Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
Go to the GroupStudy Jobs discussion group (Web, newsfeed or mailing list). There are a number of recruiters who can help. Best of luck! Paul - Original Message - From: "John Green" To: Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 11:16 AM Subject: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] > seems all jobs have just vanished. well then who runs > the networks and equipment ? it's real bad out there > in the job market. > any web sites to put the resume ? seems dice, monster, > headhunter are not producing any results. > > how long is this goind to last ? > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games > http://sports.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35618&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
Something I have noticed with clients is that they have laid off too deep and then end up having to use jr. staff or rehire staff with the same constrained budget to manage their systems and network. As a result these companies are still running their networks but with less qualified staff at much lower wages. It seems great at first but these companies will come to their senses when their network falls apart. But I hear your frustration. You also have to understand that MASSIVE number of people rushing into the networking/IT job market. It's simple economics. The more people that come into the sector, the fewer the jobs, and the lower the wages. If you are old enough to recall or study historical data this has happened to several job sectors in the past. The last I recall reading about was the jet mechanics in the commercial airline industry. Not a lot of highly skilled people available so those that were qualified were writing their own tickets. Eventually more people were lured into that skillset with the amount of money they saw. The jobs became fewer and the salaries lowered as a result and then the airlines hit a few down periods and that killed the massive interest in being an airline mechanic. ""John Green"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > seems all jobs have just vanished. well then who runs > the networks and equipment ? it's real bad out there > in the job market. > any web sites to put the resume ? seems dice, monster, > headhunter are not producing any results. > > how long is this goind to last ? > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games > http://sports.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35669&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
When I was in high school (vocational) studying to be an electronic repair technician, I thought I would retire from that job a very wealthy man. Two realities caught up with me and the rest of that career field pretty quickly. First, the throw away revolution. Second, a bloated job market (DeVry was as common as McDonalds for a while there). I'm glad I didn't mortgage the farm on a degree in that field. The Navy was kind enough to give me a "free" education instead. I guess if you have a perfect job, you had better start looking for the next one. AMR wrote: > > Something I have noticed with clients is that they have laid > off too deep > and then end up having to use jr. staff or rehire staff with > the same > constrained budget to manage their systems and network. As a > result these > companies are still running their networks but with less > qualified staff at > much lower wages. It seems great at first but these companies > will come to > their senses when their network falls apart. But I hear your > frustration. > > You also have to understand that MASSIVE number of people > rushing into the > networking/IT job market. It's simple economics. The more > people that come > into the sector, the fewer the jobs, and the lower the wages. > If you are > old enough to recall or study historical data this has happened > to several > job sectors in the past. The last I recall reading about was > the jet > mechanics in the commercial airline industry. Not a lot of > highly skilled > people available so those that were qualified were writing > their own > tickets. Eventually more people were lured into that skillset > with the > amount of money they saw. The jobs became fewer and the > salaries lowered as > a result and then the airlines hit a few down periods and that > killed the > massive interest in being an airline mechanic. > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35687&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
I don't know if this is going to make you feel better or not (probably not), but anyways it is not strictly true that there are all these networks that need to be maintained. A lot of people have wondered how the industry can be laying all these people off if there are a constant number of complex networks to maintain. The fallacy in that logic is that in reality the number of networks, and their complexity, has indeed gone down in absolute terms. While the enterprise space still continues to maintain lukewarm demand, the telco/provider segment is nothing less than a disaster of epic proportions. I would contend that for every new box requisitioned by an enterprise, another 2 or 3 have been decommissioned by a dying provider. Check out the latest auction of Cisco gear from Excite@Home as a poignant example. Furthermore, much of the growth in the enterprise space requires very little skill to set up (i.e. install a single router to connect to an ISP), whereas provider networks tend to be tremendously complicated, therefore requiring great expertise to maintain, but of course now there is no more provider network to maintain. Hence, you have lots of highly skilled network dudes who got laid off from providers who are now competing for jobs running networks for enterprises. > - Original Message - > From: "John Green" > To: > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 11:16 AM > Subject: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] > > > > seems all jobs have just vanished. well then who runs > > the networks and equipment ? it's real bad out there > > in the job market. > > any web sites to put the resume ? seems dice, monster, > > headhunter are not producing any results. > > > > how long is this goind to last ? > > > > __ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games > > http://sports.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35691&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
