Slashdot Mirror
U.S. IT jobs Down 400K Since 2001
Cryofan writes "A research study shows that American information technology industry 'lost 403,300 jobs between March 2001, when the recession began, and April 2004.' Over half of those jobs - 206,300 - were lost after the recession was declared over in November 2001. In all, the job market for high-tech workers shrank by 18.8 percent, to 1,743,500, between March 2001 and April 2004. And the bloodletting continues -- as
reported here on Slashdot earlier this year, the number of employed Software Engineers fell by 15% from April to July of 2004 (from 856,000 to 725,000)."
Yes, but I've heard that the outsourcing is getting to be a less desirable thing, at least to countries like India and China. They're finding things like customers are not as happy speaking with folks with a hard to understand accent, and also that the quality of work isn't as high. I've heard rumours that some US companies are starting to look to Canada (wasn't there a story on Sashdot a few weeks ago about this?).
Just keep in mind that the DOD itself doesn't actually do much of anything in the way of software development. They mainly manage contracts with companies like yours. So you should make sure you ask the right questions, lest you find yourself jumping on-board what later turns out to be a non/semi-technical managerial position.
it's down 48%.
Thanks, George. You useless freakin Dork.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
All politicians are liars. I'd rather have Clinton as president and get a balanced budget instead of national health care versus a talking chimpanzee promising whatever he's promising and getting "National Security".
I've been recommending people to FactCheck.org to see past all the political spin and really learn about the issues before the election. Factcheck is a non-partisan voter advocacy group that does a great job of separating fact from fiction in the midst of all the mudslinging going on.
The Bolachek Journals
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=32085
http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/02 /23/mcjobs/
http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=37255
http://www.canuckflack.com/archives/000084.html
http://www.bradcarson.com/pressreleases/archives/0 00416.php
Sorry for the broken links:
5
http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/02 /23/mcjobs/
http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=37255
http://www.canuckflack.com/archives/000084.html
http://www.bradcarson.com/pressreleases/archives/0 00416.php
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=3208
Are we to equate a worker on an assembly line to the punk messsing up my order at McDonalds? Saying fast food workers are part of the manufacturing sector is a clever way to say that America is gaining manufacturing jobs. Too bad it's like Enron filing debits to collectors as assets.
So the gap between the rich and the poor grows - so what? Suppose you earn $10,000 a year and I earn $100,000 year, working for the same company. The boss comes in and says that due to increased sales, you and I both get a raise. I'm now making $10,000,000 a year, while you make $100,000 a year. You used to be earning 1/10 of what I made, but now it's 1/100th. The gap between us got bigger, but so what ? You're still a hell of a lot better off than you were.
Disagree. You're looking at wages from a nominal standpoint, not a real (inflation-adjusted) standpoint.
Because if I were a businessman and knew that both of you were making more money, I would raise the price of my products. Especially if they were luxury goods, which you would be inclined to buy, but the lesser-paid guy might not (due to a lower income).
And thus, we get inflation. Once that occurs, the real value of your money declines; you're able to buy fewer goods/services.
It's the same effect you see with minimum wage levels (and which is why minimum wage laws are stupid) -- if everybody's wage is known to be $5.25/hour, then why should McDonald's sell burgers at an old price based (at least in part, via their demographic analyses) on the old minimum-wage rate?
Anyway, were I a businessman in your town, I would likely notice that you are spending more with your newfound wealth. I may not know for certain that you are much-richer now, or by how much, but I can detect an increased level of wealth based on your spending habits, and as a result, I will find that I can raise my prices...
That said, I agree w/ you and Schwarzenegger wholeheartedly, that people should not be "economic girly-men." He is quite right to promote policies of economic growth rather than government handouts.
And you are dead-on in your comparison of the modern life of the poor to where people used to be (the comparison to Roman Emporers is a good one).
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
We could crush all of the robots in the factories that make cars. It'd create a ton of new jobs. Of course cars would suddenly become a hell of a lot more expensive and less reliable.
If you have a problem with capitalism then don't whine, propose something better. If you believe that capitalism is as good as it gets then read the following quote. If not, check out Parecon or read about some of Noam Chomsky's theories.
In the future there are two roads. One is to look backward and hang on to what we think we're entitled to. The other is to recognize what has made America. Our virtues lie in a flexible and open, technology friendly, risk-taking, entrepreneurial, market-driven system. This is exactly the same type of challenge farmers went through in the late 1800's, sweatshop workers went through in the early 1900's, and manufacturing workers did in the first half of the 80's. We've got to focus on setting in motion a debate that pushes us into new sources of job creation rather than bemoaning the loss. There are Republicans and Democrats alike who are involved in this protectionist backlash. They're very vocal right now, and they need to be challenged.
