Flat Pay Prompts 1 In 3 In IT To Consider Jump

CWmike writes "Companies have cut salaries and training, held back on bonuses and piled more work on employees in response to the economic downturn. These tactics may well be pushing many IT pros to go job hunting, Computerworld's latest salary poll has found. More than one third (36%) of the 343 respondents to a recent poll said they are looking to move to a new employer in the next six months. And 69% reported they had not received a pay raise in the past six months. The poll was conducted during the last two weeks in September. For employers, the warning could not be more clear. As the economy improves, the most able IT workers may leave for something better."

Comments

As the economy improves???

[Cornwallis]

I love a good fiction story.

I'm gonna become a farmer.

Re:As the economy improves???

[bberens]

I'm more curious about this:

69% reported they had not received a pay raise in the past six months.

If raises were given evenly distributed throughout the year you should see 50% answering no. My experience is that most companies give raises at the beginning of the year (Feb/March) so 70% saying no isn't surprising. Is anyone really getting raises every 6 months? If you do, is your company hiring Java developers? I've clearly been doing this wrong.

Re:As the economy improves???

[Anonymous Coward]

This is due to fiat currency and fractionel reserve banking.

Re:As the economy improves???

[Low Ranked Craig]

Bush economic meltdown

I'm no fan of Bush, but fixating on him is shortsighted. Remember that congress appropriates money and originates budgets, not the president, so, I suppose all the Democrats in congress had nothing to do with it, right? I mean, they've only been in control for the last 4 years. And of course the fact that the spending over the last 18 months dwarfs what happened in 2007/2008 and the impending tax increases has nothing to do with businesses being reluctant to hire, right?

Congress is corrupt, the executive branch is corrupt and the judiciary is most of the way there. If you think that R=bad and D=good, or the inverse you are deluded. They all suck

Re:As the economy improves???

[need4mospd]

The only reason the GDP has been growing is because "GDP" includes government spending. Considering a huge chunk of that is borrowed, I wouldn't call that growth.

Re:As the economy improves???

[geekoid]

Control? no not in control. They barely have majority, but REP filibuster pretty much everything to death. There hand where tied as the previous republican majority mistake continued to ride. The tax measure that's expiring will not add any more jobs whether or not it expires.

Re:As the economy improves???

[bill_kress]

Very off topic, but wouldn't you think that someone spending that much on a military campaign without raising taxes would have some ramifications? To NOT blame Bush would be a new level of blinders. This HAD to happen.

I'm not disagreeing that they are all corrupt, but such massive failures as the huge deficit spending increase and allowing our corporate overlords to run rampant is significantly more dangerous--not recognizing that is shortsignted at best (Criminal may be more accurate)

Re:As the economy improves???

[blair1q]

but fixating on him is shortsighted.

No, considering the man GW Bush to be the only thing meant when someone mentions "bush economic meltdown" is shortsighted.

Letting his party have control of America again would be a total disaster. The minute the Supreme Court put them in unchecked power in 2000, they fired up the pump and started draining the treasury and several decades' worth of future earnings, putting us in the deepest hole we've ever been in.

Re:As the economy improves???

[pixelpusher220]

It would be much more irresponsible to *not* have done the stimulus. It should have been even bigger frankly. Gov't stimulus kept the economy moving while private industry stayed on the sidelines. Think of it as a bridge loan to when the economy starts ramping up again. You can pay some interest on the debt that you 'invest' for higher gains down the road.

That point is something that the GOP seems to forget. Stimulus is giving money to people that otherwise would not have had it. Why is this different than a tax break? because if you don't have a job a tax break doesn't do you a damned bit of good until maybe April. But foodstamps or unemployment checks do put money in your pocket that you will use right now.

Also, tax breaks for the wealthy that the GOP seems to love so much (remember 'small' business they want to help includes 2 of the worlds richest people the Koch brothers) don't help if the environment isn't good. They will just sit on the money until things improve, because, well, they can. They have money and don't need it for monthly expenses.

The poor and unemployed will quickly spend the money and food stamps, thus creating the 'stimulus' as that money ripples through the economy.

Infrastructure is likewise. Money that would not be spent because nobody is real positive about the future is spent by the gov't to build roads, new power lines, dams, whatever. That money goes into companies and employees pockets. So while paying for something you need to do anyway (said infrastructure) you are also putting money into the economy. Which allows money to circulate creating revenue and income for people up and down the chain.

Re:As the economy improves???