It's the economy. When it picks up, so will the jobs. ""saktown"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I don't know if this is going to make you feel better or not (probably not), > but anyways it is not strictly true that there are all these networks that > need to be maintained. A lot of people have wondered how the industry can > be laying all these people off if there are a constant number of complex > networks to maintain. > > The fallacy in that logic is that in reality the number of networks, and > their complexity, has indeed gone down in absolute terms. While the > enterprise space still continues to maintain lukewarm demand, the > telco/provider segment is nothing less than a disaster of epic proportions. > I would contend that for every new box requisitioned by an enterprise, > another 2 or 3 have been decommissioned by a dying provider. Check out the > latest auction of Cisco gear from Excite@Home as a poignant example. > Furthermore, much of the growth in the enterprise space requires very little > skill to set up (i.e. install a single router to connect to an ISP), whereas > provider networks tend to be tremendously complicated, therefore requiring > great expertise to maintain, but of course now there is no more provider > network to maintain. Hence, you have lots of highly skilled network dudes > who got laid off from providers who are now competing for jobs running > networks for enterprises. > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "John Green" > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 11:16 AM > > Subject: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] > > > > > > > seems all jobs have just vanished. well then who runs > > > the networks and equipment ? it's real bad out there > > > in the job market. > > > any web sites to put the resume ? seems dice, monster, > > > headhunter are not producing any results. > > > > > > how long is this goind to last ? > > > > > > __ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games > > > http://sports.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35712&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
This is going to sound fairly cutthroat and antisocial, but one of the best ways to judge whether a particular career has staying power is to see just how easy it is to become qualified. Was it easy for you to learn the skill - i.e. did it require little financial investment or not much study time, or whatever? If it was easy for you, then it's probably easy for other people also, and inevitably the forces of commoditization will hit you hard. On the other hand, if a particular position requires endless years of schooling (like a medical doctor), requires that you have a degree from an Ivy League college, or requires experience with extremely expensive and rare pieces of equipment, then that job stands a much better chance of maintaining its worth, because the simple fact is that if you happen to have those particular qualities in question, then it is difficult to find somebody to replace you with. You have to look at the barriers to entry, because that's what allows you to maintain your value. Companies, under the profit motive, love to replace expensive people with cheap people, and ideally would love to pay everybody minimum wage, or even less by just moving the job offshore where the labor is cheap. So if you want to maintain a decent wage, you will constantly have to show that you cannot be easily replaced. You have to show that you have a set of skills that few others (ideally nobody else) have. ""s vermill"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > When I was in high school (vocational) studying to be an electronic repair > technician, I thought I would retire from that job a very wealthy man. Two > realities caught up with me and the rest of that career field pretty > quickly. First, the throw away revolution. Second, a bloated job market > (DeVry was as common as McDonalds for a while there). I'm glad I didn't > mortgage the farm on a degree in that field. The Navy was kind enough to > give me a "free" education instead. I guess if you have a perfect job, you > had better start looking for the next one. > > > AMR wrote: > > > > Something I have noticed with clients is that they have laid > > off too deep > > and then end up having to use jr. staff or rehire staff with > > the same > > constrained budget to manage their systems and network. As a > > result these > > companies are still running their networks but with less > > qualified staff at > > much lower wages. It seems great at first but these companies > > will come to > > their senses when their network falls apart. But I hear your > > frustration. > > > > You also have to understand that MASSIVE number of people > > rushing into the > > networking/IT job market. It's simple economics. The more > > people that come > > into the sector, the fewer the jobs, and the lower the wages. > > If you are > > old enough to recall or study historical data this has happened > > to several > > job sectors in the past. The last I recall reading about was > > the jet > > mechanics in the commercial airline industry. Not a lot of > > highly skilled > > people available so those that were qualified were writing > > their own > > tickets. Eventually more people were lured into that skillset > > with the > > amount of money they saw. The jobs became fewer and the > > salaries lowered as > > a result and then the airlines hit a few down periods and that > > killed the > > massive interest in being an airline mechanic. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35692&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
