundant, but must be stored and "managed").
Eventually, although maybe not this business cycle bandwidth growth will trigger ANOTHER software revolution where people will truly become walking network nodes. When that happens most offices will totally disappear.
And in what way will this increase IT jobs? Remember the context of this discussion is IT jobs.
It will also require a social revolution. Social revolutions happen slowly. Much of our social structure today is medieval and completely out of step with our technology, and even how we want to live, and yet it persists.
As an example, phone tech support can now be outsourced to anywhere in the world, and yet most people doing such support must travel to an office to perform their tasks even though the technology could just as easily support their jobs from their homes.
Most jobs aren't really about performing tasks. They are about hierarchical control. The people who wield the control like it that way. For some reason that escapes me so do the controled.
The boss also likes his fancy office in the fancy building with the fancy receptionist. Wall Street isn't about to turn into a gathering of little cottages with English gardens within our lifetimes.
KFG
After an 18 month period with almost zero good positions in the area matching my skill set, I've suddenly had 6 interviews in the last 45 days with contacts for more this week. From my very limited subjective experience things are definitely beginning to heat up again.
Not at the same pace, mind you - most companies after having been scared away from IT are just realizing that doing business requires the technology to stay competitive. They aren't hiring at the trumped up rates of a few years ago, but they are at least acknowleding the need and beginning to take steps to fill roles.
Any spoon would be too big.
This 3rd quarter GDP boom is all George W. Bush's fault .... wait a sec ... the GDP boom is probably a good thing .... George W. Bush had nothing to do with it!
On a serious note folks, when things were not looking very good I heard a lot of people on Slashdot (and everywhere else) placing the blame squarely on Bush. Now that things are looking better, and if they continue to get better, will the same people give him any credit? I highly doubt it, but it will be entertaining to see how they can justify not giving him credit for a good economy when they could justify giving him grief for a bad one.
I personally belive that the president doesn't have all the much control over the economy. Don't get me wrong, he has some degree of control, but not much as many people would like to believe.
Be aware that those 10,000 jobs are in the IBM India research center.