The Incredible Shrinking Workforce

Discussions

News: The Incredible Shrinking Workforce

  1. The Incredible Shrinking Workforce (105 messages)

    The U.S. Bureau of Labor just came out with some statistics on the IT workforce. Some 160,000 fewer Americans identify themselves as IT professionals as was the case in 2001. At the same time, the total U.S. employment in IT fell from 3.5 million to 3.2 million -- shrinking some 7%.

    People are now discussing what this means, including whether open source is a cause ;)

    Commentary:

    The original article: IT Jobs Continue To Disappear

    Max Goff puts together some of his explanation's: The Incredible Shrinking Workforce

    Open source: The New Methodology: Agile can take advantage of open-source

    Threaded Messages (105)

  2. Let accept the very simply truth: IT market has to shrink:
    - There is no need for that many developers;
    - There is no need to reinvent the wheel every three- five years;

    IT has developed lots of bricks and much smaller force can now manipulate and combine them into usable products. And there is no real need for that many editors, RDBMS, etc. Of course there should be healthy variety, but it is natural progression to select handful of winners. It is natural progression and IT just have to accept it and embrace the change. Dave Tomas has a nice presentation on the topic http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/talks/HowToKeepYourJob/HTKYJ.html
  3. ReInventing The Wheel[ Go to top ]

    Whilst there maybe no need to reinvent the wheel every 3-5 years, since the downturn in the IT economy over a couple of years ago the number of API's, Frameworks and Open Source developments seems to me to have mushroomed.

    I wouldn't say all of these are winners, but there is a lot of good solutions that are refinements to the those that were developed during the previous pioneering years.

    Sorry going off on one I think here.
  4. More excuses for cowboy bush?[ Go to top ]

    Its the president not opensource.
  5. More excuses for cowboy bush?[ Go to top ]

    Its the president not opensource.
    :) He is pretty powerful seeing how the downturn began in 2000. Now back to reality.

    I would say many things contribute to the problem. I don't believe open source is one of them. Decreasing the cost of software development will go to keeping at least a few of the IT jobs in the US. That goes for all industries, ... .
  6. More excuses for cowboy bush?[ Go to top ]

    sure W may have inherited the downturn, but what did he do to stop it?
    NOTHING!
  7. More excuses for cowboy bush?[ Go to top ]

    sure W may have inherited the downturn, but what did he do to stop it?NOTHING!
    You're absolutely right. Bushie is a moron.
  8. More excuses for cowboy bush?[ Go to top ]

    You're absolutely right. Bushie is a moron.
    Don't let me find you in Texas froggy.
  9. More excuses for cowboy bush?[ Go to top ]

    You're absolutely right. Bushie is a moron.
    Race Condition just wants a weak liberal in office, so France and other socialist countries can take over our free society. Nothing liberals hate more than someone who will defend the Republic, and punish its enemies.
  10. More excuses for cowboy bush?[ Go to top ]

    You're absolutely right. Bushie is a moron.
    Race Condition just wants a weak liberal in office, so France and other socialist countries can take over our free society. Nothing liberals hate more than someone who will defend the Republic, and punish its enemies.
    Yeah, that's right Tim. You're from Texas eh? I guess that explains everything. Night, night Timmy.
  11. More excuses for cowboy bush?[ Go to top ]

    Once Kerry wins, everybody will be entitled to an IT consulting job for the government, subsidised healthcare, free love will reign and Bill Gates will pay for it all... or maybe we'll all have to work a little harder.
  12. ... or maybe we'll all have to work a little harder.
    Do you mean 55-70 hours per week? And destroy our planet even faster? Literally: cut more (rain)forest, force more species to extinct every day (sure about 40 species per day is slow pace, is it? ).

    http://www.newtribalventures.com/ntv/market/moreinfo.cfm?Product_ID=75&CFID=1482492&CFTOKEN=80360394
  13. have to work a little harder[ Go to top ]

    No, but it does mean not having a 35 hour work curfew (like France).

    It IS possible to work more hours without cutting down more trees.

    But it does mean, we must all innovate and not expect a free handout.

    Society where everyone has security and is lax so there is no need to innovate or work = Communism, Socialism, and everything else that stands in the way of the benefit of mankind.

    On the other hand, free reign of capitalism where companys can exploit their workers and mistreat them sucks (which is why minimalistic government control is good).

    A quick way to compare the effects of Socialism vs Capitalism is to compare the annual GDP growth rate between the US and France. The US still keeps climbing at nearly double their rate (even during the boom), and has a lower unemployment rate.
  14. have to work a little harder[ Go to top ]

    It IS possible to work more hours without cutting down more trees.
    Sure. I know this is not a right place to discuss this subject, but you will be scared to know whats happening NOW in world forests. An example : This week, Brazil government suggested a program to allow private companies to explore Amazon forest. They claim that it will improve their ambiental control program (!?) Do you believe them ? Me either !

    Vasts Amazon regions are already being devasted to commercial activities like agriculture (soybean, sugar, etc). Not to mention cattle (cows). It´s the progress ! Chinese people are starting to like eat meat like we do here in western countries. Just another big market. Do you imagine the impact on world weather (already problematic) ? If extinct species does not care, thing about one precious thing : clean water.
    But it does mean, we must all innovate and not expect a free handout.
    I just hope there will be enought time to innovate.

    BTW : Konstantin, thanks for your links.

    Regards
  15. PS: By giving that link to the poster I did not mean to promote buying it.
    I suggest just looking at the picture and reflect on its meaning.
  16. Actually I was thinking of the working class who will pay the wages of those IT consultants in government jobs, as far as cutting down trees: it sounds like an enterprise document management project to me (i.e. paperless act). Why don’t you read up on Bush e-Government initiatives (at least they tie the discussion back to technology),instead of spreading liberal fud in a J2EE message board.
  17. Bushie[ Go to top ]

    Bush, initiative? Ha!

    Bush is done in November.
  18. You're absolutely right. Bushie is a moron.
    Race Condition just wants a weak liberal in office, so France and other socialist countries can take over our free society. Nothing liberals hate more than someone who will defend the Republic, and punish its enemies.
    I'm not french, but I can assure you're totally wrong. France is not a socialist country, at least as you mean for "socialism"... it's one of the most advanced democracies of the world, as yours is.
    You should have more respect for different positions, expecially when referring to people and not to governants.
  19. Be nice if it were that simple[ Go to top ]

    sure W may have inherited the downturn, but what did he do to stop it?NOTHING!
    You're absolutely right. Bushie is a moron.
    As if there is a big red button in the White House to press that would have fixed the downturn and Bush was too dumb to push it? Managing a $10.98 trillion economy of some 290M people that is the dominant force in the global economy is slightly more complex than that. Whatever we are experiencing today is the product of nearly infinite interactions of force and inertia, and simply resists direct control. In fact, the fundamental beauty of the market is that it behaves best when there are fewer restrictions on it, allowing more rapid self-correction. It's painful, but necessary. Following this logic, we have 160K fewer IT jobs in the US because of oversupply, the availability of cheaper substitutes, and low switching costs... all in front of a slow spending climate. This too shall pass.
  20. Be nice if it were that simple[ Go to top ]

    sure W may have inherited the downturn, but what did he do to stop it?NOTHING!
    You're absolutely right. Bushie is a moron.
    As if there is a big red button in the White House to press that would have fixed the downturn and Bush was too dumb to push it?
    Yes, that's exactly what we said, Big Red Button.
  21. Simple(minded) is the word[ Go to top ]

    sure W may have inherited the downturn, but what did he do to stop it?NOTHING!
    You're absolutely right. Bushie is a moron.
    As if there is a big red button in the White House to press that would have fixed the downturn and Bush was too dumb to push it?
    Oh, he did push a button. He started a war, is that nothing?
    In fact, the fundamental beauty of the market is that it behaves best when there are fewer restrictions on it, allowing more rapid self-correction. It's painful, but necessary.
    Well, steel tariffs, more farm subsidies, hugely more military spending and generally the most protectionist US policies in decades doesn't sound exactly like what you were hoping for then, does it?
    Following this logic, we have 160K fewer IT jobs in the US because of oversupply, the availability of cheaper substitutes, and low switching costs... all in front of a slow spending climate. This too shall pass.
    Indeed, the switching cost for job titles is exactly zero when fashion demands it. I used to be a software engineer during the boom. Now I'm a business analyst. And by the way, next year I will offshore myself to warmer and cheaper climates ;-)
  22. Oh, he did push a button. He started a war, is that nothing?
    The war started when the terrorist flew the planes into the world trade center, or did you forget that already? If Saddam would have invested his considerable wealth and power into keeping the terroist from attacking America, instead of training them, he would still be a dictator to this day.
  23. Simple(minded) is the word[ Go to top ]