I agree with nrf. I'd also like to add that you have to believe in "the vision" of this field if you want to stay in. If you believe that computers (and your toaster, refrigerator or your car) are going to become an omni-present, networked entity as most technologists and futurists predict, then you have to know that the field of networking and the Internet is still in it's infancy. If you are going to have computers everywhere, you need to link them. And it's not just computers that are going to be connected - home appliances, cars, gadgets, and things I can't imagine are going to be on the net. That's just *one* aspect in which I see us being useful. Heck, I just took a proposal a few weeks ago for a snack company to have us link their vending machines with Cisco routers, so they could monitor their levels without sending a guy in a van to check. There are hundreds of predictions that everything will be connected to the Internet, that computers will become more networked, (based on a peer-to-peer type design that Napster and others proved to be so sucessful), bandwidth will increase (we haven't seen our first 10 Terabit link yet in the core of the Internet nor do most homes have anything faster than a dial-up connection), that voice, video and data networks will converge (they already are starting to) and many other things. All these things take people to roll-out. So just because we're in a recession doesn't mean we're all doomed. Companies would like to hire us, they would like to grow and be able to add more employees, computers, locations, etc., but they can't spend money right now. If you follow the market, most economists think we have just been through the worst of it, and that it's going to be a slow and steady recovery to the 4th quarter of this year when it will pick up. my $0.02 ""nrf"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > This is going to sound fairly cutthroat and antisocial, but one of the best > ways to judge whether a particular career has staying power is to see just > how easy it is to become qualified. Was it easy for you to learn the > skill - i.e. did it require little financial investment or not much study > time, or whatever? If it was easy for you, then it's probably easy for > other people also, and inevitably the forces of commoditization will hit you > hard. > > On the other hand, if a particular position requires endless years of > schooling (like a medical doctor), requires that you have a degree from an > Ivy League college, or requires experience with extremely expensive and rare > pieces of equipment, then that job stands a much better chance of > maintaining its worth, because the simple fact is that if you happen to have > those particular qualities in question, then it is difficult to find > somebody to replace you with. You have to look at the barriers to entry, > because that's what allows you to maintain your value. Companies, under the > profit motive, love to replace expensive people with cheap people, and > ideally would love to pay everybody minimum wage, or even less by just > moving the job offshore where the labor is cheap. So if you want to > maintain a decent wage, you will constantly have to show that you cannot be > easily replaced. You have to show that you have a set of skills that few > others (ideally nobody else) have. > > > > > ""s vermill"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > When I was in high school (vocational) studying to be an electronic repair > > technician, I thought I would retire from that job a very wealthy man. > Two > > realities caught up with me and the rest of that career field pretty > > quickly. First, the throw away revolution. Second, a bloated job market > > (DeVry was as common as McDonalds for a while there). I'm glad I didn't > > mortgage the farm on a degree in that field. The Navy was kind enough to > > give me a "free" education instead. I guess if you have a perfect job, > you > > had better start looking for the next one. > > > > > > AMR wrote: > > > > > > Something I have noticed with clients is that they have laid > > > off too deep > > > and then end up having to use jr. staff or rehire staff with > > > the same > > > constrained budget to manage their systems and network. As a > > > result these > > > companies are still running their networks but with less > > > qualified staff at > > > much lower wages. It seems great at first but these companies > > > will come to > > > their senses when their network falls apart. But I hear your > > > frustration. > > > > > > You also have to understand that MASSIVE number of people > > > rushing into the > > > networking/IT job market. It's simple economics. The more > > > people that come > > > into the sector, the fewer the jobs, and the lower the wages. > > > If you are > > > old enough to recall or study historical data this has happened > > > to several > > > job sectors in the past
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
