If you are starting a business to provide a service first then you must be one of the fortunate people that do not have to worry about income. I would dare say that most business owners start a business to make a profit and the service provided is a way of reaching that end.
>From: "Mark E. Hayes" >To: "Jeff Smith" , >Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] >Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:51:01 -0500 > >I'm starting a business to provide a service first. If the service is >good, then hopefully I will make money. No one will give you money >solely for the purpose of giving you money, unless you run a charity. >Even then a charity is a service to someone. Companies founded for >social reasons are still providing a service. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:43 PM >To: Mark E. Hayes; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] > > >"Most companies exist to provide a service, hopefully making money at >the >same time. They are not there to simply make money devoid of any >marketable >service." > >How do you figure that? Besides some businesses that exist for strictly > >social reasons, money is the sole reason people go into business. If >there >were no money in it, the service would no longer be provided. >Businesses >provide whatever services they do because it is profitable, simple as >that. > > > >From: "Mark E. Hayes" > >Reply-To: "Mark E. Hayes" > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] > >Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:30:28 GMT > > > >Nope, don't own any 401k's now. Times have been tough. It's easy to > >pontificate on the virtues of capitalism when you are doing well. Yes, > >we all have to future- proof ourselves. Most companies exist to provide > >a service, hopefully making money at the same time. They are not there > >to simply make money devoid of any marketable service. Yes there are > >exceptions like holding companies. > > > >I guess I'm am an idealist discussing ethics with someone who endorses > >amoral business activities. It's funny how businesses try to sound like > >they care about their people through bogus mission statements and core > >values, then turn around and stick it to the employees every chance >they > >get. There's nothing like looking at the company you work for's (bad > >grammar) latest deforestation project called a mission and core values > >statement as you just saw someone get the axe because they had another > >needed operation. Or you get asked to leave because you have been >taking > >time off while your mother is dying. > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of >n > >rf > >Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:45 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] > > > > > >Mark E. Hayes wrote: > > > > > > My basic point is this, however moot. I am not talking about > > > NOT hiring > > > foreign workers. I have no beef with that. My beef is with > > > CORPORATE > > > GREED. You claim to be a free-market capitalist. Are you a > > > business > > > owner? Or do you invest in the market, or both? > > > >Well, yes and yes. > > > >And apparently, so are you, at least on the first question. You stated > >yourself in a previous post that you are starting your own business. > >Furthermore, you probably own stock of some form or another, perhaps in > >a > >401k. > > > > >Maybe I should > > > have said > > > this in my previous post. My disgust in Corporate America stems > > > from the > > > total lack of morals and sense of responsibility to the people > > > who put > > > them where they are, their workers. > > > >But that's not really the purpose of companies. Companies are amoral, > >which > >is not the same as immoral. Simply put, companies exist to make >profit. > > > >Period. There simply is no other reason for a company to exist. Rough > >as > >this may sound, we both know that businesses do not exist for the > >purpose of > >benefitting workers. They exist for the purpose of making money. > >Simple as > >that. > > > > > > > Believe it or not, I am not > > > a > > > Democrat. I sway towards the conservative side. But I believe > > > you have > > > to have some morals when you run a business. There is a > > > symbiotic > > > realtionship that exists between the worker and the employer. I > > > know > > > employers hold the cards and can dictate the rules as they see > > > fit. But > > > laying off 10,000 workers after reporting 40,000,000 dollars in > > > profit > > > for the quarter is callous. The cliche "we have to do what's > > > right for > > > the business" comes to mind. > > > >Look, I'm not blind to the pain that layoffs cause. But in your > >particular > >case, I would ask how many people happen to be shareholders in that > >particular company? Almost certainly a lot more than 10,000. The > >company's > >earnings, and hence the stock price was probably helped by the layoffs, > >and > >since there ware more stockholders than workers, the overall net >benefit > >is > >still positive. Sometimes you gotta hurt the few in order to help the > >many. > > > > > > >Enron and MCI are shining examples > > > of > > > corporate greed. How many people lost their retirement, their > > > lives? > > > >I'm not endorsing criminal behavior. Obviously criminal behavior >should > >be > >prosecuted to the full extent of the law. > > > >But in the case of Enron, (I know I'm gonna get flamed for saying >this), > >but > >I have to say that a big chunk of responsibility needs