    The war started when the terrorist flew the planes into the world trade center, or did you forget that already? If Saddam would have invested his considerable wealth and power into keeping the terroist from attacking America, instead of training them, he would still be a dictator to this day.
    Saddam trained terrorists? It was because of the WOMD, or the chance that they may have WOMD, or that they may be able to create WOMD in the near future, or was is about that they could make a WOMD. What was it about again? It wasn't about oil, right? :)
  24. Simple(minded) is the word[ Go to top ]

    Saddam trained terrorists? It was because of the WOMD, or the chance that they may have WOMD, or that they may be able to create WOMD in the near future, or was is about that they could make a WOMD. What was it about again? It wasn't about oil, right? :)
    He trained terrorist. He killed thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons. Its amazing what love you liberals have for a murderous tyrant dictator. I'm thankful people like yourself aren't in charge of this country, if yow were India would be outsourcing low paying jobs to USA.
  25. The 9/11 commission found very clearly that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever. Your statement shows very well why many people in the world, particularly in europe, are scared of the unpredictable fanaticism comming from the US. Any attempt to make rational decisions based on facts has been dropped. This is not at all a question of liberal versus conservative, it has become a question of mental sanity really.
  26. The people in Europe are afraid of the US? how much BS did Tony Blair spit out over 9/11 and Iraq? let's not peg the US as the ONLY culprit! We are full of it too, but we aren't alone.
  27. The people in Europe are afraid of the US? how much BS did Tony Blair spit out over 9/11 and Iraq? let's not peg the US as the ONLY culprit! We are full of it too, but we aren't alone.
    You are right about Tony Blair, but still, I think people are more wary of the US simply because they have more weapons and a leader that doesn't even seem to have control over his own tongue, never mind the bunch of fanatics around him.
  28. Simple(minded) is the word[ Go to top ]

    Also Tony is a Prime Minister and not a President. By definition he is just the leader of the party in government and can be replaced fairly easily by that party if they consider hime a libility. It happened with Thatcher and Tony is running the same risk if he continues with his same policy of ignoring popular opinion.
  29. Bush as a leader[ Go to top ]

    I for one respect Bush as a leader.

    Take a look at the June issue of National Geographic. They're finding nearly up to 1 million human beings killed by Saddam and his government. Even without the physical WMD, we know that Saddam himself was a murderer, a tad behind Hitler and Stalin. Saddam will never do this again. Look at what happened to Japan and Germany 50 years after WWII. They're both prosperous countries even though they had dictatorshps and were completed wasted. Can you imagine what a free and democratic Iraq could do 50 years from now? Perhaps we'll be buying cars from Iraq then.

    I'm thankful I have the privilege to live in America, where there are still Americans willing to give up a 3.5 million dollar salary and their very lives to go and fight in Afghanistan so others can one day cherish the freedom we get here in America. I have freedom because of the blood of sacrificial Americans I never met. Thank God for the 18 year olds on D-Day who didn't cower away.

    See http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpbmdmam0wBF9TAzI1NjY0ODI1BHNlYwN0bQ--?slug=dw-tillman

    Americans will always have to innovate. This is part of the trend. We don't make handbags and shoes anymore because we make medicine and other biotech goods. When biotech is easy for everyone to do, we'll be forced to innovate else where. In the end, the world benefits. The same applies to software. When Java is too "easy", well, we'll just have to innovate and come up with better stuff.
  30. Bush as a leader[ Go to top ]

    I for one respect Bush as a leader.Take a look at the June issue of National Geographic. They're finding nearly up to 1 million human beings killed by Saddam and his government.
    Let us not mistake why Bush went to Iraq, OIL. In a place furthur south than Iraq and on the continent of Africa. People have been slaughtered. What great mighty military force has Bush put in Africa to stop this. Here is an old article for you to ponder the question at hand.
    http://www.refugees.org/news/press_releases/2001/100301.cfm

    When you read this article, deceide whether you still "respect" Bush.
  31. Millions in Africa[ Go to top ]

    It is extremely pathetic that the world leaders are NOT doing more about what is happening in Africa.

    Uganda, 500,000 ppl die because of the oppression from one group to another. The world leaders, including America, in 1994, did nothing to stop it.

    There is the systematic rape of women in Sudan, occuring this very minute as I type this.

    America has sent peace keepers to other countries in an attempt to stop this very thing. We've increased our budget AIDS budget to 15 billion (France gives in the millions, and they still complain).

    America benefits today, with Germany and Japan as large trade partners. The same will be true when Iraq stablelizes and can ship out its oil. America and Europe and the rest of the world will benefit from its oil supplies, but the ones who will benefit the most will be the Iraqi ppl. They'll be able to rebuild schools, roads, etc. And don't forget the billons we gave to Germany and Japan and the billions we're giving now to rebuild Iraq.

    I do wish we could do more. I wish more Americans would care about the plight of Africa (thank God for the guys from U2 that are promoting this through www.datadata.org).
  32. Bush as a leader[ Go to top ]

    Let us not mistake why Bush went to Iraq, OIL.
    Umm.. have you checked the price of oil lately. Doesn't seem to have worked very well if that's what the war was about.
    In a place furthur south than Iraq and on the continent of Africa. People have been slaughtered. What great mighty military force has Bush put in Africa to stop this.
    Probably for the very reason that if he did, the same people that are bitching about Iraq would be bitching about the US going into yet another foreign country and imposing their way of life. The US provides far more support to the 3rd world countries in need then any of the other nations combined, and yet it still isn't enough.

    Why don't you ask the same question of the UN? What about Germany? France? Russia? The world wants the US to run to the aid of everyone and then once we do they expect the US to sit back and let abunch of arm chair, pointed headed analysts criticize every perceived mis-step and how we should have done things this way or that. The bottom line is, that if it bothers you so much, go take care of it yourself.
  33. Bush as a leader[ Go to top ]

    Let us not mistake why Bush went to Iraq, OIL.
    Umm.. have you checked the price of oil lately. Doesn't seem to have worked very well if that's what the war was about.
    In a place furthur south than Iraq and on the continent of Africa. People have been slaughtered. What great mighty military force has Bush put in Africa to stop this.
    Probably for the very reason that if he did, the same people that are bitching about Iraq would be bitching about the US going into yet another foreign country and imposing their way of life. The US provides far more support to the 3rd world countries in need then any of the other nations combined, and yet it still isn't enough.Why don't you ask the same question of the UN? What about Germany? France? Russia? The world wants the US to run to the aid of everyone and then once we do they expect the US to sit back and let abunch of arm chair, pointed headed analysts criticize every perceived mis-step and how we should have done things this way or that. The bottom line is, that if it bothers you so much, go take care of it yourself.
    What is bothersome, is that Americans are dying daily over there. Maybe you don't care about that. If America wants to be the world police, then fight injustice everywhere, not just places where it will beneficial for you. If Iraq had no OIL I doubt there would be an attack. If it is WMD then attack Korea. The real reason we are having this discussion is about fewer IT jobs. It is a problem when money is being spent on the war because the resources for new development will have to suffer. Which leads to less prorojects overall, which willl not help to generate more IT work. Do you think that if the money spent on the war could not help, if it were spent here? What is the point of Iraq?
  34. Bush as a leader[ Go to top ]

    What is bothersome, is that Americans are dying daily over there. Maybe you don't care about that. If America wants to be the world police, then fight injustice everywhere, not just places where it will beneficial for you. If Iraq had no OIL I doubt there would be an attack. If it is WMD then attack Korea. The real reason we are having this discussion is about fewer IT jobs. It is a problem when money is being spent on the war because the resources for new development will have to suffer. Which leads to less prorojects overall, which willl not help to generate more IT work. Do you think that if the money spent on the war could not help, if it were spent here? What is the point of Iraq?
    When did I say that I didn't care that Americans are dying? Aside from the fact that you have zero concrete proof that the war with Iraq is soley about OIL, why shouldn't the US choose the places that are the most beneficial for US interests? Afterall, it is the people of the US and their money that is being spent to liberate a country from a brutal dictator, so why shouldn't the US benefit from the investment of US people and resources?

    What is your country doing about Korea?

    While I think we can all agree that nobody wants to spend money on a war, sometimes it is a necessary evil. If you don't have a stable environment in which to participate in the exchange of goods and services, then no amount of money pumped into the system will help.

    The Iraq people are sitting on a huge wealth of resources, but since their country was completely unstable and ran by a dictator who was more concerned with building huge castles, having statues of himself erected, and posturing against the world, it didn't do the people of Iraq any good at all.

    The point of the war on Iraq is that now the people of Iraq have a CHANCE to make their country into what they want it to be. It will not be easy just as it wasn't easy for any of our countries to grow into what they are today.

    A stable and friendly Iraq is beneficial to the US (and the rest of the world) in that the US will hopefully keep an ally right in the middle of the middle east which is a strategic and tactic advantage for the next round of war, ie Iran.
  35. Bush as a leader[ Go to top ]

    I for one respect Bush as a leader.Take a look at the June issue of National Geographic. They're finding nearly up to 1 million human beings killed by Saddam and his government. Even without the physical WMD, we know that Saddam himself was a murderer, a tad behind Hitler and Stalin. Saddam will never do this again. Look at what happened to Japan and Germany 50 years after WWII. They're both prosperous countries even though they had dictatorshps and were completed wasted. Can you imagine what a free and democratic Iraq could do 50 years from now?
    Brian, have you ever looked at a map of europe at the time the US (thankfully) entered the war against Hitler's Germany? At that time, Germany had occupied most of europe and seemed unstoppable. Germany was a superpower at its time, not a crippled developing country like Iraq.

