The thing is, if they took the salary from those 5 secretaries and REINVESTED IT into the base of 120 people, they wouldn't be in the predicament they are today. Where did that money go instead? They probably chose to allocate it to show greater profits instead of using it as an investment in their employee base, and now they are reaping what they sowed.
But here we have companies complaining that it is too expensive to retain employees.. What I was trying to suggest is, if a company cannot have enough left over to make the employees happy and therefore stay, then obviously there is something fundamentally flawed with their business plan. Usually they float way too much money towards the top, not taking into account the longer term investment of retainment. How these companies even stay around long enough to complain about not being able to retain employees is beyond me. Obviously something is not working correctly in the market.
There are a surprising number of companies out there that don't really make money any more. They just have shareholders sucking off of them like leaches.
Also, a huge thing they have not factored in is the more companies that outsource, the worse the industry looks overall and you really harm your pick of local talent over the next many years. Who is going to an industry that will get rid of you at the drop of a hat? If I'm a student coming out of high school I'm looking to start a career that will be with me through to retirement as much as possible.
Believe it or not a lot of companies don't actually make much profit. Many actually lose money.
Then by the laws of capitalism they should not exist! They should pack it in, and leave room for other companies that can do the job successfully. If it cannot be done successfully then it just doesn't get done.
Every time I read one of these articles I expect to look in my local paper and find all kinds of wonderful enticements to leave where I am and expand my career elsewhere. Or even better, new local companies or companies willing to hire remotely. Alas, they are never there. And I am a person that is historically very loyal to the company that I work for.
IT recruiters are becoming a victim of their own quarter to quarter short sightedness. Success breeds success. If you want successful people to come into the industry you are hiring for, you must make the current people in the industry successful. You must also sustain this quality for long enough for kids to go through grade school and see it as a good choice to make it their career. It's kind of funny how they talk like the game is all changing, when it is really their failure or refusal to participate in the game that has always been that is causing them issues.
I can honestly say I'm seeing more offers for cobol people than for cloud wizards at my particular locale. I'm really confused about where these cloud wizard jobs are, actually. Probably somewhere I wouldn't want to live in a million years.
I feel really badly for banks. People are so demanding. To have to offer electronic copies to some people, and then have others come along and say they want hard copies. How can banks survive if they have to offer this much service to people? This is what is wrong with America. People should understand that banks don't have the resources for this kind of insanity. Decide people! If it doesn't work for you then accept it!
This is in direct opposition to how things are done in the real world, where you bulk buy the system that almost everyone needs for half the price and then add the expensive parts as needed. I guess that's why education has become so expensive and unattainable for most.
But don't forget that the 27" iMac includes a 5K panel that supports wide gamut and is by all accounts excellent in calibration and color reproduction.
So in other words, everyone must pay the Apple tax, when really, only 0.2% of the people buying the thing actually need that degree of accuracy.
Right.. because hardly anyone gets serious work done on Windows PCs.. You're going a wee bit far on those comments. Also, Windows these days is pretty stable. The problem is that many people install it on flaky cheap hardware. The fact that it is their prerogative to do so is a good thing.
I haven't seen a system crash since Windows XP myself, I suspect most Windows crashes these days are more due to cheap flaky hardware and drivers as opposed to the OS.
You know what, that's how I feel too.. but an awful lot of people in the market go for that user experience, and I'm long past blaming Apple for going for that market. I would never buy it, but a lot of people do.
You're sounding a bit like an Apple shill. It's a tad harsh to blame virtual reality companies for requiring fast GPUs. It is virtual reality after all. All that is being said here is that the top GPU that Apple provides isn't fast enough for it. No one's fault really. Apple's choice to select the GPUs they select, and I'm sure OR wouldl like to have support on as many systems as they can.
Mac is caught in a catch-22... They're focused on user experience, not performance. So focused, in fact, that people pay dearly for that user experience. There's just no room in their pricing scheme to have performance AND user experience. I feel also that Apple tends to choose under powered systems because they protect users from short battery life.
No, I'm talking about major metropolitan areas. Run cables for $100 million when you can only realistically attract $50 million from companies that are already established.
When a company is profiting mainly from being in the market first and being able to build their own infrastructure, and then the government comes along and tells them that they have to split up, that is called government intervention. They are not likely to want to, because upon being forced to split up, a case will inevitably be made that the government is costing them money because the two parts that remain are not as valuable as the whole.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is, if they took the salary from those 5 secretaries and REINVESTED IT into the base of 120 people, they wouldn't be in the predicament they are today. Where did that money go instead? They probably chose to allocate it to show greater profits instead of using it as an investment in their employee base, and now they are reaping what they sowed.