to be doled out > >to > >the workers themselves. Obviously not all the responsibility goes to > >them, > >but you simply can't say that they were blameless on this score. > > > >The 'problem', if you will, with the Enron scandal is that a lot of > >workers > >chose to fully stack their 401k's with Enron stock, and then those > >401k's > >tanked as Enron stock tanked. But first of all, nobody's "entitled" to >a > >401k - Enron was offering it as a perk. There are millions of Americans > >who > >don't get a 401k or any other kind of retirement package. Secondly, > >those > >Enron workers who got hurt the most were the ones who chose to fully > >stack > >their 401k's purely with Enron stock. They didn't have to do that - > >they > >could have chosen more diversified investments. Those who did so, >quite > >frankly, were engaging in a high-risk high-reward investment strategy. > >For > >example, those Microsoft workers back in the 1980's who chose to plow > >their > >net worth into Microsoft stock chose a high-risk strategy that won big. > >If > >you intentionally put all your eggs in one basket, sometimes you'll win > >big, > >but sometimes you'll lose big. Third, those workers could have cashed > >out > >their Enron stock at (almost) any time. When Enron hit $90, some of > >those > >workers did and are quite rich. Those guys obviously have nothing to > >complain about. But as Enron dropped to $10, those workers could have > >cashed out, but they didn't. Only for perhaps a 10-day period when > >Enron > >froze its 401k could they not have cashed out. OK, I agree that was > >bad. > >But the stock only dropped from about $14 to $10 during that time. >What > >about the drop from $90 to $14? They could have cashed out anytime > >then. > > > >The point is simply that while I feel bad for the pain that Enron > >employees > >felt, the fact is, a lot of that pain was due to the fact that they > >chose > >what was effectively a high-risk, high-reward investment strategy. >Some > >of > >those Enron employees made out like bandits - for example, those guys > >who > >cashed out when the stock hit 90. Those guys actually got fabulously > >wealthy because of the criminal behavior of Mssrs. Lay and Fastow. > > > >None of that is to excuse the criminal behavior of those suits. By all > >means throw the book at Lay and Fastow and any other nefarious brass. > >But > >the point is, people need to watch their investments. If you > >intentionally > >choose a high-risk, high-reward investment strategy, you gotta > >understand > >that while you have the chance of becoming fabulously wealthly (like > >those > >guys who cashed out at 90), you also run the risk of losing it all. > > > > > > > > I guess we could come down from the mountaintop and say > > > "Weeellll, > > > here's how it is. You don't have a PhD and a wonderful stock > > > portfolio > > > so you can just go by the way side. No life for you. You don't > > > have the > > > education to be a CEO, you have morals so you can't go into > > > sales". > > > Management has been pretty shaky for a while too. I know guys > > > afraid to > > > lose their jobs because they know they can't find another one > > > that pays > > > as well without having a BA or BS or higher. > > > >First of all, if you don't have a BA or a BS, then you should probably > >think > >about getting one. > > > >Second of all, we've been through this before. In every recession > >there's > >an outcry warning of the death of the American worker. Yet the story >of > >American economic history has been a story of nearly constantly rising > >living standards and nearly-ever-increasing per-capita incomes. I > >don't > >see why it would be any different this time. Americans have almost > >retooled > >themselves to stay 2 or 3 steps ahead of the rest of the world. > >Remember > >that the US has completely and successfully transformed its economy > >several > >times in its history - from predominantly agricultural to predominantly > >industrial to predominantly post-industrial/services. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>From your reply- "in short, the high-end, "high-touch", work > > > that is > > > not easily outsourced at all. And who tends to make more > > > money, the > > > engineers or the business leadership/finance/sales? Right. > > > Therefore, > > > the high-yield, high-margin work will stay here." great if > > > you want to do this kind of work. Personally, I prefer the > > > engineer's > > > work. > > > >Hey, I prefer sitting around at home all day long watching basketball > >and > >eating potato chips. Let's face it, Mark. You can't always do what >you > >want to do. That's life. > > > >Actually, I take that back (slightly). You CAN do whatever you want to > >do, > >but you can't expect that other people will pay you for it. I can > >indeed > >sit around at home watching ball and eating chips, but nobody's going >to > >pay > >me for that. You can go be a network engineer, but nobody's obligated > >to > >pay you to do it. > > > > > > >But because they have have to pay more than minimum wage > > > to an > > > engineer because it is "skilled labor" they want to outsource > > > it. "Can't > > > pay some monkey with a mind for technology more than I am > > > paying my > > > masseuse! Yeah that's it, I'll teach the jerk. I just gotta > > > find my > > > business card from that outsourcing company specializing in > > > "off-site" > > > relocation, yeah that's the ticket. Now my stock will go up > > > because my > > > bottom