Stephen S. Roach, managing director and chief economist of Morgan Stanley
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
Also, Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liers who Tell Them presents a wonderful point-by-point analysis of where Bill O'Reilly lies in his books.
O'Reilly really is a whacko and God help us if he is ever elected to presidential office.
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!
Bush's tax policies - specifically, accelerated depreciation - have encouraged companies to spend their money on *stuff* rather than on people. Companies can presently write off *half* or more of the cost of a purchase in the year of purchase, rather than writing it off over 5 or more years. That's a pretty hefty incentive.
In the past, spending money on *stuff* would boost hiring of people who make, service, and run the things purchased.
Now, though, the *stuff* is probably made overseas, so no manufacturing jobs. And the service probably consists of disposal and replacement for many things, rather than skilled work, so service jobs are less necessary. Some things don't require more workers to run them, or they might just be operated by the same person who ran the old one.
And some of the *stuff* bought are expensive software packages which help companies cut down their staffing requirements even more. Or they reduce the amount of inventory that has to be kept on hand, reducing the amount
of stuff they buy.
So, ironically, Bush's tax cuts may have reduced hiring!
Luckily, the accelerated depreciation provisions are expiring next year. So, with luck, 2005 will see more hiring.
That is, unless rising healthcare costs, reduced consumer spending, and other influences conspire to slow the economy and hiring.
Wow four years later and it's still Clinton's fault huh? Nothing Bush did in the last four years had any effect on the economy whatsoever huh?
First, I didn't say it was Clinton's fault, I only said it happened during his tenure. Second, the effects of a market correction do not occur instantly, so you cannot expect all economic influences from the time of Clinton to cease the day Bush took office.
I know the chic thing to do is to blame Bush for the bad economy, but from where I stand the economy isn't doing too badly. If the voters follow their pocket books, he'll win the election. The programming side of the tech sector got hit hard, and that probably affets you, but otherwise we're looking at a pretty good unemployment rate.
To put a personal spin on things, I don't have any friends, relatives or neighbors that are unemployed. A coworker whose contract ran out last month has already found a new permanant non-contractor job at a higher salary.
Thanks to Bush we no longer have to put up with booming markets, pool tables and laundramats in the workplace or those silly 75K salaries.
If you were like me, you milked those years for all they were worth. But don't imagine for a minute that it represented the normal state of a healthy economy. Complaining about Bush not restoring a speculative market bubble is rather silly.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
No, free trade helps both countries. Just look at how hurt many industries were when Bush raised protectionist tariffs on steel: the steel industry was happy, but the rest of the country got hit with higher supply costs.
And people buy the least expensive item possible.
,at the end of the company's life, the ONLY ibm PC computer made entierly in the USA.
yes they do. Anyone remember Zenith? when the IBM PC craze started they were the last hold-out of keeping manufacturing in the USA. they were
and it cost 4X the price of a real IBM, Compaq or Morrow.
it absolutely killed the company.
People do not want quality they want CHEAP. yes there are some exceptions, but 90% of all computers sold by dell is their bottom price range PC's.
hell DVD players that cost $29.00 do more and work better than the $4000.00 Denon DVD players.
And your contention that the desire to lead a happy life is antithetical to free market capitalism is just plain hogwash.
Hmm, is it really? Free market capitalism is based on the sole drive to maximise Profit for the company and to address all other things only as a mean to reach this goal. Last time I checked, the goal to providing a good life to the unwashed masses was more of a socialist thing, not really on the agenda of free market capitlism.
The people owning the profitable companies will then be able to lead a very happy life.
For a company to achieve the optimum performance, it may also be useful from time to time to allow one's workers to lead a happy life.
But other than that, free market capitalism achieves its highest profits, when they can leech common resources or exploit people that can't defend them.
For this reason, rules have been made in some places, to prevent this, like laws against dumping toxic waste in rivers, bans on children labour, rules about truth in advertisment, customer protection laws etc.
Companies deal with these limitations in different ways. Sometime they invested in treating plants, sometime they just pay off a corrupt water inpsector, sometime they ship the waste to somewhere else and dump there and sometime they move the plant to location with less strict rules.
But in all of this one is certain, living next to a toxic waste dump, children aged 5 sewing sneakers, people getting ripped off by untrue advertisment have a more miserable life.
If the exploitation of people and common resources gets too bad, people won't stand for it and do something about it. this could be getting paid off by the company, have new laws passed against the behaviour or - in the extreme case - civil war.
The assumption, that the welfare of the maximum people and the preservation of common resources is always the best course in a free market capitalism is not based on any hard evidence. Facts supports more the opposite view and that companies strive to achieve short term gains at the cost of smaller but sustained long term profits.