Most indications seem to be that the networking industry, and the telco/provider segment in particular will greatly lag any general economic recovery. Nobody is predicting a serious telecom recovery this year, and many economists don't even predict one next year. Many big names have already gone down - Exodus, Excite@home, GlobalCrossing - and others are playing serious defense - Level3, MCIWorldcom, AT&T, Qwest. Huge debt payments continue to hang over the industry, and that problem won't be cleared up anytime soon. One dirty little secret of the provider industry is that very few providers actually make consistent profit on a true cash-flow basis. Just like the dotcoms, the providers can't figure out how to wring a decent amount of profit out from the Internet either. Sure, many providers will claim pro-forma profits, but after the Enron catastrophe, nobody wants to see pro-forma numbers, correctly preferring real cash-flow numbers. But all this talk might be a case of fiddling while Rome burns. All this talk of a future recovery in the long run doesn't really help anybody right now. Like the macro-economist John Maynard Keynes once said: "In the long run, we're all dead". Specifically, discussion of decent job prospects in the future doesn't exactly help a guy who needs to pay the bills now. ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > It's the economy. When it picks up, so will the jobs. > ""saktown"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I don't know if this is going to make you feel better or not (probably > not), > > but anyways it is not strictly true that there are all these networks that > > need to be maintained. A lot of people have wondered how the industry can > > be laying all these people off if there are a constant number of complex > > networks to maintain. > > > > The fallacy in that logic is that in reality the number of networks, and > > their complexity, has indeed gone down in absolute terms. While the > > enterprise space still continues to maintain lukewarm demand, the > > telco/provider segment is nothing less than a disaster of epic > proportions. > > I would contend that for every new box requisitioned by an enterprise, > > another 2 or 3 have been decommissioned by a dying provider. Check out > the > > latest auction of Cisco gear from Excite@Home as a poignant example. > > Furthermore, much of the growth in the enterprise space requires very > little > > skill to set up (i.e. install a single router to connect to an ISP), > whereas > > provider networks tend to be tremendously complicated, therefore requiring > > great expertise to maintain, but of course now there is no more provider > > network to maintain. Hence, you have lots of highly skilled network dudes > > who got laid off from providers who are now competing for jobs running > > networks for enterprises. > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "John Green" > > > To: > > > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 11:16 AM > > > Subject: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] > > > > > > > > > > seems all jobs have just vanished. well then who runs > > > > the networks and equipment ? it's real bad out there > > > > in the job market. > > > > any web sites to put the resume ? seems dice, monster, > > > > headhunter are not producing any results. > > > > > > > > how long is this goind to last ? > > > > > > > > __ > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games > > > > http://sports.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35751&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
For example, here is just one study from today: http://news.com.com/2009-1033-839335.html ""nrf"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Most indications seem to be that the networking industry, and the > telco/provider segment in particular will greatly lag any general economic > recovery. Nobody is predicting a serious telecom recovery this year, and > many economists don't even predict one next year. Many big names have > already gone down - Exodus, Excite@home, GlobalCrossing - and others are > playing serious defense - Level3, MCIWorldcom, AT&T, Qwest. Huge debt > payments continue to hang over the industry, and that problem won't be > cleared up anytime soon. > > One dirty little secret of the provider industry is that very few providers > actually make consistent profit on a true cash-flow basis. Just like the > dotcoms, the providers can't figure out how to wring a decent amount of > profit out from the Internet either. Sure, many providers will claim > pro-forma profits, but after the Enron catastrophe, nobody wants to see > pro-forma numbers, correctly preferring real cash-flow numbers. > > But all this talk might be a case of fiddling while Rome burns. All this > talk of a future recovery in the long run doesn't really help anybody right > now. Like the macro-economist John Maynard Keynes once said: "In the long > run, we're all dead". Specifically, discussion of decent job prospects in > the future doesn't exactly help a guy who needs to pay the bills now. > > > > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > It's the economy. When it picks up, so will the jobs. > > ""saktown"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I don't know if this is going to make you feel better or not (probably > > not), > > > but anyways it is not strictly true that there are all these networks > that > > > need to be maintained. A lot of people have wondered how the industry > can > > > be laying all these people off if there are a constant number of complex > > > networks to maintain. > > > > > > The fallacy in that logic is that in reality the number of networks, > and > > > their complexity, has indeed gone down in absolute terms. While the > > > enterprise space still continues to maintain lukewarm demand, the > > > telco/provider segment is nothing less than a disaster of epic > > proportions. > > > I would contend that for every new box requisitioned by an enterprise, > > > another 2 or 3 have been decommissioned by a dying provider. Check out > > the > > > latest auction of Cisco gear from Excite@Home as a poignant example. > > > Furthermore, much of the growth in the enterprise space requires very > > little > > > skill to set up (i.e. install a single router to connect to an ISP), > > whereas > > > provider networks tend to be tremendously complicated, therefore > requiring > > > great expertise to maintain, but of course now there is no more provider > > > network to maintain. Hence, you have lots of highly skilled network > dudes > > > who got laid off from providers who are now competing for jobs running > > > networks for enterprises. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "John Green" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 11:16 AM > > > > Subject: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] > > > > > > > > > > > > > seems all jobs have just vanished. well then who runs > > > > > the networks and equipment ? it's real bad out there > > > > > in the job market. > > > > > any web sites to put the resume ? seems dice, monster, > > > > > headhunter are not producing any results. > > > > > > > > > > how long is this goind to last ? > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games > > > > > http://sports.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35753&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
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. There's still a pretty large demand for high-speed internet. Now we just have to wait for the right technology to come by and offer good service at a good price. 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. I still see plenty of growth in this industry, even excluding the service provider market. ""nrf"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > For example, here is just one study from today: > > http://news.com.com/2009-1033-839335.html > > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Most indications seem to be that the networking industry, and the > > telco/provider segment in particular will greatly lag any general economic > > recovery. Nobody is predicting a serious telecom recovery this year, and > > many economists don't even predict one next year. Many big names have > > already gone down - Exodus, Excite@home, GlobalCrossing - and others are > > playing serious defense - Level3, MCIWorldcom, AT&T, Qwest. Huge debt > > payments continue to hang over the industry, and that problem won't be > > cleared up anytime soon. > > > > One dirty little secret of the provider industry is that very few > providers > > actually make consistent profit on a true cash-flow basis. Just like the > > dotcoms, the providers can't figure out how to wring a decent amount of > > profit out from the Internet either. Sure, many providers will claim > > pro-forma profits, but after the Enron catastrophe, nobody wants to see > > pro-forma numbers, correctly preferring real cash-flow numbers. > > > > But all this talk might be a case of fiddling while Rome burns. All this > > talk of a future recovery in the long run doesn't really help anybody > right > > now. Like the macro-economist John Maynard Keynes once said: "In the long > > run, we're all dead". Specifically, discussion of decent job prospects in > > the future doesn't exactly help a guy who needs to pay the bills now. > > > > > > > > > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > It's the economy. When it picks up, so will the jobs. > > > ""saktown"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > I don't know if this is going to make you feel better or not (probably > > > not), > > > > but anyways it is not strictly true that there are all these networks > > that > > > > need to be maintained. A lot of people have wondered how the industry > > can > > > > be laying all these people off if there are a constant number of > complex > > > > networks to maintain. > > > > > > > > The fallacy in that logic is that in reality the number of networks, > > and > > > > their complexity, has indeed gone down in absolute terms. While the > > > > enterprise space still continues to maintain lukewarm demand, the > > > > telco/provider segment is nothing less than a disaster of epic > > > proportions. > > > > I would contend that for every new box requisitioned by an enterprise, > > > > another 2 or 3 have been decommissioned by a dying provider. Check > out > > > the > > > > latest auction of Cisco gear from Excite@Home as a poignant example. > > > > Furthermore, much of the growth in the enterprise space requires very > > > little > > > > skill to set up (i.e. install a single router to connect to an ISP), > > > whereas > > > > provider networks tend to be tremendously complicated, therefore > > requiring > > > > great expertise to maintain, but of course now there is no more > provider > > > > network to maintain. Hence, you have lots of highly skilled network > > dudes > > > > who got laid off from providers who are now competing for jobs running > > > > networks for enterprises. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > > From: "John Green" > > > > > To: > > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 11:16 AM > > > > > Subject: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seems all jobs have just vanished. well then who runs > > > > > > the networks and equipment ? it's real bad out there > > > > > > in the job market. > > > > > > any web sites to put the resume ? seems dice, monster, > > > > > > headhunter are not producing any results. > > > > > > > > > > > > how long is this goind to last ? > > > > > > > > >
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