    Saddam didn't even control his own territory. There were no-fly zones in place over the south and the north of Iraq. The Kurdish area (where Saddam had used chemical weapons in the 1980s when he was supported by the US and Britain) was under Kurdish control. There were sanctions in place that didn't allow Saddam to sell oil to earn foreign currency. At the time the war started, there were weapons inspectors in the country, searching for WMDs, interviewing Saddams scientists. Iraq had basically lost its sovereignty. What I want to say is that Saddam was successfully contained and disarmed at the time the war started. Yes he was still a dictator but a dictator that was probably less powerful than any other dictator in the world (and there are many) and in particular less powerful than many of the dictators that are still supported or tolerated by the US.
  36. Bush as a leader[ Go to top ]

    Germany became a super power in WWII exactly because the other world powers (League of Nations + US) had no balls at the time to stop it. US still believed in isolation from European affairs (George Washington's legacy).

    Their combined strategy was called "appeasement". They believed Hitler, after conquering his first country (Chec, Poland, France, rest of Europe), would stop, and not continue. And all France could do was create a Maginot Line that Hitler side stepped. This illustrates that technologies have changed. France expected to fight a WW1 style war and paid dearly. Today, we can't expect to fight the same 20th century war but must adapt to 21st century warfare, and that means taking out nations that harbor terrorism. Saddam is a wimp compared to Hitler, but he lives in the 21st century where bombs now are much more powerful and deadly.

    It is exactly because the US takes leadership and says appeasement is not enough that in the first Gulf war, the world took note and stopped Saddam after he attacked Kuwait.

    If we did not act then, he would have taken Kuwait's resources, and slowly moved on. Just as Hitler did.

    Even though we haven't found the WMDs, we still know for a fact that they were bent on creating them. Left alone, Iraq would eventually have developed weapons that would kill far more than the 1 million Saddam killed of his own ppl.

    Appeasement does not work. And sadly, a lot of countries still think it does. Look at the Philippines. They pulled out because of the terrorist threats, and the very next day, more ppl were kidnapped. It's as if I went to the bank and threatneed to kill ppl, then you reward me with a million dollars. The next day, you can expect a lot more bank robberies.
  37. Bush as a leader[ Go to top ]

    Saddam is a wimp compared to Hitler, but he lives in the 21st century where bombs now are much more powerful and deadly.
    Indeed, but he had none because Iraq was living under sanctions, 21st century around the clock satellite observation, no-fly zones, etc. Not at all comparable to Germany in the 1940s.
    It is exactly because the US takes leadership and says appeasement is not enough that in the first Gulf war, the world took note and stopped Saddam after he attacked Kuwait.If we did not act then, he would have taken Kuwait's resources, and slowly moved on.
    I was in favour of liberating Kuweit in 1990 because there was reason everbody could understand. Saddam had occupied a foreign country. This time, however, all the reasons turned out to be lies because there were no WMDs and there was no connection to 9/11.
    Just as Hitler did.Even though we haven't found the WMDs, we still know for a fact that they were bent on creating them.
    That goes for many countries in the world. And some of the dictatorships supported or tolerated by the US do have WMDs. like Pakistan and China.
    Left alone, Iraq would eventually have developed weapons that would kill far more than the 1 million Saddam killed of his own ppl.Appeasement does not work.
    UN sanctions that restrict oil revenues, weapons inspectors inside the country who can go everywhere and talk to everyone, US and British planes patrolling the airspace above Iraq, that's not what I would call appeasement. That's containment and as it turns out, very effective containment.

    There is a much bigger problem that was made even worse by the war. And that problem is called terrorism. Unfortunately this terrorism is not the work of a single person whom you can 'hunt down and bring to justice' (as Bush likes to put it). This terrorism is the result of a feeling of humiliation felt by literally hundereds of millions of people in the islamic world. They feel that the west has double standards. They see dead palestinian children on their TV screens every day, killed by an Israeli army that occupies their land, violating umpteen UN resolutions and international law. I'm not saying that there is no cause for this occupation. The cause is that Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbours multiple times during the 60s and 70s with the clear aim of annihilation. So there are clearly two sides to that story.

    But if we want terrorism to subside (which will take decades anyway) then we have to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Starting yet another war that humiliates muslims even further is the most unhelpful and silly thing anyone could've imagined. I for one don't want to be blown up in on the bus by a fifteen year old suicide attacker, nor do I want to pay loads of money to the state to protect me from him. The place to fight the war on terror is Israel and the weapon has to be diplomacy and economic stick and carrot.
  38. Bush as a leader[ Go to top ]

    There were sanctions in place that didn't allow Saddam to sell oil to earn foreign currency.
    According to information coming out of the current UN investigations, those sanctions didn't seem to stop Germany, France, Russia and possibly other nations from cutting under the table OIL deals with Saddam. All under the guise of the "Oil for Food" program.
    At the time the war started, there were weapons inspectors in the country, searching for WMDs, interviewing Saddams scientists. Iraq had basically lost its sovereignty. What I want to say is that Saddam was successfully contained and disarmed at the time the war started. Yes he was still a dictator but a dictator that was probably less powerful than any other dictator in the world (and there are many) and in particular less powerful than many of the dictators that are still supported or tolerated by the US.
    So since he was less powerful the he was or could be, we shouldn't try to take him down while he's less powerful? I don't understand this logic. Should we just wait around until he got strong enough to attach or strong enough to fund other groups to attack us? Or maybe we should have just waited until he decided that he was gonna be a nice guy and play ball with the rest of the world.

    In hindsite, wouldn't it have been better to take out leaders like Hitler prior to them becoming a much larger problem to deal with and the end result being alot more loss of life in order to stop them?

    The days of appeasement and spineless/teethless UN resolutions are over and I for one and glad they are.
  39. Bush as a loser[ Go to top ]

    At the time the war started, there were weapons inspectors in the country, searching for WMDs, interviewing Saddams scientists. Iraq had basically lost its sovereignty. What I want to say is that Saddam was successfully contained and disarmed at the time the war started. Yes he was still a dictator but a dictator that was probably less powerful than any other dictator in the world (and there are many) and in particular less powerful than many of the dictators that are still supported or tolerated by the US.
    So since he was less powerful the he was or could be, we shouldn't try to take him down while he's less powerful? I don't understand this logic. Should we just wait around until he got strong enough to attach or strong enough to fund other groups to attack us?
    He wasn't about to become any stronger. He was contained very effectively. What I'm saying is that Saddam was a minor problem. The real problem is terrorism. So what should have been done instead of fuelling terrorism even more, is to keep Saddam contained for a few more years, solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so that the US earns credibility with the Arab masses and then buy Saddam out or topple him with the help of other Arab countries. What have you gained in terms of security now that Saddam is gone? Osama Bin Laden attacked the US without any help of Saddam. What helped Osama Bin Laden, was the support and money of so many humiliated and furious muslims around the world. The number of his supporters is now greater than it was before.
  40. Bush as a loser[ Go to top ]

    He wasn't about to become any stronger. He was contained very effectively. What I'm saying is that Saddam was a minor problem.
    It is easier to say that now with the benefit of hindsite. I remind you that much of the world (not just the US) was very much convinced that he was a much bigger threat then he turned out to be. Of course, if Saddam had been smarter about things, he would have willingly cooperated and he'd more then likely still be in power today. Why he chose to posture against the UN at every turn when he knew he had nothing in terms of WMDs is a mystery to me. Some theories say that his own military fed him lies simply because they feared for their lives if he found out that they hadn't gotten the materials to build WMDs. Regardless, the world is better off with him gone.
    The real problem is terrorism. So what should have been done instead of fuelling terrorism even more, is to keep Saddam contained for a few more years, solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so that the US earns credibility with the Arab masses and then buy Saddam out or topple him with the help of other Arab countries. What have you gained in terms of security now that Saddam is gone? Osama Bin Laden attacked the US without any help of Saddam. What helped Osama Bin Laden, was the support and money of so many humiliated and furious muslims around the world. The number of his supporters is now greater than it was before.
    The US has repeatedly attempted to get a peace deal crafted between Israel and Palestine, but radicial viewpoints have halted any progress. Many times these peace summits were halted because of escalated attacks by the Palestinians on Israel and then subsequent revenge attacks by Israel on Palestine.

    The US is also criticized for playing favoritism towards Israel. So basically the US cannot win in the eyes of the world no matter what it does. If it stands back it gets flack for not participating. If it participates then it gets criticized for playing favorites.

