Slashdot Mirror
IT Workers Cushioned From US Economic Downturn
DontLickJesus writes "According to the AP, technology has been the least hardest hit by the U.S.'s recent economic downturn. Quote: '"Overall technology employment is up in America and the wages associated with it are up," said John McCarthy, a vice president with Forrester Research.' The article goes on to say that companies realize the worth of their [IT] staff. This paired along with a recent article regarding the value of data centers when selling a company leads one to believe that the business world, while historically not fond of IT workers, is showing its true opinion of the sector."
Companies are delaying/canceling IT projects all over the place. My company had a client last week, whine about needing a server upgrade, but cant do it because we actually charge for that shit. Says, if we would be willing to do the work for free, we can make it up on follow-on work next time around. We don't work for free, so his org will pound sand, or find some starving IT workers on Craiglist to do the work for Top Ramen. Fuck em. (yeah you, asshole, I KNOW you read Slashdot. Don't call me when your cheap-ass SATA-driven MOSS server goes tits up, baby.)
Nobody is willing to spend any money, which will only cost them down the road. IT requires investment in systems, people and maintenance. Skip on one, pay double for the others later.
IT is not just employees. Consultants are taking it in the shorts too.
It costs a lot of money to have a really reliable network, and the staff to maintain it. Why not pay some other company to do all that, and enjoy the economies of scale that they can offer?
Because inevitably when you take something that your business relies on and outsource to the lowest bidder, it gets done badly and your business suffers (sometimes irreparably). Take it from someone who works on a system that was outsourced, then insourced again long before outsourcing became trendy.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I disagree, even working first line tech support requires a lot more knowledge than that, and in most places (outside of the typical IT "hot spots" like San Francisco) there is enough competition for IT jobs that a lot of first line techs for ISPs will have a lot more knowledge than what is required to do their jobs but will still come off as dimwitted when talking to users since management doesn't give a crap about supplying them with information,
I've experienced an ISP changing the type of CPE they use and not providing tech support with any information about this until customers started calling in about it and the tech support team complained and asked for information about the new CPEs. And even then the only information given for several months was "Yeah, it's a xxx brand converter, model yyy", detailed technical information (and pictures and sample units) wasn't given until almost six months after the introduction, and by then we'd pretty much figured out everything by the answers given by higher-level techs in tickets and just keeping track of what information we could get from the customers.
This btw, was not an isolated incident, many companies simply don't supply their tech support departments (or outsourced tech support) with enough information to do their jobs properly, and then when something goes wrong they blame it on incompetence from tech support. I don't know how many scheduled outages (maintenance) I've seen reported to the NOC only to have someone from upper management send a department-wide email essentially telling all the techs that they're idiots for not knowing about the planned outage even though no information about the outage was given, or when upper management refuses to put information about any outages on the ISPs website because that would be admitting that there's a problem...
A lot of what one does when working tech support or helpdesk is to constantly try to figure out how things work since no one bothers to tell you anything (and why would they, everyone knows that tech support is just a bunch of high school dropouts, err, what? most of you guys are college educated? That can't be... LIES! I will not let reality interfere with my preconceived notions! Shut up or you're all fired! Also, keep smiling, here at MajorISP Inc we all like our jobs! It's company policy damnit!).
Yes, I'm bitter, I've had way too much contact with endusers and unreasonable management over the last couple of years, and not just in one company either, it seems to be an industry-wide trend.
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
The government will literally be buying up debt. They'll take ownership of various mortgage related securities. Ok, well this means that what they get depends on what happens with a mortgage. If the person defaults and doesn't pay anything, well then the government is going to lose money, especially if the property isn't able to be sold for much. If they pay off the mortgage, the government will make money.
You have to remember that it isn't as though all these mortgages are going to default, or that the property underlying them will suddenly become totally worthless.
So I certainly wouldn't expect the US government to come out with a net gain on this (though it'd be amusing if they did), but the net loss is going to be far less than the upfront cost.
One can make a cogent argument that too much government regulation is bad, and you might even be able to make a fair argument that the current crisis was not caused by too little regulation, but there is no reasonable argument that can conclude that the current crisis has been caused by too much regulation.
Not to keep George "Fucktard" Bush in power longer, of course, since the Constitution does not allow that, but just to give him more power while he's there. I'm not necessarily in favor of it, unless it is necessary in helping certain parties to understand (such as with a bullet to the brain) that it is not considered socially acceptable to blow up Mariotts in Pakistan.
Anyway, here it is.
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 18, 2008
Notice: Continuation Of The National Emergency With Respect To Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, Or Support Terrorism
RSS Feed White House News
On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, I declared a national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706). I took this action to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks in New York, in Pennsylvania, and against the Pentagon committed on September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks against United States nationals or the United States. Because the actions of these persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States, the national emergency declared on September 23, 2001, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 23, 2008. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 18, 2008.
The problems we're experiencing today are NOT because of "free markets" at all.
The problems are because of govt. interference and manipulation of the markets for their own motives!
The USA has spent decades in a scenario people keep labeling a "free market", yet in reality, we REALLY have a situation that's just a bastardized version of the concept. A truly free marketplace requires a government that won't pass legislation simply because congressmen or senators have been "bought out" by big corporations.
Certain businesses have gotten ahead of the competition NOT through any normal means as defined by a "free market economy", but rather, by influencing government to give them a guaranteed legal advantage!
As we move more and more to a "global economy", it's also becoming clear that our government's standard tactics to control inflation and regulate economic growth are failing to work as well as they used to. There are probably just too many variables to the equations now. I believe Alan Greenspan made some comments to that effect right after he retired. He admitted that near the end, govt. was really just taking a lot of chances, hoping raising or lowering the interest rates or printing a little more or less money would have the desired effect. They felt they were slowly losing their ability to get a desired result from a specific action.
We can agree that these mortgages shouldn't have been created in the first place. But history has shown that threat of foreclosure just isn't a good enough deterrent for lots of people. That's a shame, but it's true. If we want to avoid another bubble, we need to ensure that banks don't lend at these irresistible terms anymore. That requires regulation. If you have a better idea, go ahead and argue for it.
If you want to assign blame, sure, some part of it rests with homeowners. You should know that a zero-down adjustable rate mortgage with a five-year teaser is a seriously bad idea. But being suckered into one of these is understandable, especially given the seriously deceptive advertising during the height of the housing bubble targeted at our most ignorant and vulnerable citizens.
On the other hand, we have the brokers who received massive commissions on mortgages they knew their clients couldn't afford. We have the banks who collected mortgages they knew couldn't be repaid into big packages, and we have credit raters who rated these steaming piles of bad mortgages as AAA-investment-grade-super-plus-plus-good like some kind of retarded eBay user.
While homeowners may be guilty of ignorance and shortsightedness, the financial industry in its unfathomable greed knew perfectly well what would happen and manipulated the market anyway; that's a far greater crime. Equitably, in a bailout, the financial industry should bear the greatest burden and the common homeowner the least. Both are unfair to those of us who lived within our means, but bailing out homeowners is less unfair, and better for our society as a whole.