[joggle]

Yes. That's one of the lowest tax rates in the country (15%). Also, you are only taxed if you make a profit obviously, so it isn't like you would lose money should capital gains taxes increase although your profit would be reduced of course.

In addition, even some of the wealthiest people in the world are in favor of increasing the capital gains tax, such as Warren Buffett (who made his fortune from stocks).

Re:As the economy improves???

[Nethemas the Great]

With respect to the so-called "family farm," there does seem to be a grain of truth to what AC is saying. Of those for which I am familiar the parents of the associated family tend to push the overwhelming majority of the work onto their children. Any contributions to labor tend to rest with moving the levers and other controls of their farm equipment while their kids do all the hard manual work. The better part of the parent(s)' day tends to involve any combination of hunting, fishing, drinking, and BS'ing with buddies. Gotta love U.S. child labor laws. Take them to work with you at the saw mill and you'll have C.P.S. on your case and possible jail time. Set them to work on the combine or hay baler and it's a called an American tradition and way of life.

Re:As the economy improves???

[toastar]

I don't have a problem with Roads, power lines, dams, or other items that provide for the general long term benefit of society. But what passes for stimulus these days is stuff like cash for clunkers. Building a bridge puts somebody to work today. Whereas buying a car requires you already have a job.

Re:As the economy improves???

[TooMuchToDo]

At least being a farmer, you know you're going to be dealing with shit up front. IT? Yea, you learn the hard way.

Re:As the economy improves???

[commodore64_love]

>>>cash for clunkers

Can I get some cash if I go-round breaking windows? Just as demolishing cars made work for assemblyline men, my activity will make work for glaziers.

(Note: Both these ideas are economically flawed. Cash for clunkers/cash for window-breaking are equally stupid.)

Re:As the economy improves???

[s73v3r]

the money has also been sent to places like China, India, and Korea for various projects

Well, that's where the nation's businesses have been sending all of their money for the past 20 years.

Re:As the economy improves???

[Z34107]

Most, if not all of you, will say "That's not fair! I spent wisely and saved accordingly!" Good for you. You don't drive the economy. Those who consume do.

That's not true at all - saving drives the economy just as much as consuming. Without saving, you can't have debt - banks need money before they can loan any out. Credit card companies likewise need a balance to cover everyone's credit limit until they get their end-of-month payment.

Savings also drives investment - no savings, no money to invest. No investment, no economic expansion.

Naturally, you need consumption, too. But dismissing the importance of saving and investment is taking a very short-term economic outlook. Also a very American one; we've had negative personal savings for a long time, which makes shocks like the mortgage crisis even harder to weather.

Re:As the economy improves???

[Attila Dimedici]

OK, when the Repubs had a smaller majority than the Dems have now they did all sorts of bad stuff that everybody knew was bad, but now that the Dems have a larger majority than the Repubs ever had, they can't do anything to fix what the Repubs did? Is that what you believe? You do realize that the Dems had a filibuster proof majority from January 2009 through January 2010 and even now, it requires every Republican to agree to maintain a filibuster (the Dems are only one vote short of having a filibuster proof majority). The Republicans never had a filibuster proof majority.
If you believe that the Dems do not have control of the government now with one of the largest majorities in the history of the country for any party and control of the White House, then the Republicans never had control of the government because they never had anywhere near this large of a majority.

Re:As the economy improves???

[onionman]

I know I gave up.

Unless a miracle occurs and I find a job in November, I'm going to earn a third degree in Public Policy. Or possibly Business Administration. Haven't really decided which is the best course yet but I know hardware/digital design has reached a dead end. The stuff is getting outsourced to low-cost Indians (and I don't blame the managers; I'd do the same).

Good luck and best wishes on the tech job hunt. The MBA might lead to a larger salary, but it leads to the dark side. (Then again, I've secretly wanted to spray lightning from my fingertips for quite a while...)

Re:As the economy improves???

[CodeBuster]

The tax measure that's expiring will not add any more jobs whether or not it expires.