    There is also a huge amount of anti-US propaganda that is being used to fuel Arab anti-US sediments, and I very much doubt that any of that would stop with a Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. The fringe radicial parts of both sides will never be happy with a peace deal.

    Your scenario is interesting, but alot of things have to fall into place for that to happen. Judging from the past, I very much doubt your scenario would come to fruition simply because things had gone past the point of no return even before the US invasion of Iraq. So there seems to be even more risk with your scenario and the worst possible case that nothing gets done and status quo remains and gets worse.

    At least now, with a little pro-activeness on the US part, Saddam is no longer apart of the middle east topology.
  41. Inform Yourself ![ Go to top ]

    Saddam trained terrorists? It was because of the WOMD, or the chance that they may have WOMD, or that they may be able to create WOMD in the near future, or was is about that they could make a WOMD. What was it about again? It wasn't about oil, right? :)
    He trained terrorist. He killed thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons. Its amazing what love you liberals have for a murderous tyrant dictator. I'm thankful people like yourself aren't in charge of this country, if yow were India would be outsourcing low paying jobs to USA.
    I have yet to see any credible evidence anywhere that purports to show a link between Saddam and the 9/11 Terrorist. Please don't fall for Chaney propaganda.
  42. Inform Yourself ![ Go to top ]

    <blockquoteI have yet to see any credible evidence anywhere that purports to show a link between Saddam and the 9/11 Terroristyou guys think that if you say it enough it will be fact.
    do you remember the UN resolution?
    are you French?
  43. A few facts for a change[ Go to top ]

    And let's sum up some facts:

    * Saddam didn't have any WMDs (according to the US appointed international survey group headed by David Kay).
    * Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 (according to the congressional 9/11 commission).
    * Pakistan's military dictator is being supported by the US. At the same time Pakistan has admittedly distributed nuclear know-how and material to islamist regimes and groups.
    * Most 9/11 terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden are Saudi. The Saudi regime (which also rejects democracy) has been supported by the US for decades. The same Saudi regime is the financier of the infamous islamist schools in Pakistan that created the Taliban.
    * Many of the radical islamist fighters are Afganistan veterans from the time when the US supported and armed them against the USSR (remember the good guys in Rambo III?).
    * The ultimate source of all the international islamist terror is the Israel-Palestine conflict, not Saddam or any of the many other dictators in the world.

    I strongly believe liberals and conservatives can agree on a lot of things provided there is some rationality left. I still hope that is the case.
  44. A few facts for a change[ Go to top ]

    <blockqoute>The ultimate source of all the international islamist terror is the Israel-Palestine conflict, not Saddam or any of the many other dictators in the world.Yes, for liberals the ultimate source of all strife in the world is the Jews. I've always found it a funny, but if you really press a liberal on the facts, they will finally blurt out "It's the Jews fault!".
  45. A few facts for a change[ Go to top ]

    The ultimate source of all the international islamist terror is the Israel-Palestine conflict, not Saddam or any of the many other dictators in the world.
    Yes, for liberals the ultimate source of all strife in the world is the Jews. I've always found it a funny, but if you really press a liberal on the facts, they will finally blurt out "It's the Jews fault!".
    Please read my words more a little more carefully! I said "the Israel-Palestine conflict". I didn't say the Jews and it is certainly not my opinion that the Israel-Palestine conflict is the fault of the Israelis alone. It was Arafat who ultimately rejected Clinton's peace plan in Camp David, not Barak and there is a long complicated history of faults on both sides.

    But apart from this particular debate, you can be pretty sure, that someone whose relatives were killed because they were Jews and who has relatives living in Isreal today, doesn't easily fall for the blind antisemitic or anti Israeli cliches that you refer to.
  46. More excuses for cowboy bush?[ Go to top ]

    well you guys can rejoice .. you can elect Mr. Kerry and we can be sure that he will give us back those jobs right?
  47. More excuses for cowboy bush?[ Go to top ]

    sure W may have inherited the downturn, but what did he do to stop it?NOTHING!


    [Sigh]. Are you sure? How do you know it would have been better if someone else was there?

    Put the blame where it belongs. The majority of Americans want things fast and cheap($). My wife and I have a gift store so I know first hand. Very few Americans probably only buy American Made (%100) and only do business with companies who only do business in America. If that is even possible. What have you done? This problem is bigger than a single person, even one as important as the president. Have they made mistakes? Sure. But the previous and next administration will too.
  48. More excuses for cowboy bush?[ Go to top ]

    sure W may have inherited the downturn, but what did he do to stop it?NOTHING!
    [Sigh]. Are you sure? How do you know it would have been better if someone else was there?
    Contrary to popular belief, Republicans are buffoons when it comes to running a macro-economy. Keynesian economics calls for deficit spending when the economy needs a spark. Unfortunately, Bushie spent his deficit funds overseas and did not invest in sorely needed infrastructure projects here in the U.S.

    So yeah, I'm sure.
  49. More excuses for cowboy bush?[ Go to top ]

    <blockqoute>Contrary to popular belief, Republicans are buffoons when it comes to running a macro-economy. Keynesian economics calls for deficit spending when the economy needs a spark. Unfortunately, Bushie spent his deficit funds overseas and did not invest in sorely needed infrastructure projects here in the U.S.

    So yeah, I'm sure.Fortunately, for freedom loving people, Bush has spent our tax money to punish terrorist overseas, and that is money well spent. In the midst of war with the blood thirsty terrorist Race Condition curses our President, and says he should increase hand outs to the private sector.
  50. More excuses for cowboy bush?[ Go to top ]

    ...and says he should increase hand outs to the private sector.
    Tim you don't what "infrastructure projects here in the U.S." means, do you?
  51. More excuses for cowboy bush?[ Go to top ]

    Tim you don't what "infrastructure projects here in the U.S." means, do you?
    One would have to be very liberal to suggest spending tax money to punish terrorist regimes is a bad idea, and that is what you are suggesting, regardless of what you mean by infrastructure projects.
  52. More excuses for cowboy bush?[ Go to top ]

    Contrary to popular belief, Republicans are buffoons when it comes to running a macro-economy. Keynesian economics calls for deficit spending when the economy needs a spark. Unfortunately, Bushie spent his deficit funds overseas and did not invest in sorely needed infrastructure projects here in the U.S.So yeah, I'm sure.
    I hate to step into this but thats just too funny. I'm so used to hearing people pretend not be a Keynesian it's refreshing to see somebody just come out and admit it.

    It wasn't Bush that spent the funds. It was us that spent them. This is the hangover. The money Bush spent and the money your talking about spending... thats extra.
  53. Who is WE, Kimosabee?[ Go to top ]

    Contrary to popular belief, Republicans are buffoons when it comes to running a macro-economy. Keynesian economics calls for deficit spending when the economy needs a spark. Unfortunately, Bushie spent his deficit funds overseas and did not invest in sorely needed infrastructure projects here in the U.S.So yeah, I'm sure.
    I hate to step into this but thats just too funny. I'm so used to hearing people pretend not be a Keynesian it's refreshing to see somebody just come out and admit it.It wasn't Bush that spent the funds. It was us that spent them. This is the hangover. The money Bush spent and the money your talking about spending... thats extra.
    Let me get this straight. We come into this administration with hundreds of billions of dollars in surplus, a decreasing debt, and *blamo* "we" not only spent that, but further spent an average of another $400 billion dollars per year, right? Bush had nothing to do with it? Seeing as there are some 300,000,000 people known to be in the U.S. right now, that means I should've seen roughly $1,000 per year of that along with every other man, woman, and child in this country (at 300 billion per year). That's just considering the deficits. I don't even know how much tax was actually cut.

    Perhaps you're simply pointing out that "we" got some money back in tax "relief" (that's a laughable advjective). The problem is, we've got one hell of an interest charge coming down the pike and you can bet it won't be the Donald Trumps of the world who'll pay it. Hell, they'll be collecting it, after receiving most of the initial payouts, to boot.

    You also clearly don't have an education in economics (I do). Keynesian economics pulled this nation out of its worst depression ever (of course WWII had a lot to do with that, with the massive influx of $$ to build our military, per Keynesian theory). It served America right up to 1980, with the advent of "voodoo economics" and massive job losses and poverty rate growth.

    With the "republican revolution" in 1994 and 1996, many of the financial regulations put in place back in the 1930's were gutted. "Surprisingly", we have a classic bubble and crash just a few years later. Hmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah... land in Florida, stock manipulations... sounds like.... the 1920's!!!! - BEFORE Keynesian economics and "left-wing liberal commie scum" financial regulations went in place and stabilized things.

    Read history... or at least watch the History channel once in a while. You might be surprised about how things are beyond the republican propaganda.

    ...