in the case of a number of the CLEC's, part of the problem was the old telco monopoly that they had to fight. companies like COVAD, Northpoint, Concentric ( now part of XO ) to name a few, were there firstest with the mostest while the telco's dragged their feet on bringing DSL to their customer base. All the time racking up revenues through their local loop charges. Now the telcos are in the market full tilt boogie, steamrolling the CLEC's by taking advantage of their existing base, and more importantly, their existing infrastructure. I've had DSL through Concentric/XO, and before that with Flashcom. In both cases, new wire had to be used for me to get my line. The telco racked up the installation charges, and the local loop revenue. Now, the telco is offering to come in, and throw DSL on my existing dial tone line, something the CLEC's couldn't do. The result is that the telco can charge slightly less for DSL, and they don't have any additional costs in terms of wiring. the pure economics of it is that the telcos continue to have the distinct advantage. They sat back, let the CLEC's do all the initial work, let the CLEC's do all the initial marketing, and then they blew in and blew the CLEC's out of business. Chuck ""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. There's still a pretty large demand for > high-speed internet. Now we just have to wait for the right technology to > come by and offer good service at a good price. > > 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. > > I still see plenty of growth in this industry, even excluding the service > provider market. > ""nrf"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > For example, here is just one study from today: > > > > http://news.com.com/2009-1033-839335.html > > > > > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Most indications seem to be that the networking industry, and the > > > telco/provider segment in particular will greatly lag any general > economic > > > recovery. Nobody is predicting a serious telecom recovery this year, > and > > > many economists don't even predict one next year. Many big names have > > > already gone down - Exodus, Excite@home, GlobalCrossing - and others are > > > playing serious defense - Level3, MCIWorldcom, AT&T, Qwest. Huge debt > > > payments continue to hang over the industry, and that problem won't be > > > cleared up anytime soon. > > > > > > One dirty little secret of the provider industry is that very few > > providers > > > actually make consistent profit on a true cash-flow basis. Just like the > > > dotcoms, the providers can't figure out how to wring a decent amount of > > > profit out from the Internet either. Sure, many providers will claim > > > pro-forma profits, but after the Enron catastrophe, nobody wants to see > > > pro-forma numbers, correctly preferring real cash-flow numbers. > > > > > > But all this talk might be a case of fiddling while Rome burns. All > this > > > talk of a future recovery in the long run doesn't really help anybody > > right > > > now. Like the macro-economist John Maynard Keynes once said: "In the > long > > > run, we're all dead". Specifically, discussion of decent job prospects > in > > > the future doesn't exactly help a guy who needs to pay the bills now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > It's the economy. When it picks up, so will the jobs. > > > > ""saktown"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > I don't know if this is going to make you feel better or not > (probably > > > > not), > > > > > but anyways it is not strictly true that there are all these > networks > > > that > > > > > need to be maintained. A lot of people have wondered how the > industry > > > can > > > > > be laying all these people off if there are a constant number of > > complex > > > > > networks to maintain. > > > > > > > > > > The fallacy in that logic is that in reality the number of > networks, > > > and > > > > > their complexity, has indeed gone down in absolute terms. While > the > > > > > enterprise space still continues to maintain lukewarm demand, the > >
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
Thank God. I thought I was the only one who was seeing this. Chuck wrote: >in the case of a number of the CLEC's, part of the problem was the old telco >monopoly that they had to fight. > >companies like COVAD, Northpoint, Concentric ( now part of XO ) to name a >few, were there firstest with the mostest while the telco's dragged their >feet on bringing DSL to their customer base. All the time racking up >revenues through their local loop charges. > >Now the telcos are in the market full tilt boogie, steamrolling the CLEC's >by taking advantage of their existing base, and more importantly, their >existing infrastructure. > >I've had DSL through Concentric/XO, and before that with Flashcom. In both >cases, new wire had to be used for me to get my line. The telco racked up >the installation charges, and the local loop revenue. > >Now, the telco is offering to come in, and throw DSL on my existing dial >tone line, something the CLEC's couldn't do. The result is that the telco >can charge slightly less for DSL, and they don't have any additional costs >in terms of wiring. > >the pure economics of it is that the telcos continue to have the distinct >advantage. They sat back, let the CLEC's do all the initial work, let the >CLEC's do all the initial marketing, and then they blew in and blew the >CLEC's out of business. > >Chuck > >""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. There's still a pretty large demand for >>high-speed internet. Now we just have to wait for the right technology to >>come by and offer good service at a good price. >> >>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. >> >>I still see plenty of growth in this industry, even excluding the service >>provider market. >>""nrf"" wrote in message >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> >>>For example, here is just one study from today: >>> >>>http://news.com.com/2009-1033-839335.html >>> >>> >>>""nrf"" wrote in message >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >>> Most indications seem to be that the networking industry, and the telco/provider segment in particular will greatly lag any general >>economic >> recovery. Nobody is predicting a serious telecom