"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 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70996&t=70953 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