    Wow. I didn't know I was so riled up. Sorry. I'm sure you're a bright and thoughtful person. You're on this site, so that means something...
  54. Who is WE, Kimosabee?[ Go to top ]

    Contrary to popular belief, Republicans are buffoons when it comes to running a macro-economy. Keynesian economics calls for deficit spending when the economy needs a spark. Unfortunately, Bushie spent his deficit funds overseas and did not invest in sorely needed infrastructure projects here in the U.S.So yeah, I'm sure.
    I hate to step into this but thats just too funny. I'm so used to hearing people pretend not be a Keynesian it's refreshing to see somebody just come out and admit it.It wasn't Bush that spent the funds. It was us that spent them. This is the hangover. The money Bush spent and the money your talking about spending... thats extra.
    Let me get this straight. We come into this administration with hundreds of billions of dollars in surplus, a decreasing debt, and *blamo* "we" not only spent that, but further spent an average of another $400 billion dollars per year, right? Bush had nothing to do with it? Seeing as there are some 300,000,000 people known to be in the U.S. right now, that means I should've seen roughly $1,000 per year of that along with every other man, woman, and child in this country (at 300 billion per year). That's just considering the deficits. I don't even know how much tax was actually cut.Perhaps you're simply pointing out that "we" got some money back in tax "relief" (that's a laughable advjective). The problem is, we've got one hell of an interest charge coming down the pike and you can bet it won't be the Donald Trumps of the world who'll pay it. Hell, they'll be collecting it, after receiving most of the initial payouts, to boot.You also clearly don't have an education in economics (I do). Keynesian economics pulled this nation out of its worst depression ever (of course WWII had a lot to do with that, with the massive influx of $$ to build our military, per Keynesian theory). It served America right up to 1980, with the advent of "voodoo economics" and massive job losses and poverty rate growth. With the "republican revolution" in 1994 and 1996, many of the financial regulations put in place back in the 1930's were gutted. "Surprisingly", we have a classic bubble and crash just a few years later. Hmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah... land in Florida, stock manipulations... sounds like.... the 1920's!!!! - BEFORE Keynesian economics and "left-wing liberal commie scum" financial regulations went in place and stabilized things.Read history... or at least watch the History channel once in a while. You might be surprised about how things are beyond the republican propaganda....Wow. I didn't know I was so riled up. Sorry. I'm sure you're a bright and thoughtful person. You're on this site, so that means something...
    Thanks Java Coder for clarifying this issue for our friend Ryan.
  55. Who is WE, Kimosabee?[ Go to top ]

    Let me get this straight. We come into this administration with hundreds of billions of dollars in surplus, a decreasing debt, and *blamo* "we" not only spent that, but further spent an average of another $400 billion dollars per year, right? Bush had nothing to do with it? Seeing as there are some 300,000,000 people known to be in the U.S. right now, that means I should've seen roughly $1,000 per year of that along with every other man, woman, and child in this country (at 300 billion per year). That's just considering the deficits. I don't even know how much tax was actually cut.

    Perhaps you're simply pointing out that "we" got some money back in tax "relief" (that's a laughable advjective). The problem is, we've got one hell of an interest charge coming down the pike and you can bet it won't be the Donald Trumps of the world who'll pay it. Hell, they'll be collecting it, after receiving most of the initial payouts, to boot.
    Ok, your just putting words in my mouth here. I never advocated any Bush policies. Race condition said that Bush's deficit spending somehow caused the recession. I only pointed out how the ressesion was caused by our own wasteful spending (malaligned investment). I then went on to say how Bush's spending was an extra burden on top of that.
    You also clearly don't have an education in economics (I do). Keynesian economics pulled this nation out of its worst depression ever (of course WWII had a lot to do with that, with the massive influx of $$ to build our military, per Keynesian theory). It served America right up to 1980, with the advent of "voodoo economics" and massive job losses and poverty rate growth. With the "republican revolution" in 1994 and 1996, many of the financial regulations put in place back in the 1930's were gutted. "Surprisingly", we have a classic bubble and crash just a few years later.
    I think the only thing that's clear here is that you are arguing that if the government spent more money I'd have more money saved to hire my first employee. I clearly disagree.

    And there's nothing "Suprising" at all about the bust. It's what must necessarily follow a credit driven boom. It's called Austrian Trade Cycle theory, but your wasting your breath pointing the finger at Bush because the policy of credit expansion has been going on for a century... and thats regardless of which party was in power.
  56. OT: ECON 101[ Go to top ]

    Contrary to popular belief, Republicans are buffoons when it comes to running a macro-economy. Keynesian economics calls for deficit spending when the economy needs a spark. Unfortunately, Bushie spent his deficit funds overseas and did not invest in sorely needed infrastructure projects here in the U.S.
    Republicans are mostly ofo the neo-classical economic school, not Keynesian. Keynes went out with inflation. (Read Milton F. for an explanation.)

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Clustered JCache for Grid Computing!
  57. OT: ECON 101[ Go to top ]

    Republicans are mostly ofo the neo-classical economic school, not Keynesian. Keynes went out with inflation. (Read Milton F. for an explanation.)Peace,Cameron PurdyTangosol, Inc.Coherence: Clustered JCache for Grid Computing!
    Probably true, but that doesn't stop the Republicans from digging up a little Keynes every time they want to pitch a tax cut to the masses. It's got a nice poetic appeal. Tax cuts so you can spend more money... increase demand and improve the economy!

    -Ryan
  58. perhaps a bit spoiled?[ Go to top ]

    As a European I find it a little confusing that Americans are not satisfied with the economy growth. It is only twice that of France or any other main EU country! What is the problem? You want three times as much? Four times as much?

    Please explain.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  59. perhaps a bit spoiled?[ Go to top ]

    As a European I find it a little confusing that Americans are not satisfied with the economy growth. It is only twice that of France or any other main EU country! What is the problem? You want three times as much? Four times as much?Please explain.RegardsRolf Tollerud
    Americans are pigs - mostly Christian pigs. Christian pigs who want to fulfill their end-of-the-world prophecy. "Maybe we can see Jesus! Woo hoo!"

    Militant Muslims want to see the end of Christians. Fundamental American Christians want to drive their SUVs until the last tree is cut from the rain forest.

    Religion sucks and the world is doomed.
  60. for the third time again[ Go to top ]

    Sorry I don't agree with you. US have two times saved Europe from first Nazism and then Communism, and are as we speak defending against Muslim terrorism. To bring democracy to the Middle East region is the only way that will work. If not voluntary then with force.

    There is not a nation on earth that have so good track record of foreign relations as US.

    For the third time young Americans are dying to defend freedom and democracy whiles the European countries criticize and do nothing. Religion has nothing to do with it, there are only dictators that want to keep power.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  61. perhaps a bit spoiled?[ Go to top ]

    Americans are pigs - mostly Christian pigs. Christian pigs who want to fulfill their end-of-the-world prophecy. "Maybe we can see Jesus! Woo hoo!"
    You will see Him Race Condition, every knee will bow. Don't be discouraged by the backsliding Chrisitans in America, get a King James Bible, read it and repent while you still have the time.

    Tim
  62. the future is walmart[ Go to top ]

    america = outsourcing , importing , trade deficit, budget deficit , credit card debt.... The future is either managing outsourced work, doctor, nurse, lawyer or working at Walmart the most successful and largest company in USA
  63. the future is walmart[ Go to top ]

    america = outsourcing , importing , trade deficit, budget deficit , credit card debt.... The future is either managing outsourced work, doctor, nurse, lawyer or working at Walmart the most successful and largest company in USA
    Yeah! Walmart. Always the low price. Always.

    I've been looking into emigrating away from the U.S. It's tough to do these days though. Most countries are full and want no more outsiders.
  64. OT: ECON 101[ Go to top ]

    Contrary to popular belief, Republicans are buffoons when it comes to running a macro-economy. Keynesian economics calls for deficit spending when the economy needs a spark. Unfortunately, Bushie spent his deficit funds overseas and did not invest in sorely needed infrastructure projects here in the U.S.
    Republicans are mostly ofo the neo-classical economic school, not Keynesian. Keynes went out with inflation. (Read Milton F. for an explanation.)Peace,Cameron PurdyTangosol, Inc.Coherence: Clustered JCache for Grid Computing!
    I knew if the subject turned to econ you would be joining in.

    Keynes went out with inflation? Does that mean his principles do not work? Are they no longer practiced? It does work and it is still practiced in most places around the globe. Even though few Republicans will admit it, they practice Keynesian pump-priming all the time. Republicans will also tell you that protectionism is bad, bad! But they subsidize most of the big industries in the corporate fold.

    Most people think a gallon of gas costs about $1.80 a gallon. That's just the consumer's short-term cost. The industry gets big subsidies in the form of federal research and military protection (aka Iraqi wars). And after that we still haven't factored in the long-term costs of environmental degradation and increased health problems from consuming oil. This is why you'll find a more realistic price on gasoline in other parts of the world.