line looks better and I'll get that big fat stock > > > option. At the > > > press conference I'll just state I did it for the shareholders > > > when I > > > tell them about all the layoffs". > > > >First of all, I would ask aren't those people who are now taking the > >newly > >outsourced jobs workers too? Sure, they may be in India, but Indians > >are > >people too - are you saying that Indians don't deserve jobs? That you > >are > >somehow more deserving than those Indians? > > > >Second of all, let's not go overboard with the layoff thing. Obviously > >if > >all you have to do to raise your stock price is lay people off, then >why > >doesn't John Chambers just lay off everybody at Cisco except himself. > >Cisco > >would then be a company of one employee, and since Chambers is only > >taking a > >salary of $1 this year, the stock price would then go through the roof, > >right? Heck, why doesn't every company lay off everybody except the > >CEO? > >Either John Chambers is stupid for not realizing this (and if he's so > >stupid, then why exactly is he the CEO?), or the relationship between > >layoffs and stock prices is more complicated than I'm postulating. > >Somehow > >I don't think it's the former. > > > > > > > > All of this outsourcing and lowering the bottom line sounds > > > really good > > > for the company, but for the workers who put them in the > > > position to be > > > number one or twelve or whatever they are, it all boils down to > > > one > > > thing. LESS JOBS!!! I don't recall at the moment any press > > > conferences > > > from CEOs stating they rescinded their stock options, bonuses, > > > or raises > > > when times got tough. > > > >Well, some did. Notably John Chambers, who cut his salary to $1. > > > > >Nope, they usually outsource and cut the > > > jobs of > > > the people who are trying to make a decent living w/o an Ivy > > > League > > > education. > > > > > > Give me a minute while I put my shields up! > > > >I am not minimizing the pain of people who have gone through layoffs. > >But > >on the other hand, this is the way the business cycle works. Sometimes > >business is good, and other times, business is bad. I didn't hear too > >many > >workers complaining during the dotcom boom days when lots of them were > >becoming millionaires. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Behalf Of n > > > rf > > > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:05 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo > > > [7:70953] > > > > > > > > > Mark E. Hayes wrote: > > > > > > > > Ok n rf... I will admit before I go any farther, this is a > > > rant > > > > ;) > > > > > > > > You have hit the nail on the head. The one that puts me over > > > > the top. I > > > > am going to refer back to my first rant over CCIE numbers. > > > > hehehe. The > > > > part where Corporate America oughtta go hang out with the > > > Nazis > > > > in S.A. > > > > When is enough, enough? NAFTA brought about the demise of the > > > > labor > > > > sector (as far as assembly line workers, and more menial tasks > > > > that > > > > employers did not want to pay minimum wage here to do). The > > > > spin was > > > > that higher tech jobs would be available. Well we had a nice > > > > run for > > > > about 8 years. Now the higher tech jobs are being farmed out > > > to > > > > "off-site" locations. I can almost picture a bunch of poor > > > > souls locked > > > > in a NOC and having to ask to go to the bathroom like they do > > > > in the > > > > Mexican plants run by a few rich guys hired out to American > > > > interests. > > > > All in the name of $aving money. I haven't checked but I doubt > > > > Caterpillar passed on the savings when they moved their > > > > production > > > > facilities to Mexico. > > > > > > > > The way things are going the only jobs left will be food > > > > service and > > > > nurses. The only problem is nobody will be working to afford > > > > either one > > > > of the services. I changed career fileds in the mid-to-late > > > > nineties > > > > hoping I would be able to hold on to something worthwhile. I > > > > chose > > > > networking. It turned out to be an addiction. I love doing > > > this > > > > stuff > > > > but un-employment sucks! In retrospect nursing would have been > > > > a better > > > > choice, but hey the market wasn't to good for them either back > > > > then. > > > > Will American companies EVER realize they have a commitment to > > > > keep this > > > > country strong. After all, if no one is working who will buy > > > > their > > > > services? > > > > > > > > I know you are not the cause, only the messenger. So please > > > > forgive my > > > > rant. > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > Well, as a free-market capitalist, I have several points to make > > > > > > * Own any stocks? Perhaps a mutual fund in a 401k? If so, > > > guess what, > > > you're part of the very Corporate America that you apparently > > > despise. > > > If > > > you own shares in American companies, then your portfolio is > > > helped by > > > any > > > and all cost-cutting moves made by those companies. > > > > > > *Ever use any foreign products? I bet you have. Just go out > > > to the > > > street > > > and check out all the foreign cars. There's a good chance you > > > have one > > > in > > > your garage. Or just look at the clothes you wear. I bet you > > > that your > > > underwear was made either in Mexico or in Asia. In fact, just > > > take a > > > look > > > around