Have you considered the possibility that allowing the tax measure to expire, thereby increasing taxes relative to prevailing levels during the measure, might result in even more job losses? Asking businesses to pay more taxes during the middle of the worst economy since the Great Depression is undeniably stupid. Indeed, the biggest problem with the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress, IMHO, is that they continually inject large amounts of uncertainty into the economy: uncertainty about tax rates, uncertainty about long term health care costs, uncertainty about environmental regulation and compliance costs. Is it any wonder that businesses and citizens are hoarding their cash and cutting their spending? If there is one thing that kills jobs and business it's uncertainty . In my view Obama has made the wrong decisions on just about every meaningful matter that has come before him. I can count on one hand the right decisions that he has made so far in his administration. When all of this is combined with Nancy Pelosi's disastrous leadership of the Congress we have a one-two combination punch to an economy that is still struggling to get back on its feet. If you are currently unemployed and looking work, do yourself a favor and vote the Dems out; the job you save may be your own.

Re:As the economy improves???

[lonecrow]

And please, don't say "You can't just make money out of thin air!" That's exactly what the Federal Reserve does.

I think people have a hard time with this idea because they labor under the misconception that money=value.

The Fed does not create value or wealth, they merely increase or decrease the number of tokens we can use to trade value around. If we had the same amount of tokens as we did in the 70's it would be hard to go shopping because there just wouldn't be enough tokens REGARDLESS of the amount of wealth we had.

Montary policy should be taught in every year of high school until it sinks in.

Re:As the economy improves???

[roman_mir]

the main reason why the government will be happy about inflation is that it also reduces the amount of debt you have.

- it does not reduce the amount of debt you have. It distributes the debt to all the existing money and devalues the money. I am arguing that it is exactly what the government is aiming at and they will cause a currency crisis, USD will be destroyed, US bonds will be destroyed, US will no longer have credit and since US has a 50billion/month trade deficit, 75% of which is goods coming from various countries like China, US is going to have prices going through the roof and BTW the interest rates will skyrocket into high number, double digits, so this will limit the available credit. There will be shortages of actual goods, people won't be able to buy anything with their dollars. Zimbabwe dollars.

you can work on making that debt worse less. In theory this will piss of the people who loaned the money to you, but if their economy is also dependent on you using the borrowed money to buy stuff from them then they may not have a choice.

- see, that's the belief and many governments are doing the wrong thing right now devaluing their currencies to make it go down as fast as the USD, they believe they need US to buy the goods they produce.

They do not.

They need to let the manufacturers aim at local markets, and other markets that are not the US. By devaluing your currency you are taking away purchasing power from the people in your country, so your citizens end up paying for the inflation of the other country's currency and end up sharing their goods with people from country that produces nothing but inflation.

Japan is doing this right now, buying US bonds and dollars at increased rate by printing their own currency, but they are wrong in doing so. Unfortunately most governments are ran in way of Keynesian shamanism and are not willing to do the correct thing.

However it doesn't matter, even when all currencies devalue, what will be left is this: countries WITH productive capacity and countries WITHOUT productive capacity.

Countries with productive capacities will be fine, they'll aim at their own markets and their quality of life will suffer initially, but eventually will go up.

Countries without productive capacities will not be fine. They have nothing to offer even to their own citizens, they will have shortages of everything. All goods and services will become scarce and quality of life will go down.

This just in...

[sunking2]

IT really isn't all that hard for the most part. It's time to stop equating yourselves to engineers. Again, for the most part.

Re:This just in...

[Nickodeemus]

IT really isn't all that hard for the most part. It's time to stop equating yourselves to engineers. Again, for the most part.

That's because you're doing it wrong. IT done properly, with change management, proper testing, business deadlines, purchasing, project deadlines, budgeting cycles, politics, etc. etc. can be very stressful and difficult. People who think its easy are likely not doing these things, or not doing them properly. Flying by the seat of your pants can be pretty easy most of the time, but most of the time it also gets you in trouble.

Re:This just in...

[BuckaBooBob]

Sounds like you should dust off your resume and look for a new job. You are the reason why people are underpaid.. You accept a shitty wage. Move to green pastures.

Re:This just in...

[digitalsushi]

nothing done properly is stressful.

if you're doing too much, you're doing it wrong. live with doing it wrong, find a boss that isn't bad, or be a better boss.

Re:This just in...

[Defenestrar]

69% have not had pay raises in the last six months

They work in an industry where 31% have received pay raises across a short span of time which likely doesn't intersect with the organization's fiscal year (e.g. did many run on Federal or Calendar years). [sarcasm] Oh, my - what a hardship.[/sarcasm] In such a climate as this - that sounds pretty good to me. You want to talk about flat pay - then make that time period at least a year, and compare it to other fields.

Re:This just in...