    The world if doomed as long as we have leaders who have no long-term vision.
  65. There is no need for that many developers;-
    Hummmm, What do you mean here? on offence but seems like you want to be the one munching on 500K? Well atleast I am reading it that way!!!
    There is no need to reinvent the wheel every three- five years;
    There are always problems out there and there are always solutions to it and that defenately reinvent the wheel anyways. When novell came out with netware, lot of people said "oops, unix will be out dated" none of that happened. There always are/will be new technologies and they always have/will found/find their way to live with legacy.
  66. There is no need for that many developers;-
    Hummmm, What do you mean here? on offence but seems like you want to be the one munching on 500K?
    No offense, but a small team of talented or just competent people (5-10) can do MUCH better than hundred heads departments or offshore crowds.
    Another technical misconception: companies want to bring cost down – it is in almost direct contradiction to interests of managers: than bigger my budget/department/etc. than more important I am.
    So, there are lots of solutions(and demand) for problems from a thin air.
    As for 500K: I do not mind to get whatever fair for the kind of job I do just because I like what I am doing.
  67. Does it indicate that more foreign IT workers are taking positions than Americans?

    In my experience working as a consultant in one of the biggest companies, I have worked with a very productive work force which is composed of 90% Non-American consultants and 10% of Americans. It was a big suprise to me.
  68. IT Work Force[ Go to top ]

    I think companies are smarter. They won't be fooled by the "bootcampers" anymore. I think if you are qualified you will work. Oh, this time you will have to prove that you are qualified! The strong survive.
  69. IT Work Force[ Go to top ]

    I think companies are smarter. They won't be fooled by the "bootcampers" anymore. I think if you are qualified you will work. Oh, this time you will have to prove that you are qualified! The strong survive.
    I hope/wish that were true. It seems to me that many of the unqualified are making the decisions. We have a lot of work to do yet in educating those in "control" on how to best use the tools at hand.
  70. IT Work Force[ Go to top ]

    I think IT business model has been changed. More open, less propriety and more reusable. Technologies, its application model and adaptation styles were also different now. Companies are smarter to get cheaper labor. Most industries views IT as a support system which is not a primary sector in the business. More cheaper and smarter foreign IT workers are in place. Economy is still just so so.

    I don’t think Bush all alone is responsible for all those issues. All good citizens also have responsibility as much as Bush. Otherwise we are the same people who are living under dictatorship. IMHO (no offense) most Americans think, by default, they have privilege and deserve the best thing with minimum effort.

    Unfortunately, when application didn’t set the default value, turns into NULL pointer exception then throws it back to application. Seems like we become a dummy “Hello World” program which does not have a knowledge of Exception handling.
  71. IT Work Force[ Go to top ]

    IMHO (no offense) most Americans think, by default, they have privilege and deserve the best thing with minimum effort.
    There are many different angles to dispute this last comment. I would hope that YOU do not go through life hoping you deserve worse. That points to persons self esteem. If thinking you deserve the best or better is a flaw than I hope a lot of people have it! What do mean by minimum effort? Is that a slick way to say Americans are lazy? And No, Americans by default, think they have RIGHTS! Some of the more affluent Americans, Brtians, French, etc.. think they have priviledge!
  72. No offense, but a small team of talented or just competent people (5-10) can do MUCH better than hundred heads departments or offshore crowds.
    Agree 100% with you.
    Another technical misconception: companies want to bring cost down – it is in almost direct contradiction to interests of managers: than bigger my budget/department/etc. than more important I am.So, there are lots of solutions(and demand) for problems from a thin air.As for 500K: I do not mind to get whatever fair for the kind of job I do just because I like what I am doing.
    This exectly why technical jobs are going overseas and not managerial and executive jobs.
  73. No offense, but a small team of talented or just competent people (5-10) can do MUCH better than hundred heads departments or offshore crowds.
    Agree 100% with you.
    Another technical misconception: companies want to bring cost down – it is in almost direct contradiction to interests of managers: than bigger my budget/department/etc. than more important I am.So, there are lots of solutions(and demand) for problems from a thin air.As for 500K: I do not mind to get whatever fair for the kind of job I do just because I like what I am doing.
    This exectly why technical jobs are going overseas and not managerial and executive jobs.
    Are you trying to say companies do not look at their bottom line? The reason jobs are going across seas is because software is being compared to hardware. Companies don't have worry about unions and local Government when it comes to manufacturing across seas. Also, hardware allows you assembly line the process to streamline production. So, printed circuit board, or its components, trasistors, resistors, etc.. look and act the same evrytime, a plausible cause to mass produce with assembly line techniques. Software is different, in that every EJB does act the same, hence you cannot reproduce with assembly line tactics. All this being said, Managers and executive level people are trying to use same business model with hardware on software. But guess what, It won't work :-)
  74. Software is different, in that every EJB does act the same, hence you cannot reproduce with assembly line tactics.
    Wholeheartedly agree.
    Are you trying to say companies do not look at their bottom line?
    Not quite that.
    There are multiple bottom lines and manager’s bottom line is not always move in sync with company’s bottom line. My point is this: some managers are trying to balloon their importance and rise their bottom line at the expense of company’s bottom line. It was possible onshore –fine, they did it, now owner’s common sense tells that such expenses are ridiculous- fine, there is offshore etc., but it is still far from being technically “optimal’. And it seems natural: a person wants to be in a better position than others by various means. This is why many techies are hitting the wall when try to promote “optimal” solutions – opposite side is simply not interested in such solution….
    Real bottom line: we are all do the same and try to increase our bottom lines at the expense of planetary bottom line, guess what: we are all endangered.
    Less pathetic: business model has to be changed from growth oriented to sustainability-oriented model.
  75. Some 160,000 fewer Americans identify themselves as IT professionals
    Because they all class themselves as "Management Consultants".
  76. The Incredible Shrinking Workforce[ Go to top ]

    lol.

    In 2001 San Francisco were full of people riding the wave as a Web developer who had no idea what they were doing. As soon as it crashed they found they couldn't get another 100k+ a year job with a fancy title. Therefore they moved back to their home town to finish their BA/MBA and for some probably high school.

    These people caused a lot of damage that is in part responsible for the current trend of outsourcing.
  77. Flawed Data Sample[ Go to top ]

    How can you extrapolate anything meaningful about the IT work force from a random sample of only 60,000 people? US total is roughly 280,000,000 your talking about trying to determine meaningful statistics by using a .02% sample....I have one word to describe this: stupid.

    Sean Overby
  78. The Incredible Shrinking Workforce[ Go to top ]

    Let's define X as the current amount of software output being produced in an enterprise.

    The 'open source kills jobs' argument usually goes like this: The sum of IT projects that an enterprise would like to complete is roughly close to X, the current software output. If bringing in free, pre-existing tools allows you to cut development time in 3, then you only need one-third of your development staff to complete X and you can fire the other two-thirds.

    I have worked in multiple large enterprises over the last few years. What I have seen is the the sum of IT projects that an enterprise would like to complete is about 100 times X. Management always has to go through budgeting, scheduling, and prioritization to determine which projects they will actually complete with the limited resources we have. In the above example, effectively leveraging open source tools means that the existing development team would be able to complete about 3 times X software output. 3 times X is a lot better than X (although it doesn't come close to completing every project the enterprise would like to have), and it makes developers a lot more valuable to the company (and hence more employable).
  79. Somewhat misleading[ Go to top ]

    Some 160,000 fewer Americans identify themselves as IT professionals as was the case in 2001. At the same time, the total U.S. employment in IT fell from 3.5 million to 3.2 million -- shrinking some 7%.
    The wording of the BLS finding in the InformationWeek is somewhat misleading, because it leads the reader to the sole conclusion that IT jobs are disappearing en masse (i.e., workforce reduction, etc.). Some are, but that 160,000 undoubtedly also includes a good number of people whose official titles were "programmer" at one time when in fact all they did was some macro work and other occupational coding in addition to non-IT tasks. As time has gone by it's become much more popular to qualify these positions as "business analyst" or even "consultant", and to many out there once you are not explicitly a network engineer or a coder, you're not really IT anymore.

    It's semantics, I admit, but what do you expect when you ask people to classify themselves and then run pessimistic headlines on the outcome?

    Mike
  80. Somewhat misleading[ Go to top ]

    It's semantics, I admit, but what do you expect when you ask people to classify themselves and then run pessimistic headlines on the outcome?
    The IRS and the Labor Dept agree that real wages for all Amerikans have fallen continuously for two years. I dare you to dismiss that as semantics. The amazing thing is that this happened without an official recession. Ie, Amerikan labor can lose even during an officially healthy economy. Presumably an officially healthy economy is one that's prosperous for the investor class, regardless of the plight of wage earners.
  81. Somewhat misleading[ Go to top ]

    Brian,
    The IRS and the Labor Dept agree that real wages for all Amerikans have fallen continuously for two years. I dare you to dismiss that as semantics. The amazing thing is that this happened without an official recession. Ie, Amerikan labor can lose even during an officially healthy economy. Presumably an officially healthy economy is one that's prosperous for the investor class, regardless of the plight of wage earners.
    The Labor Department does not "agree" to anything. They do publish reports.

    Claiming that real wages have "fallen continuously for two years" is a strange abuse of the English language. What you mean to claim is that real wages have fallen for two straight years. You could also point out that such a thing hasn't happened for fifty years, which does seem rather startling.

