As far as I'm concerned, the training centers are the ones driving the getaway car on this one. I don't mean all of them, by any means... but if you work for a training center and find yourself getting offended by that statement, ask yourself this:
Has your organization ever done a marketing campaign targeting non-technical people telling them they can attend a bootcamp and line up a job making (insert exorbitant salary here) a year? If so, then your organization is part of the problem. Mind you, I work at a community college, and we teach Windows 2000 courses and Cisco courses, but at no point have we (including our marketing department) ever exaggerated the state of the job market to lure students in with the promise of a $70,000 salary after a week-long bootcamp. We tell them they'll need to get their degree, their certifications, and their hands-on experience (internships, entry-level work, volunteer work, etc) and even then, the paycheck isn't going to be what they hear on the radio. The only reason the CCNA and MCSE bootcamps are still around is because people are gullible. I foresee a lot more of them closing their doors within the next year, it's inevitable. They'll just join the dot-bombs and the dinosaurs. -----Original Message----- From: Hire, Ejay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 1:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] Hey, In my spare time I do blacksmith work. You'd be surprised what stuff'll go for on Ebay. :) -----Original Message----- From: Tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 10:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] Back in the 1800's a Blacksmith was a well paid man, highly respected and had a skill few did. What about that guy that made buggy whips around 1905? Where is he now? Let's face it. Skills like ours are only valueable when few have them. Once too many people have them, they get devalued. Eventually working in IT will be a "regular" job, without great pay and benefits. Ride it out if you still have a good job, but make sure you save up for when you don't. Tom -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of nrf Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 9:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > That article taked about 1 problem, the problem almost every company had - > grabing too much land and equipment with no customers or sustainable > revenue. But that's also the problem every dot-bomb had. Thankfully the > buble burst, the madness ended and took out the garbage. No company would > stay in business that way. This dosen't mean that their services weren't > wanted. Most every home who has a dial-up, most buisinesses that don't have > DSL in their area are still waiting for the right company/technology to come > by and at the right price. I'm afraid I have to disagree. The simple fact is that in many cases, the services were in fact not wanted, at least at the price points they were offered at, but then of course if they were offered at lower price points, there would have been even less profit than there already was. And the fact is, despite all the hype from New Economy providers, there is not a huge outcry of demand for high-speed access. There is some demand, but nowhere near the demand that a lot of people thought there would be. I used to believe otherwise. Because I'm always doing stuff on the Net, and therefore I rely on my broadband, I assumed that there must have been ravenous demand for broadband connections. I assumed that everybody was like me. Wrongo. The fact is that there is only a small subset of the population that is tech and computer savvy and can honestly feel the difference between a broadband link and standard dialup, certainly enough that they would feel the need to pay extra for broadband. The numbers say otherwise. In the past, broadband was not widely available, but not this is not so. It is estimated that well over 70% of households within the US have access to some kind of broadband (cable/DSL/satellite/fixed wireless). (70% of all U.S. households have access to high-speed cable, and I'm not even talking about the other kinds of broadband - http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/broadband/comments2/Napster.htm, ) Yet a sobering fact is that even where broadband is available, consumer demand has been low: "...even where there is deployment of broadband infrastructure, there has been low consumer uptake...Groups such as the Consumer Energy Council of America and the National Cable Television Association have also noted the slow uptake of consumer use of DSL and cable modems even where currently deployed." http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/content/stories/index.cfm?key=10 Perhaps the most sobering is the Hart/Winston study that states: ' "The bottom line is that among people who are most likely to subscribe to high-speed Internet access, the obstacles are price and lack of appeal," said Hart, CEO of Hart Research. "Forty-eight percent have no interest regardless of price and another 21 percent are willing to pay at most $20 per month. If you cannot win over the people who are currently using the Internet, consumer acceptance of high-speed access will be slow and limited..." ' http://www.comptel.org/press/nov29_2001_voices.html If you still need convincing, then flip things around. If there really is this huge groundswell of demand for broadband access, then ..."...why have only 10 percent of those with access to broadband purchased it?" (http://www.theneteconomy.com/article/0,3658,s=916&a=19232,00.asp). In the United States, basic phone uptake rates are at 99% or so, basic cable TV is about 70%, uptake, digital cable TV is about 25% uptake, and cellphone uptake is at least 25% (uptake defined to be those people who can get who choose to get it). So why is broadband uptake so low. You would think that if people were beating down the doors for broadband, that uptake would be much much higher than it is. Or, as Stephen Ricchetti said it best: "Overwhelmingly, people think it's a bad deal at current costs," Ricchetti said. "What we are looking at is a demand issue, not a supply issue" http://www.theneteconomy.com/article/0,3658,s=916&a=19232,00.asp The simple fact is, the demand is not really there. The vast majority of people (generally high-income, tech-savvy people) who want high-speed access already have it. The majority of the population is not like this, and for whatever reason do not see a whole lot of value in high-speed. Is this a price thing - is it just too expensive? Maybe (but according to Hart/Winston, when 48% of people currently without broadband express no interest in it, and another 21% will not pay more than what they pay for dialup, maybe price is not the issue - http://www.comptel.org/press/nov29_2001_voices.html). Or is it a problem with perception and marketing? Or both? Who knows? Another depressing snippet from Hart/Winston: "...Other data show that while the majority believed some form of Internet access should be available in all parts of the country, relatively few users (30 percent) place a high priority on ensuring that all Americans have access to high-speed service. In fact, more respondents (32 percent) rated this a low priority." > Now we just have to wait for the right technology to > come by and offer good service at a good price. I'm can't deny that things like Moore's law implies continual advances. But from what the above studies have shown, we might be waiting around for awhile. The consumers have spoken - the majority of them are perfectly happy with dial and do not want more than that, certainly not at higher cost. After all, dial has one gigantic advantage over broadband - dial is simply more reliable. " "A new technology that decreases reliability and uptime isn't "technologically advanced" - it's buggy. Outside of early adopters and speed freaks, I don't see a sizeable percentage of the population paying two and a half times as much for flakier Internet access....Stable technologies tend to last, whatever their weaknesses compared to newer, glitzier ones" " http://www.theneteconomy.com/article/0,3658,s%253D916%2526a%253D13570,00 .asp > There is also another problem that was just as bad - the market was flooded > with service providers. There was WAY too much supply and only moderatre > demand. Yep exactly. But again, this is apparently what people want. Or look at it the other way - rather than having lots and lots of providers killing each other in the market, would things be better if there were only a small handful of giant providers that held large market sway? And I think the term 'moderate' is too strong. A better description of demand is 'fair' or 'tepid'. The simple fact is that while there is a big difference between being connected to the Internet and not being connected, once you are connected, having higher speeds is of only minor benefit. "...the ones who tend to be impressed are those who do large file transfers through FTP or HTTP. Casual Web browsers, on the other hand, are surprised at how little speed increase they see with ADSL. That shouldn't be surprising; Most of the World Wide Wait is time waiting for overloaded servers, not time waiting for data to make it through clogged pipes." http://www.theneteconomy.com/article/0,3658,s%253D916%2526a%253D13570,00 .asp > > I still see plenty of growth in this industry, even excluding the service > provider market. I hope so too. But the data seems to indicate a much more pessimistic future, at least in the short run. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35903&t=35611 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