recovery this year, >>and >> many economists don't even predict one next year. Many big names have already gone down - Exodus, Excite@home, GlobalCrossing - and others >are > playing serious defense - Level3, MCIWorldcom, AT&T, Qwest. Huge >debt > payments continue to hang over the industry, and that problem won't be cleared up anytime soon. One dirty little secret of the provider industry is that very few >>>providers >>> actually make consistent profit on a true cash-flow basis. Just like >the > dotcoms, the providers can't figure out how to wring a decent amount >of > profit out from the Internet either. Sure, many providers will >claim > pro-forma profits, but after the Enron catastrophe, nobody wants to >see > pro-forma numbers, correctly preferring real cash-flow numbers. But all this talk might be a case of fiddling while Rome burns. All >>this >> talk of a future recovery in the long run doesn't really help anybody >>>right >>> now. Like the macro-economist John Maynard Keynes once said: "In the >>long >> run, we're all dead". Specifically, discussion of decent job >prospects > >>in >> the future doesn't exactly help a guy who needs to pay the bills now. ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >It's the economy. When it picks up, so will the jobs. >""saktown"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >>I don't know if this is going to make you feel better or not >> >>(probably >> >not), > >>but anyways it is not strictly true that there are all these >> >>networks >> that >>need to be maintained. A lot of people have wondered how the >> >>industry >> can >>be laying all these people off if there are a constant number of >> >>>complex >>> >>networks to maintain. >> >>The fallacy in that logic is
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
They say misery loves company. Well, for what it's worth: http://news.com.com/2100-1017-832553.html Dude has an engineering degree from a respected school and an MBA and is tossing mail for the post office for $13 an hour. A former marketing manager is stocking shelves. Another guy with master's degrees from Columbia and Harvard is doing lawn-care work (forklifts, fertizilier, etc.) . Even more poignantly, a dude with computer and networking certifications (doesn't specify what kind of certs) now has the hazardous job of clearing crud in an oil refinery coker unit. ""s vermill"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > When I was in high school (vocational) studying to be an electronic repair > technician, I thought I would retire from that job a very wealthy man. Two > realities caught up with me and the rest of that career field pretty > quickly. First, the throw away revolution. Second, a bloated job market > (DeVry was as common as McDonalds for a while there). I'm glad I didn't > mortgage the farm on a degree in that field. The Navy was kind enough to > give me a "free" education instead. I guess if you have a perfect job, you > had better start looking for the next one. > > > AMR wrote: > > > > Something I have noticed with clients is that they have laid > > off too deep > > and then end up having to use jr. staff or rehire staff with > > the same > > constrained budget to manage their systems and network. As a > > result these > > companies are still running their networks but with less > > qualified staff at > > much lower wages. It seems great at first but these companies > > will come to > > their senses when their network falls apart. But I hear your > > frustration. > > > > You also have to understand that MASSIVE number of people > > rushing into the > > networking/IT job market. It's simple economics. The more > > people that come > > into the sector, the fewer the jobs, and the lower the wages. > > If you are > > old enough to recall or study historical data this has happened > > to several > > job sectors in the past. The last I recall reading about was > > the jet > > mechanics in the commercial airline industry. Not a lot of > > highly skilled > > people available so those that were qualified were writing > > their own > > tickets. Eventually more people were lured into that skillset > > with the > > amount of money they saw. The jobs became fewer and the > > salaries lowered as > > a result and then the airlines hit a few down periods and that > > killed the > > massive interest in being an airline mechanic. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35752&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
""Chuck"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > in the case of a number of the CLEC's, part of the problem was the old telco > monopoly that they had to fight. Maybe it was part of the problem, but not the whole problem. True, the RBOC's were hindering the DSL CLEC's. But that doesn't explain the financial failures of international network backbone providers (Global Crossing), the biggest cable-modem ISP (Excite@Home), or the biggest hosting service (Exodus). Or the downward spiral of many of the other big providers. Now you might say that all these companies made mistakes, and surely they did. On the other hand, I believe it is the case that even if these companies had executed perfectly, they still would have failed, although I agree they would have lasted longer. The biggest factor contributing to their decline is that the demand wasn't there to sustain them. If there had been as much demand as these providers thought there was, then I believe that most of these providers would be doing quite well, mistakes or no. > > companies like COVAD, Northpoint, Concentric ( now part of XO ) to name a > few, were there firstest with the mostest while the telco's dragged their > feet on bringing DSL to their customer base. All the time racking up > revenues through their local loop charges. > > Now the telcos are in the market full tilt boogie, steamrolling