But here we have companies complaining that it is too expensive to retain employees.. What I was trying to suggest is, if a company cannot have enough left over to make the employees happy and therefore stay, then obviously there is something fundamentally flawed with their business plan. Usually they float way too much money towards the top, not taking into account the longer term investment of retainment. How these companies even stay around long enough to complain about not being able to retain employees is beyond me. Obviously something is not working correctly in the market.
There are a surprising number of companies out there that don't really make money any more. They just have shareholders sucking off of them like leaches.
Also, a huge thing they have not factored in is the more companies that outsource, the worse the industry looks overall and you really harm your pick of local talent over the next many years. Who is going to an industry that will get rid of you at the drop of a hat? If I'm a student coming out of high school I'm looking to start a career that will be with me through to retirement as much as possible.
Believe it or not a lot of companies don't actually make much profit. Many actually lose money.
Then by the laws of capitalism they should not exist! They should pack it in, and leave room for other companies that can do the job successfully. If it cannot be done successfully then it just doesn't get done.
Every time I read one of these articles I expect to look in my local paper and find all kinds of wonderful enticements to leave where I am and expand my career elsewhere. Or even better, new local companies or companies willing to hire remotely. Alas, they are never there. And I am a person that is historically very loyal to the company that I work for.
IT recruiters are becoming a victim of their own quarter to quarter short sightedness. Success breeds success. If you want successful people to come into the industry you are hiring for, you must make the current people in the industry successful. You must also sustain this quality for long enough for kids to go through grade school and see it as a good choice to make it their career. It's kind of funny how they talk like the game is all changing, when it is really their failure or refusal to participate in the game that has always been that is causing them issues.
I can honestly say I'm seeing more offers for cobol people than for cloud wizards at my particular locale. I'm really confused about where these cloud wizard jobs are, actually. Probably somewhere I wouldn't want to live in a million years.
There are many things I have heard 'will become obsolete' in my IT career.. you know what, I don't think any of them have yet.
How hard are they trying to reach out to the places where people actually want to live?
How well do any of these devices play HEVC encoded video at 720p/1080p?
I feel really badly for banks. People are so demanding. To have to offer electronic copies to some people, and then have others come along and say they want hard copies. How can banks survive if they have to offer this much service to people? This is what is wrong with America. People should understand that banks don't have the resources for this kind of insanity. Decide people! If it doesn't work for you then accept it!
This is in direct opposition to how things are done in the real world, where you bulk buy the system that almost everyone needs for half the price and then add the expensive parts as needed. I guess that's why education has become so expensive and unattainable for most.
But don't forget that the 27" iMac includes a 5K panel that supports wide gamut and is by all accounts excellent in calibration and color reproduction.
So in other words, everyone must pay the Apple tax, when really, only 0.2% of the people buying the thing actually need that degree of accuracy.
Right.. because hardly anyone gets serious work done on Windows PCs.. You're going a wee bit far on those comments. Also, Windows these days is pretty stable. The problem is that many people install it on flaky cheap hardware. The fact that it is their prerogative to do so is a good thing.
I haven't seen a system crash since Windows XP myself, I suspect most Windows crashes these days are more due to cheap flaky hardware and drivers as opposed to the OS.
You know what, that's how I feel too.. but an awful lot of people in the market go for that user experience, and I'm long past blaming Apple for going for that market. I would never buy it, but a lot of people do.
You're sounding a bit like an Apple shill. It's a tad harsh to blame virtual reality companies for requiring fast GPUs. It is virtual reality after all. All that is being said here is that the top GPU that Apple provides isn't fast enough for it. No one's fault really. Apple's choice to select the GPUs they select, and I'm sure OR wouldl like to have support on as many systems as they can.
Mac is caught in a catch-22... They're focused on user experience, not performance. So focused, in fact, that people pay dearly for that user experience. There's just no room in their pricing scheme to have performance AND user experience. I feel also that Apple tends to choose under powered systems because they protect users from short battery life.
No, I'm talking about major metropolitan areas. Run cables for $100 million when you can only realistically attract $50 million from companies that are already established.
Perhaps you were in Toronto, which is very close to the US border. Most of Canada is not in Toronto.
Also, some have a $100 installation fee *only* for the basic cable package.
That sounds like a great solution for large corporations, but it sucks for the individual.
Ok so I stand corrected, but that makes the problem even worse than I thought, not better.
When a company is profiting mainly from being in the market first and being able to build their own infrastructure, and then the government comes along and tells them that they have to split up, that is called government intervention. They are not likely to want to, because upon being forced to split up, a case will inevitably be made that the government is costing them money because the two parts that remain are not as valuable as the whole.