[spun]

Whoa there cowboy, don't go blaming the victim, it's not like he was "asking for it." He is not the reason why people are underpaid. You confuse symptom with cause. The cause is C*O pay, plain and simple. These guys call the shots, and surprise, surprise, they decided they need to get paid more, at the expense of people who actually create value instead of shuffle papers.

Re:This just in...

[cptdondo]

Oh hell... C*O salaries are set by boards, which are populated by other C*Os. No bargaining involved; "you give me $100M today and I'll give you $100M tomorrow." No bargaining involved.

Unfortunately for most of us we have other people who are all too willing to take the job at a lower pay scale. No bargaining involved; "you take what we offer or we go to teh next guy in line."

Re:This just in...

[cptdondo]

If you haven't noticed, there's a recession on. Construction has taken the brunt of lost jobs, stagnant wages, and wrecked careers.

It's taken me 2 years to get a call back on a resume. In the meantime my shitty wage feeds my family.

My point is that many IT people still expect the salaries from the 90s, when simply knowing how to spell IT was a guarantee of a high paying job. It's changing, and not for the better.

Re:This just in...

[mlts]

It really depends on the IT position:

If you are an operator, it is fairly easy. Look for lights on servers that glow differently from others, run a script or two, clean packets dropped on the floor by the N5ks and N7ks, pass any complicated stuff to L2, and dig out a good beer from the stash in the CRAC's cooling duct.

If you are a junior admin, it is easy to hard, depending on how much stuff falls on your plate. On more staffed places, it might be just basic system maintaining and pushing out profiles, and handling calls from users.

If you are a senior admin, or an admin at a small company, your job requires as much as any engineer. Capacity planning, security (physical or network, internal or external), risk in general, disaster recovery scenarios, automating tasks, having a real time alert system in place, future expansion, dealing with other departments like development to make sure it is budgeted not just what they need now, but down the road, offsite disaster recovery centers, log management and archiving, handling motions of discovery, infrastructure planning, and so on. So, because of all the knowledge picked up (and this is NOT stuff you can learn in college for the most part), a senior IT admin is on an equal footing with engineers most of the time. Don't forget trying to do all of this while in meetings.

Re:This just in...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've climbed the IT ladder pretty high over the last 15 years, spending time in small companies that shoot from the hip, medium companies that try to do things "right", and large megacorps who seem to buy red tape from the bulk isles of Costco.

I am convinced that the stressful and difficult part of IT is entirely in the politics of work. People artificially create what I would call "false work" to look busy and add additional responsibilities justifying their current and future roles. If you take a step back and look at the bigger picture of what needs to happen from a company perspective, I bet you'll find that your work week is about 2-3 days long (or less).

Originally I hoped this was simply an American cultural phenomenon, but as IT at has been pushing globally over the years I've noticed it is not isolated to this side of the world.

Re:Six months?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't even get any raise, you insensitive clods!

Grass is not always greener...

[carp3_noct3m]

Its not always about money. I recently (about a year ago) went from being a partner at an up and coming IT firm, to the number 2 IT guy for an agriculture company. Before, I was stressed out, always worrying about this client or that client, income, taxes, ticket systems, just in general had too much on my plate. I left due to business structure and strategy disagreements, but now I am working in a laid back environment where I do a good job, and can still take the time to study after hours. IT guys are far too often over-taxed, over-used, and under-appreciated. That is why I think there needs to be a shift in the work environment for IT people or else we will continue to see this constant migration to the always greener grass.

Re:They don't seem to have a problem with CEO pay

[Defenestrar]

It's not so much the CEO pay that concerns me as it is the ratio to everyone else in the company.

Re:Guess what ...

[jafiwam]

Yes.

However sometimes you must switch jobs for the 'tards in charge to realize that the salary offered is not making the position attractive to employees.

No amount of pissing and moaning will get me more money. Period.

On the other hand, if I can find a position elsewhere, I get to actually have a salary discussion. Whereas that's not on the table now.

I risk getting fired if I talk about money. I do not risk getting fired if I talk about money with a new company.

I can pick and choose where and when, and to a certain extent what I do with a new company. I get shit thrown at me to do extra at my existing company.

If companies don't like the brain drain, they can fucking step up to the plate to talk about salaries once in a while.

I have nothing to lose by talking to some other company about a job, that turns a 0% chance at a raise to a non-zero chance, with some slight risk.

Unionize.

[Beelzebud]

Despite what fanatical libertarians around here may say, this is exactly the sort of situations unions are for.

Re:Unionize.

[Narcocide]

Think it could work? Or would all the jobs just immediately go to India?