    Unfortunately, I cannot find the report that you are referring to, but I did read it when it came out. It _was_ bad news -- there is no doubt about it. However, most Americans (those making under $200,000 a year) saw their income drop by only a small fraction of one percent (which is still bad, since no one wants their real wages to drop, even if they don't know what real wages are.) The reason that the report looked very bad is that at the high end (those making over $200,000 a year) there were many, many less people in that bracket, and that was a significant enough change that it skewed the entire outcome significantly.

    The reason? Well, I guess you could claim that the rich are getting poorer, but that's probably not true. It's more like "smaller numbers of rich are getting richer quickly in the past two years." Apparently, it's largely related to losses in the capital markets, and the lack of large numbers of Americans benefiting from stock options, etc. In other words, in the late 90s we had an amazing trend that has not been sustained. That could be why some people call it a "bubble."

    As for the other claims in this thread about tax cuts, deficits, debt, spending, etc., there is no doubt that Bush's tax cuts were ill timed (including politically) and probably overboard. On the other hand, since they are mostly backend-loaded, those same tax cuts have made very little difference to date in terms of deficits. (According to estimates that I read, at the height of the tax cut impact, which will not come for years still, the cuts will trim less than 3% from the government's revenues. The shortfall this year is much greater than 3%. Therefore the claim that the tax cuts account for the shortfall in tax receipts is minimally overblown, and more likely a purposefully misleading claim. In most part of the country, we would call it a lie.) Most of the revenue shortfall compared to the preceding years is caused by a lack of capital gains taxes due to the same slumping capital markets that are responsible for the lack of income discussed above. In other words, when income goes down, so do income taxes. In fact, the surpluses that we had in the late 90s were directly due to the taxes collected from capital gains that were caused by that same bubble. It is safe to say that the democrats were responsible for the budget surpluses because they resulted from the .com bubble which resulted from the Internet which was invented by vice president Al Gore who was a democrat. ;-)

    I don't expect you to agree with any of this, since anyone who despises Bush will claim that all bad things are emanating from his decisions, just like anyone who supports him will believe that all good things come from him. However, it is still possible, even in an election season, to use one's mind, and to analyze these various claims rationally. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that a rational view will cripple one's ability to blame Bush for all bad things, but I am certain that one can find plenty of other faults in his administration without resorting to fallacies.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Clustered JCache for Grid Computing!
  82. Big corporations don´t want to lose money and definitely they won´t, whatever protection laws the politics can invent. If there are cheaper and (in some cases) better professionals offshore, they will hire them. Internet access is covering all the world and it´s the main tool they need to do it.

    This is a serious problem for citizens from "first world" countries, sure. But all these (r?)evolutions perhaps help reduce the scary social diferences we have in world for centuries. I mean, our planet (not only "our country") deserve more care, and free trade (Say no to agricultural subsidies !) could help this.

    But from another perspective, I don´t want to see chinese people (just an example) start consuming like any american citizen, because is this case the natural resources would simply cease !! I dont want to see any talentous american people unemployed either...

    So, its a enormous and complex problem that nobody can solve easily. Seem like we have to reinvent not only "How to keep your job" but instead "How turn our world better and at same time keep our disparate diverse values, cultures and way of life" ?

    Our world is ONE through technology, this is a fact.

    So, what institution has the leadership to really help our world ?

    Bush ? Europeans ? United Nations ? OMC ?

    Ohh, enough ! I need to work a bit...
  83. But from another perspective, I don´t want to see chinese people (just an example) start consuming like any american citizen, because is this case the natural resources would simply cease !! I dont want to see any talentous american people unemployed either...
    What are you saying here? So it's OK for American to maintain thier comsumptive level they do, and you don't want to see "any talentous american people unemployed either...", but it's not OK for the Chinese people to raise their consumptive level?

    My understanding is that when your living standard grows, your consumptive level also grows proportionally. And vise versa. So, when you say, you don't want "to see the chinese people (just for example) start consuming like any american citizen" you are impling that you don't want to see the Chinese people grow up their living standard to that of equal to the Amereican people???

    Then you talk about "How turn our world better and at same time keep our disparate diverse values, cultures and way of life". If your outlook and "way of life" is as your description, then I very, very much doubt that our ONE world will turn to be a better world, from where I am standing right now.

    I remember that one particular reader once said that equilibrium is the key, which implies that some "sacrifice" on the part of "first class countries citizens" to have their living standard be lower, and "developing countries" to raise their, and somehow, magically meet in the equilibrium level. That was on topic offshoring .... as to close the gap in cost of software development, hence "keeping" jobs at home.

    I can certainly see that equilibrium point may be the answer, but how it is achieved, I practically have no idea whatsoever! Though I dream it is NOT by anymeans for the people of "developing countries" to NOT raise their level of living to that of equal than those enjoyed by the "first class country's citizens". Otherwise, where is the equilibrium, then?
  84. Worst than appears[ Go to top ]

    Trying to be more especific :

    If China (is growing faster and faster) start to consume oil or stell (critical natural resources) like americans do, oil industry wil cease before any alternative industry matures (John Kerry´s energy plan ?). This could happen in few decades (1, 2 ?) and would hurt USA (world) economy much more than offshore is doing now. But China, India, etc have this right, and they will do it, early or later .

    The point is : This is not a sustainable growing. Something is wrong with actual models but nobody cares about it ! There is any people concerned about this ? Any world leader with a viable plan ? Unfortunately, no. We (citizens of all countries) are all depending of "the market" judgment. So, like offshore is hurting some people now, there will be another waves of shocking, soon.

    From myself, I dont want to lose my faith, but its ridiculous to see all those things happening withoud any prevention. Keep walking...
  85. Worst than appears[ Go to top ]

    Trying to be more especific :If China (is growing faster and faster) start to consume oil or stell (critical natural resources) like americans do, oil industry wil cease before any alternative industry matures (John Kerry´s energy plan ?). This could happen in few decades (1, 2 ?) and would hurt USA (world) economy much more than offshore is doing now. But China, India, etc have this right, and they will do it, early or later . The point is : This is not a sustainable growing. Something is wrong with actual models but nobody cares about it ! There is any people concerned about this ? Any world leader with a viable plan ? Unfortunately, no. We (citizens of all countries) are all depending of "the market" judgment. So, like offshore is hurting some people now, there will be another waves of shocking, soon. From myself, I dont want to lose my faith, but its ridiculous to see all those things happening withoud any prevention. Keep walking...
    You are absolutely right. The world will perish as long as we let the free market determine how natural resources are consumed. Individuals and corporations (who are run by individuals) have short-term interest in maximizing profit. This world needs leaders with a long-term outlook. I am losing faith. It's beginning to look hopeless.
  86. Worst than appears[ Go to top ]

    The world will perish as long as we let the free market determine how natural
    NON-RENEWABLE!!!
    >resources are consumed.

    There are some books by Daniel Quinn to read: Ishmael, Story of B, I would not recommend My Ishmael unless after Providence. Ideas he expresses are not new, but he puts them in a very appropriate form.
    http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?IshmaelBook
  87. Worst than appears[ Go to top ]

    The point is : This is not a sustainable growing. Something is wrong with actual models but nobody cares about it ! There is any people concerned about this ? Any world leader with a viable plan ? Unfortunately, no. We (citizens of all countries) are all depending of "the market" judgment. So, like offshore is hurting some people now, there will be another waves of shocking, soon.
    You are probably right. It's not sustainable growth. And let "the market" waves its magic wand: natural selection, survival of the fittest. Shifting is bound to happend, and let it rolls it magic cycle, to try balancing itselft. USA has been a foreruner leader in IT sector for quite a while. Sooner or later, she will have to hand over that leadership to someone else. She cannot be upfront there running forever, no matter how hard she tries. It's just the nature of things, cyclic changes.

    It all started at some point, and will definitely end at another point in time. You and I, and everybody else are "recycled" in between the points. Rather than worry about what may happen next, we may as well do our best in the fields of our interest.

    As you were saying, don't loose your faith. When we all do our best (or "almost" the best), chances are things will turn up for the better :-) .... and holding back "another waves of shocking" ... as close to as to infinity ... :)
  88. I would have to say that if there were only 160,000 people in the IT market that didn't know what the hell they were doing in 2001 then I am shocked. Hopefully we can get rid of another 160k people who call themselves "IT" employees. I know I am frequently surrounded by incompetence. Stands to reason my situation is fairly "average". I say let 'em get weeded out.
  89. I recall reading somewhere (words that all truly well-founded positions begin with) that on average in the United States in any given population of adults a full 5% are either unemployable or unable to maintain employment due to their own activities (or lack of same). It seems to me that a 5.5% unemployment rate tracks well with that. Who remembers the days of the late 90's when staffing in retail was truly sub-standard (as opposed to its current mediocrity)? There was a reason for that.