People on can stand that much abuse, and when free market capitalism exceeds that limit, the rules change.
Actually, corporations have a legal obligation (under US law) to look after the interest of the shareholders. Any CEO that would put the welfare of the public ahead of profits is breaking the law. (I'm reading this book if you want a reference).
<sarcasm>
What we have to do is to put all our money into stocks, so that when our jobs are outsourced to other countries, we can live of the dividends. These will be very high, as the multi-national corporations will be making record profits.
By then there will be no tax on investment income and we'll be sitting pretty.
</sarcasm>
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Why is the givt afraid to let the market pick a winner as it will anyway?
Canada used to have 2 major, cross-country airlines: Canadian Airlines, and Air Canada. Canadian went bankrupt (thanks to shortsighted, greedy unions) and was broken up into a bunch of pieces that were bought up by new, smaller, short-haul carriers. After that, Air Canada was the only airline that could fly you from coast-to-coast, and internationally.
Enter the unions again. This time, demanding more money from an Air Canada that is already obviously bleeding red ink. Unions don't care. They just want money. So the ticket sellers go on strike. This, of course, exasperates Air Canada's predicament, and they predicably declared bankruptcy. Did I mention how much I despise unions?
Anyway, it would be unacceptable for the last remaining truly national airline to evaoporate, so the government stepped in with some subsidies and loans. Air Canada has been able to come out of bankruptcy protection through some creative financing from international investors, but for now, they're barely hanging on by a thread. Without the government intervention, we'd have lost our last national airline, and you would no longer be able to fly from coast-to-coast without the hassle of dealing with multiple stopovers and different ticket agents. Of course, without union intervention, none of this mess would have happened in the first place, but unions neither see it that way, nor care. As long as they squeeze more water from that rock, they don't care if it destroys the rock in the process. They're incapable of thinking that far ahead. If they had the intelligence that would grant them such foresight, they wouldn't be stuck in the sort of blue-collar labor that typically spawns unions in the first place. They'd instead have a nice white-collar job, where they're actually paid what they're worth, rather than some artifically-inflated value that their union was able to extort from their employer for them.
Sorry, I got a little off-topic there. All unions should be destroyed. They have outlived their usefulness, and are hindering natural capitalistic market forces.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Very good, but the one detail you missed is the same one the article missed in the first place.
The Dot bomb started in the spring of 2000, not 2001. It started with laying off the Y2K people. The qualified Y2K people started taking the jobs of the others and the crash began.
I, for one was laid off in June 2000, and found a new job twice that summer. The second one is the one I still have now.
its not just that the chinese work for less, is the exchange rates. The yuan is fixed by the chinese government to a certain dollar exchange rate.
If an equal number of yuan and dollars had the same buying power, things would be a little different.
there are other factors as well, but the exchange rates do make a signifigant difference
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
"I was a couragous soldier in Vietnam!" "What do you mean everyone else that was with me says I was a coward and an idiot! SHIT the truth is out!"
All of the claims by that Swift Boat group that ran those ads have been thouroghly debunked. One of them even got the same award Kerry did from the same incident. And ask the guy Kerry pulled from the water if Kerry was a coward?
It's also been well-documented that that Swift Boat group consisted of mostly Republican activists who had, if not direct/illegal ties to the Bush campaign, at least a wink-wink-nudge-nudge ties.
The fact is that you wing-nuts can't stand it when someone who served in Vietnam criticizes the Bushes, but let's look at the record.
Bushies say: Manchurian Candidate - fathered a child with a black woman.
Bushies say: He's unpatriotic because he thinks Homeland Security workers ought to be able to unionize.
Bushies say: Didn't earn the medals. Wounds not sufficiently serious. Vietnam vets had their "feelings hurt" when Kerry testified as to the war crimes that soldiers were ordered to do.
Yeah I want a guy that cant make up his mind and lies about is service duty. And you cant say Bush lied because its all there. Even though they try and make something out of his record theres nothing there to bash him about. :) I love liberal media.
Nothing to bash Bush about? Let's look at the President's "record"
His business record is no better.
And as to the "liberal media", they have given Bush a free ride for a long time now. They held Al Gore to far tougher standards of "truth" then they've ever held Bush, and they're doing it again to Kerry. If you want to continue your delusional right-wing thinking, go ahead, but don't go crying "liberal media" whenever they bring up inconvenient facts which challenge your pre-conceived notions.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
China is only communist in the sense that there is only one political party to vote for. They're not communist in the sense that the government controls production, at least much more than many socialist companies with certain government-run industries (healthcare, power, etc).
paintball