your room at all the househood goods. How many of them > > > were > > > manufactured in other countries? Probably most of them. In > > > fact, look > > > at > > > your PC. Probably only one component of your PC - the > > > microprocessor - > > > was > > > actually manufactured in the US. Most of your PC was probably > > > built in > > > Asia. > > > > > > The point is that you as a consumer want the best product for > > > the least > > > cost. I want to pay as little as possible for my socks, which > > > is why > > > the > > > socks I buy tend to be made in Mexico. I want to drink the > > > best beer in > > > the > > > world, which is why the beer I buy is never American-made, it > > > tends to > > > be > > > made in Germany. Surely you have bought goods that were made > > > in other > > > countries either because they are cheaper or higher quality or > > > both. > > > > > > But if you choose the most optimal good, whether domestic or > > > foreign, > > > then > > > is it really surprising to discover that companies will choose > > > the most > > > optimal workforce, whether domestic or foreign? > > > > > > * I detect a strong tone that American companies should hire > > > only > > > American > > > workers, is that true? > > > > > > If so, does it then follow that foreign companies should hire > > > only > > > foreign > > > workers? For example, should Nortel fire all its employees and > > > replace > > > them > > > all with Canadians? Should the Shell oil refinery near my house > > > eliminate > > > all its American plant workers and replace them all with > > > Brits? Should > > > CBS > > > fire all its American workers and replace them with Japanese > > > (CBS is > > > owned > > > by Sony). > > > > > > The point is that turnabout is fair play. If you want to say > > > that > > > American > > > companies should not employ foreigners, then you have to be > > > prepared for > > > the > > > logical conclusion that foreign companies should not employ > > > Americans. > > > > > > * I think your view of the future is a tad bleaker than it > > > needs to be. > > > > > > > > > While service-work will be more outsourced, what kind of work > > > will stay > > > here? Yes, the cable-monkey work. You will actually need a > > > pair of > > > hands > > > here to do the grunt work. But what other kind of work? > > > Simple - the > > > business leadership/management, the finance, the sales, - in > > > short, the > > > high-end, "high-touch", work that is not easily outsourced at > > > all. And > > > who > > > tends to make more money, the engineers or the business > > > leadership/finance/sales? Right. Therefore, the high-yield, > > > high-margin > > > work will stay here. > > > > > > Perhaps some historical perspective is in order. 200 years > > > ago, the > > > United > > > States was a backwards nation on the fringes of the levers of > > > power, > > > where > > > most of the citizenry worked in agriculture. 100 years later, > > > the US > > > was > > > the strongest and most industrialized nation on earth. How > > > else could > > > this > > > have happened had not millions of people been essentially > > > forced to stop > > > farming and work in factories instead? Where else were the > > > newly-born > > > American factories supposed to find workers, if not from the > > > farms? > > > Labor > > > is not just conjured out of thin air, it has to come from > > > somewhere. > > > The > > > only way for the US to have made the transformation from > > > backwards > > > farming > > > country to a super-strong industrial nation was, essentially, > > > for > > > millions > > > of farming jobs to be lost due to mechanization and foreign > > > competition. > > > > > > Only through these job losses was labor freed up to enter the > > > booming > > > American industrial sector. But what would have happened if > > > this > > > progress > > > had been impeded? For example, what if one of the many "save > > > our > > > farming > > > jobs" campaigns that were run in the 1800's actually > > > succeeded? Then > > > the US > > > would still be a poor backwards agricultural nation and it > > > would be a > > > European nation or Japan which would be the strongest nation on > > > earth. > > > > > > And besides, think about this. You may lament the fact that > > > jobs are > > > going > > > to India, but the net immigration from India to the US is still > > > a large > > > positive number. Many Indians come here to work, but it's rare > > > to find > > > Americans who move to India to work (only ones I've heard of are > > > Indian-Americans). So clearly there are still more jobs > > > created here > > > than > > > being outsourced to India. > > > > > > > > > Anyway, it's all stuff to think about. Chuck's basic premise > > > is correct > > > in > > > that if you want to maintain employability, you have to > > > demonstrate why > > > your > > > job is important from a business perspective, not just from a > > > technical > > > one. Who cares about the ability to move packets around, what's > > > important > > > is that you understand how that ability translates into > > > dollars. Guys > > > who > > > understand the business case of networking will tend to keep > > > their jobs. > > > > > > Guys who only understand the technical aspects of this job are > > > easily > > > outsourced. >_________________________________________________________________ >Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71002&t=70953 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