    Lots of reasonably intelligent people were going to become programmers and make lots of money because demand was going to increase by 5% per annum through 2010 (thanks bubble). I remember friends of mine with advanced degrees (and no job) asking me if I thought it was worth a few thousand to go to a programming bootcamp and take a contract making $60K a year after several weeks of "intensive" training. Now I know guys who failed to adapt their skills who can't find work because they are either not qualified or won't back off that stupid six figure income they seem to think they deserve. Bootcampers and people unwilling to change are probably able to account for a significant amount of the "churn." (remember that term?)

    Unemployment is a trailing economic indicator. That number will go down. But an argument can be made that it really shouldn't.

    As for the number of managers increasing so rapidly, I have a theory here. I think this is a Human Resources way of paying technologists more to incent them to stay with the organization. "Oh, yeah, Jim is a project manager over in e-commerce." Jim's day consists of product development under the guise of "Web Site Forms Rewrite Initiative", etc. Jim mostly does his own work with several other peers who also happen to be "project managers." He has no budget, no reports, no real authority. Just increased income and benefits.

    Buck up people. The technologies keep coming fast and furious. Legacy is always just around the temporal corner. Just stay ahead of the curve and under the salary cap and you'll be fine, fine, fine.
  90. Programmers?[ Go to top ]

    How does one become a programmer in few weeks? I thought you had to write more than "Hello World" in the real "world" :)
  91. Programmers?[ Go to top ]

    Nah. Remember you just opened your Visual IDE, added a form and slapped a "Hello World!" label on there? Presto, chango. Whack! Programmer. The truly gifted dropped database connections on there and, wait for it ... bound their controls to tables in databases. But that was like on the last day of bootcamp so lots of people missed that one.

    Compiler? What's a compiler?
  92. Programmers?[ Go to top ]

    I remember friends of mine with advanced degrees (and no job) asking me if I thought it was worth a few thousand to go to a programming bootcamp and take a contract making $60K a year after several weeks of "intensive" training.
    How does one become a programmer in few weeks? I thought you had to write more than "Hello World" in the real "world" :)
  93. You're right.
    Let's look on how many disasters caused by "self-called programmers" during the dot-com boom... people throwing a bunch of controls on VB forms, consultant companies selling jobs to other consultant companies (and so on, increasing project costs...)

    It's fresh air for us.

    Fab
  94. Shrinking work IT Work Force[ Go to top ]

    It seems to me that IT on most levels in the enterprise is seen as an expense, the exception being desktop support. This leads to a lot of enterprises contracting and sub - contracting work. It even amazed me that sys admins have been contracted out. having said that, The economic downturn over the past years has lead companies to trim the "fat". Meaning,if you were not part of the core "business" we can some survive without you. This lead a lot of IT professionals losing work, and a lot of IT professionals gaining responsibilities. The strong seemed to survive and the "marginal" looked for other oppurtunities. Don't get me wrong , marginal does not mean incapable in all instances. For example, a 10 year cobol programmer may have lost position because the new upcoming projects will be developed using J2EE.
  95. Too many IT workers[ Go to top ]

    Before this turns into a *completely* ridiculous political thread...

    I second the thought that there were/are too many IT workers. I was at a consulting company a few months before the bubble burst, and that company had "developers" coming in weekly from these boot camps. Four weeks and you too can be a Java developer! The skill sets ranged from decent to awful. Still, they did not hestitate to send them out by the dozens to clients' sites, only to see them flail helplessly.

    I think that we finally have been reset to a good number of IT positions. This line of work takes a certain amount of analytical thinking that some people simply don't have. The IT boom lead to a gold rush of people trying to capitalize on dot com dollars. I'm not saying that all IT positions are held by talented developers. Nor am I saying that all talented IT developers have found employment. But I think the "quantity" of positions is much closer to where it should be than it was a few years ago... before Bush f***ed it up, right Race Condition ;-)

    Just my $02.

    Ryan
  96. Too many IT workers[ Go to top ]

    Are the ones that failed hopelessly recruiters now? :)
  97. Too many IT workers[ Go to top ]

    Are the ones that failed hopelessly recruiters now? :)
    No, they are unemployed!
    <br><br>
    Do you ask because your second career is as a recruiter? :-)
  98. Too many IT workers[ Go to top ]

    Are the ones that failed hopelessly recruiters now? :)
    No, they are unemployed!<br><br>Do you ask because your second career is as a recruiter? :-)
  99. Too many IT workers[ Go to top ]

    Are the ones that failed hopelessly recruiters now? :)
    No, they are unemployed!<br><br>Do you ask because your second career is as a recruiter? :-)
    No, But they seem to email me everyday :-)
  100. Too many IT workers[ Go to top ]

    Are the ones that failed hopelessly recruiters now? :)
    No, they are unemployed!<br><br>Do you ask because your second career is as a recruiter? :-)
    No, But they seem to email me everyday :-)
    When they email you next time...tell them to put me on their mailing list. :-) I realize that having recruiters calling you night and day could be a pain...but it is MUCH better than the alternative.
  101. Too many IT workers[ Go to top ]

    Are the ones that failed hopelessly recruiters now? :)
    No, they are unemployed!<br><br>Do you ask because your second career is as a recruiter? :-)
    No, But they seem to email me everyday :-)
    When they email you next time...tell them to put me on their mailing list. :-) I realize that having recruiters calling you night and day could be a pain...but it is MUCH better than the alternative.
    I agree!!!!!
  102. Too many IT workers[ Go to top ]

    But I think the "quantity" of positions is much closer to where it should be than it was a few years ago... before Bush f***ed it up, right Race Condition ;-)Just my $02.Ryan
    You make an excellent point. The DotCom boom was typical of any new market - lots of players in the beginning with only the strongest surviving. I remember seeing a snowmobile magazine in the early 70s. Snowmobiles were the hip, new thing and you could choose from over 100 different brands. Today there are only a handful of manufacturers.
  103. IMO, the reason for that it is 160K fewer IT jobs in US is that the management is afraid of people that spend 2-3 millions on simple problems that could have been solved with a simple PHP solution.

    Another amusing opinion or view is that US programmers in any way is "better", more qualified etc.

    You did a bad job- now playtime is over. Cause & effect.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  104. IMO, the reason for that it is 160K fewer IT jobs in US is that the management is afraid of people that spend 2-3 millions on simple problems that could have been solved with a simple PHP solution.
    Sometimes the decision to stay away from open source comes waay from the top.
    An investment firm I worked purposely seeked commercial software, because they needed someone to *sue* if something went wrong with the overall solution. :) In fact, this is what Red Hat is providing for Linux; Single Point of Sue-age. :)
  105. Open challenge to open source[ Go to top ]

    I have been using open-source software since the days of Emacs. As a programmer who loves this profession, I have a strange love-and-hate feeling toward open-source because it is an double-edge sword.

    On the technical & personal level, I love open-source software very much! Emacs from the old days, Linux, KDE, Eclipse, Tomcat, ... they are all so wonderful.

    But on the other hand, I'm deeply concerned. If you look at other fields, practioners are trying to raise the barriers of entry. You need to get a license to be a nurse, a doctor, an architect, a lawyer, an accountant, a financial advisor, .... Partially it is for "maintaining quality of the profession" (we need that as well) but it also raises the barriers. You cannot just start seeing patient and prescribing medicine because you love medicine and knows a lot about it, nither can you publish your own medicine formula for treating cancers without FDA approval.

    In software, not only we don't have to get a license, we keep finding new ways to lower the barriers. Programming are becoming easier and easier because the good (free open-source) tools are coming out everyday. We are starting to see an increased number of free open-source applications too.

    Of course, someone still has to pay programmers to write some software but because the barrier is lowered and lowered, there will be more and more practitioners in the field to fight for the limited opportunities. Too much free stuff also undermines the values of software and thus limits the pay of software companies and practitioners.

    Just remember that we still have to deal with outsourcing, software piracy and the good old competition. We still have to pay for rental apartments, medicines, and gasoline.

    If there are a few free open-source project, that's good. But when we have them in the 1000's, shouldn't we be concerned?

    I search about the economy/business impacts of open source software. The only opinions I found is that programmers should be paird when they provide "service". Richard Stallman had that idea in its Emacs' Free Software Manifesto, I believe. Geez... I don't want to make a living by just writing small features and fixing bugs.

    I hope someone can post or point to articles with more thorough analysis of open-source software's impact on the field.
  106. Open challenge to open source[ Go to top ]

    In software, not only we don't have to get a license, we keep finding new ways to lower the barriers. Programming are becoming easier and easier because the good (free open-source) tools are coming out everyday. We are starting to see an increased number of free open-source applications too.
    I don't think we want software to be as inaccessible as medicine. It takes me three months to see my doctor from the time I make an appointment.
    If there are a few free open-source project, that's good. But when we have them in the 1000's, shouldn't we be concerned?
    Only time will tell. Open source has opened a lot of opportunities for new solutions that build on top of open source. So it's hard to tell if open source is a net gain or loss of jobs, salaries, etc.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Clustered JCache for Grid Computing!