Re:Unionize.

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite what fanatical progressives may say, this is exactly the sort of attitude that makes people hate unions.

Unions were started to eliminate gross injustices in the labor system. That purpose has shifted, apparently according to you, to guaranteeing raises every six months for 100% of the workforce. Show me a company with that policy, and in ten years I'll show you an empty office building. As other commenters have noted, only 50% of people who are not new hires have probably even been up for a performance review. Unionize over 20% not getting raises in an economic climate like this? I'm just guessing that there may be 20% of companies that aren't doing too well in general.

Re:Unionize.

[DerekLyons]

Ask the steel industry how that worked out. Or the auto industry. Or any of the half dozen other industries chased offshore because (in part) of unions that insisted on never ending pay and benefits increases - regardless of how the company and/or the economy was faring.
 
Don't get me wrong, unions have accomplished a lot of good, but they've also done a lot of damage.

Re:Unionize.

[royallthefourth]

Those industries you mentioned have always been quick to complain about the unions, but they can't be bothered to take a second look at $25 million executive compensation.

They think a union hurts them? They should be thankful the workers aren't killing them and taking their money.

Re:Unionize.

[feepness]

Despite what fanatical libertarians around here may say, this is exactly the sort of situations unions are for.

Libertarians aren't against Unions, after all, they're just voluntary associations of people.

It's the various laws around them (not right to vote by secret ballot, forced participation to work, forced dues), that gives them the heebee jeebees.

Re:Raise in the past 6 months? Try year.

[crow]

Yes, it is above the expected 50% if the date of pay raises was random, but I doubt it is. My company is within that 50% for its date, but until a few years ago it wasn't. The question is plainly biased.

Further, saying that 36% are looking is a much softer threshold than saying 36% have submitted resumes or job applications. At least it wasn't the completely nebulous "considering" that they sometimes use.

That said, changing jobs is often the best way to get a pay raise, and I don't blame you one bit for trying for it.

Re:Raise in the past 6 months? Try year.

[j0nb0y]

Seriously. I want to see the result for the past year. Or better yet, the past two years. Not everyone in the private sector gets a pay raise every year, even in good times.

Re:Guess what ...

[DrgnDancer]

Perhaps, but when they want you, they're willing to play ball at least int eh short term.

You are a company. You have a sys admin. He does shit. you don't really know what kind of shit, but he must be doing some shit because the computers mostly work. He wants more money and keeps talking about needing some training and upgrades. Fuck him... you don't even know what he does and the computers mostly work.

You are a company. Your sys admin left a month ago. The computers have stopped mostly working. They now often don't work, and sometimes threaten employee's children with things that you're almost certain will get you fined. You have found a person with a pretty good resume who appears not to be a Troll. He says he can get the computers to mostly work again. He wants more money than the old guy, but he says he can get the computers to mostly work again. He wants a training budget, but he says he can get the computers mostly working again. He says you need to spend some money on infrastructure upgrades, but PLEASE GOD GET THE COMPUTERS WORKING AGAIN.. Ahem.. sorry... yes.. we can probably pay that.

You see. There's a difference. In reality land probably not quite such a huge difference, but companies are always more willing to negotiate and play ball with a new hire into a "need to fill" vacancy than they are with a current employee.

its pretty clear

[Charliemopps]

It's pretty clear how most companies work today. They hire kids from the local community college that are half way to getting their 4yr degree and little more than they could make at McDonalds and then don't give them raises with the clear intention of driving them away so they can rehire other students even cheaper. Most places only have 1 or 2 people with any real experience. Usually those are the ones too lazy to go looking for something better.

Re:Good

[kiddygrinder]

hah, that's hilarious, screw the old guys because I'LL NEVER GET OLD

Re:Guess what ...

[blunte]

The companies never really figure out what's going on. Your lead or immediate project manager may have a clue, but their management (all the way to the top) just doesn't get it.

Ironically, the argument for the huge CEO bonuses, even during the bailouts, was that "we have to pay this much to retain our 'talent'" (talent being the executives who brought the disasters upon these companies).

Face it. US styled (quarterly earnings per share centric) capitalism simply doesn't work long term.

Re:They don't seem to have a problem with CEO pay

[kent_eh]

Yeah, it's hard for me to stay motivated when our CEO makes 204.76 times more per year than I do. (real number, I just did the math)

Especially after sitting thru a mandatory video conference that he presented yesterday.
What exactly is it that he does again? I couldn't really tell from that meeting.

