|
Home > Archive > Certifications and IT jobs/Salaries > March 2004 > Who is to blame for job losses?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Who is to blame for job losses?
|
|
|
|
| curiousgeorge 2004-03-15, 8:00 pm |
| Interesting theory, but I don't really buy it.
Innovations occur every year in different industries that yield gains in productivity. That never slowed job growth in the past. And we certainly haven't increased productivity so much that would explain why no jobs are being created when we should be seeing over 200,000 per month.
Good old fashioned GREED is what's keeping job growth stagnant. Upper management has always been rewarded with extravegant bonuses for bottom line results. They got used to the crazy money they were earning in the 90's and don't want to give it up. Even small business owners don't want to give up their huge profits. The only way they can make a good profit is to make their current employees work twice as hard.
Then to really kick you in the d|ck while you're down, Bush gives most of the tax cuts to corporations and to the rich. His theory being that they will use the money to hire more people. NO THEY WON'T... AND THEY HAVEN'T. THEY KEEP IT FOR THEMSELVES. Talk about corporate scandals... Bush is leading the damn parade. | |
|
| That's it, pure and simple CG, Greed!. I hate to say it, but you're right and it's unfortunate that corporate execs have proven the old addage true that, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts abolutely", (Lord Acton). Would that I wish it not to be true, but how many times must they show it to be so? Ce'st la vie!... | |
| bloodshotx 2004-03-16, 12:05 pm |
| If you were an executive for a big corporation and you had your masters degree or ph.d wouldn't you demand high salaries? Of course you would. NO one in the right mind would want to loose money as they get more experienced. These guys were making tons in the 90's which is fine. They should make that much or more because they are more experienced. The economy is down right now and I.T. is what you call overhead. Companies try to cut costs then overhead to still stay profitable in the slow economy.
It all boils down to the people that had jobs in the 90's WITHOUT degree's getting fired and tons of them without jobs. If you get your bach and certs you will have no problems finding a job. | |
| DaDnDe 2004-03-17, 11:45 am |
| hmmm the article states that an ESTIMATED 300,000 jobs have been outsourced in the last 3 YEARS??? that estimate needs some more study i think.
i read an article that says that India has created 2.5 million new jobs in the past 2 years. granted most didnt come from the US but all were technology sector jobs and most were from American owned companies...so draw your own conclusions...
well i think the internet and tech boom of the late 90's has screwed everyone.
the result of that era has raised the bar of what is accepted as being "successful"
no longer is making a profit on 10% yearly growth good enough. companies now are making money hand over fist and less of that money is going to personnel. companies today are making more money than ever before but they are not spending that money on developing and training new personnel. they rather have some other company do that then hire only an experienced and trained workforce. so far with advances in technology and better and more efficiently run companies, they have been able to get away with it. but i see the end of that success story coming real fast.
i think productivity is going to the survival of the fittest mode and many companies will simply not be able to make it through. they no longer see the value of hiring untrained entry level workers and bringing them up through the system.
sure that is an expensive way of doing business.
its a given that you will hire someone who will never be a benefit to the company.
but without doing that, the companies are not building a foundation for the future.
there main and seemingly only concentration now is the bottom line. it seems today that most companies are relying on a smaller and smaller pool of cutting edge companies to create and develop new technologies. no longer are profits rolled back into the company for future stability. it seems that most are now gun shy after the quick rise and fall of the dot.coms.
many seem to want to get the money as fast and as cheaply as they can with the minimum of long term commitment to employees. i read somewhere that todays worker will probably change jobs an average of 13 times in his career. that is more than double the rate of earlier times. iow, start looking for a new job every 3-4 years or so...
i posted topic entitled "todays news" that reflects the unorganized approach we have towards solving this problem. | |
| Kasor 2004-03-20, 11:25 pm |
| Govn't lack of regulation and those greedy Executives.... | |
| DivxGuy 2004-03-24, 2:11 am |
| Companies are fully within their rights to cut costs as they see fit.
Get used to it, folks! | |
| DaDnDe 2004-03-24, 9:52 am |
| fully within their rights... absolutely~!
fully within their right mind??
i doubt it.
they are focused on the bottom line. their short term goals i think will hurt them. | |
| Dr. C 2004-03-24, 12:43 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by DaDnDe
fully within their rights... absolutely~!
fully within their right mind??
i doubt it.
they are focused on the bottom line. their short term goals i think will hurt them.
Saving money will hurt them? | |
| DaDnDe 2004-03-24, 12:57 pm |
| companies that dont plan for the future frequently find out too late that they no longer have one.
i think that the money they save from out-sourcing, cutting research, etc. will come back to haunt them.
but only time will tell. | |
| BigC2004 2004-03-25, 4:48 pm |
| I personally think that schools are partially to blame. In particular schools that hand out Master degrees to people in less then a year. You go to any school's site, and they all claim over 90% employment rates after graduation. Which we all know is false advertisement, but for someone who is 18 and just entering college, they dont know any better. Plus blame these small training facilities. True some are good, some are bad. But a lot of them too give people false impressions of a struggling IT market. Now I am not speaking for the people with 10 years experience here. I am speaking for new grads. The schools and training institutions out there keep pumping out candidates when there is no room for them in the field of IT. The schools give these young kids false hope, make them overpay for schooling, and then they're left with no job in an over-saturated field. Its a simple numbers game. Too many candidates, and too few jobs. Even if the field does return to its old glory, there will still be too many candidates. What do you expect when people can get degrees in less then 2 years, and in some cases less then one year. And most of these schools will offer you a Masters degree without even caring what your Undergrad. was in. I can not stand these commercials I see daily about these schools and what they can offer, and what you'll be doing when you finish. Its totally not true. What one out of a million will be doing what they show in their commercials. Heck, I think maybe I'll start offering Masters degrees and I'll charge lets see maybe $50,000 and you can finish in 5 months. But I'll only accept money orders because I dont want to leave a trace. | |
| badger11 2004-03-28, 4:18 pm |
| Schools have nothing to do with outsourcing. It has everything to do with the price of the stock. The higher the stock price the more money stock options are worth. If executives can make the price of their stock double by outsourcing all of their IT to India they will do it even if it is not good for the company in the long run. What do they care, they dump the stock and sit on a beach having someone bring them a drink every half hour the rest of their life. Why do you think there is so much resistance from coporations to account for stock options. If stock options were accounted for then board members would care and take action because it would lessen the profits the company makes. | |
| BigC2004 2004-03-28, 5:43 pm |
| I am actually not talking about outsourcing or stock options. I giving my opinion to the question that was asked which was, "Who is to blame for job loses." When you can go to AIU and get a Masters degree in 10 months regardless of what your undergrad is in and with minimal IT experience, what do you expect. Devry isnt much better. And when I hear someone tell me at the Aquaris Institute that when I finish their CCIE program I can immediately make $110,000, then that even more proves my point. So basically there is an IT candidate graduating with a degree probably every 6 months, and times that by 1 million and thats why there are no IT jobs. So if you are a CCIE with 10 years experience, good for you. What about all these new grads that have no hands on experience and have been told by schools that there's jobs everywhere and that they have a 90% employment rate after graduation. Give me a break. That's just my opinion, skewed as it may be. | |
| DivxGuy 2004-03-28, 7:17 pm |
| Why the job losses? Simple: the projections for growth in demand for IT were grossly overestimated, and an IT labor force much larger than necessary was created. Because the demand peaked in 2001 and then began to shrink, while the labor force was growing all the while, what naturally resulted was a massive glut of skills, manifesting itself via plunging wages and high levels of structural unemployment among IT professionals.
RD |
|
|
|
|