Agreed, but two problems...

[jeko]

I agree with the sentiment in theory, but voting with your feet is not as easy as you make it sound.

The extremely large company where I work just fired, well, had a layoff of one, of a guy whose next prospective employer's HR department called to check references. Last I heard, this guy has been unjustly tagged as a malcontent by the boss, and he has not found a new job. HR is giving a very dour and tight-lipped "name and dates of employment only" response that, while skirting the law, makes it very clear the company considers him a horrible employee. It's a small industry, and looking around carries the risk of getting prematurely helped out the door. It can absolutely be done, but the risk is not zero.

Secondly, health insurance. One of the guys I work with has a chronic health problem with one of his kids. Every time he changes jobs, he gets to start the fight anew to get the kid's medical issues covered. It is not trivial, it frequently gets right up to the lawyers, and each time his kid's medical care is interupted, there's a small but real risk that his child could actually die.

Employment has so much "friction" it might as well be considered a market failure. If McDonald's screws you over, Burger King is across the street. If your employer screw you over -- and unjust poor references seem to be the weapon of choice -- then an uphill legal battle lasting years and costing up to hundreds of thousands of dollars might be your only rememdy.

Don't kid yourself. "Voting with your feet" isn't nearly as safe and effective as we would like it to be, or as it should be.

Re:Agreed, but two problems...

[Anonymous Coward]

In his journals (which he deletes and re-posts to remove comments he doesn't agree with), he's been asked why he doesn't get a job at McDonalds or something temporary. Basically, if it's not served on a silver platter, that he can also keep, he isn't taking it. He's chosen to be homeless but tries to convince himself and others that he was forced into his current situation.

80% of employees are useless drones

[Overzeetop]

I say this after being on both sides of the table. Most people out there are bordering on a waste of oxygen - taking valuable time from the useful ones to solve inane problems. About 10% of workers are truly talented, and can solve problems independently - those are the guys you want. The next 10-15% are good - not really independent problem solvers, but reliable and honest, and would prefer a productive work day to being bored 'cause there isn't enough to keep them busy. Everybody else is just killing time for their meal ticket. An, honestly, I was a combination of the first and last groups for a lot of years. I sure as hell wouldn't have given my former self a raise of any significance. In the past three years I've been asked by several people to join their staff or lead a new department - but I've also got 8 years of running a very successful firm (~30-40% growth every year for 7 years, we'll probably drop back to about 20-25% year with the recession).

If you're not getting a raise, one of three things is happening:

1) the company really is on hard times - they're keeping you, perhaps at a loss, because you're valuable.
2) you're boss is not giving you credit for what you do, or nobody with decision authority sees your brilliance and work ethic.
3) you're in the 75-80% of people who really aren't that good.

If you're in the rare #2 slot (I'm going to put that at less than 1%; good odds are that you're really a #3), I feel for you, and you definitely need to find another job. If you're #1, you have to decide if it's worth bailing on the company who is keeping you employed. If you're #3, good luck. You'll always be disappointed.

Re:Good

[grepya]

dude... if you're envious of a $50K salary.... and you really are a college grad (with a relevant degree for IT work).... you're seriously, seriously underpaid. Move to another company NOW. And if there's not another good company in your geographic region... move to a bigger market (recent college grad... should be willing and happy to move).

Re:They don't seem to have a problem with CEO pay

[blair1q]

Really? When was the last time you called a company that has engineers on the payroll and got the CEO?

He farms the customer service out to Bangladesh and pockets the money he saves on that. Then he keeps Engineer pay flat while turnover continues to lower average salary, pocketing the money he saves on that, even while introducing new products the Engineers developed, which improves his bottom line, and he pockets a fat bonus that's negotiated into his contract because of that.

People have to understand economics

[Anonymous Coward]

We are in a global economy now, and companies that provide products and services in "low cost" countries cannot compete if they make their products and services in "high cost" countries. It's as simple as that.

I cannot stay in business selling widgets if I'm paying people $8/hr to make them and selling them to people who make $0.25/hr.

I similarly cannot afford to compete with my competitors if they are having their remote server maintenance done by people making $0.25/hr when I am paying my people $8/hr.

So, natural market forces must be allowed to prevail.

MOD PARENT UP!!!

[frank_adrian314159]

He actually understands what the hell is going on (and what should be done about it). The increase of moral hazard of supporting bad creditors is much less bad than the economic certainty of a depressed economy for the next twenty years if nothing is done.