the CLEC's > by taking advantage of their existing base, and more importantly, their > existing infrastructure. > > I've had DSL through Concentric/XO, and before that with Flashcom. In both > cases, new wire had to be used for me to get my line. The telco racked up > the installation charges, and the local loop revenue. On the other hand, consider this. Not only is the DSL CLEC model flawed financially , I believe the entire DSL business model, whether by a RBOC or a CLEC, is fatally flawed as it exists today. Even RBOC's report miniscule profits (not revenue, but profits) from DSL, so if even the RBOC's can't make it work, how exactly were these CLEC's supposed to make money? Or, as stated eloquently in Network Magazine :"... the RBOCs uniformly report that DSL deployment is, to quote SBC, "revenue dilutive." So here's the question: Can the wholesaler of another company's network elements profit from selling a service that the original company couldn't profitably exploit? We don't have a provable residential profit model for broadband, and we're asking carriers to fund an expensive experiment to find one" http://www.networkmagazine.com/article/NMG20020206S0018 So basically DSL as it exists doesn't really work financially, at least not at the price points it's being offered at. RBOC's make good profit from dialtone and from expensive leased lines like T-1's and up. But not from DSL, and looks like RBOC's only continue to offer DSL as a defensive maneuver against cable-modems, hoping that in the future they will be able to unlock some profit. But they aren't exactly scrambling to roll out more DSL, if the SBC cancellation of Project Pronto is any indication. > > Now, the telco is offering to come in, and throw DSL on my existing dial > tone line, something the CLEC's couldn't do. The result is that the telco > can charge slightly less for DSL, and they don't have any additional costs > in terms of wiring. But they still have to maintain their CO's with DSLAM's and backhaul lines. And, the worst part of all, they have to send out technicians out on expensive truck rolls when something bad happens to a DSL connection ( which is quite often). The simple fact is that no company has ever generated a consistent profit from DSL, especially consumer DSL. All network equipment vendors are suffering from revenue declines, but those vendors who specialize in DSL equipment are really taking it on the chin, and this is because providers, whether CLEC or RBOC, are not investing in DSL, and the reason for that is that the profit margins are pretty much nonexistent. > > the pure economics of it is that the telcos continue to have the distinct > advantage. They sat back, let the CLEC's do all the initial work, let the > CLEC's do all the initial marketing, and then they blew in and blew the > CLEC's out of business. > > Chuck > > ""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. There's still a pretty large de
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
nrf wrote: > > ""Chuck"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > in the case of a number of the CLEC's, part of the problem was the old > telco > > monopoly that they had to fight. > > Maybe it was part of the problem, but not the whole problem. True, the > RBOC's were hindering the DSL CLEC's. But that doesn't explain the > financial failures of international network backbone providers (Global > Crossing), the biggest cable-modem ISP (Excite@Home), or the biggest hosting > service (Exodus). Or the downward spiral of many of the other big > providers. > > Now you might say that all these companies made mistakes, and surely they > did. On the other hand, I believe it is the case that even if these > companies had executed perfectly, they still would have failed, although I > agree they would have lasted longer. The biggest factor contributing to > their decline is that the demand wasn't there to sustain them. If there had > been as much demand as these providers thought there was, then I believe > that most of these providers would be doing quite well, mistakes or no. First it's nice to see folks from the trenches talking about these things in public. I totally agree that demand was less than projected. This really beat to hell the working capital management practices companies had adopted. A shortfall in demand in the short term wasn't a big deal as that'd been happening throughout the boom. It was the lack of access to new capital so that there was time to build the demand. The time horizons for profitability on many of these firms was tightened by several years. Massive changes needed to take place to realize thatwe're watching that now along with a general economic recession. Another factor that most large telecom builds have in common is the use of debt(usually bonds) to fund the builds. Given two equal providers; one who has a significant debt/interest burden can't last nearly as long. We have seen much progress with providers dumping debt by negotiating with bond holders.(At least the bond holders are getting something now while they can) These facts of telecom providers led to psuedo price wars with a big downward spiral in prices. Firms trying to survive dropped pricing beyond sustainable levels to increase revenue, they have(are) gone(going) out of business. Their assets are being purchased at much lower price points with the resulting providers able to offer services much cheaper than the debt burdened providers. I'm not going to speculate here about how the telcos will pull out of this mess, but in looking at this we can't ignore the tightened timeframe to profitability higher interest payments from longterm debt aquired during the boom. Darrell Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35804&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 tha
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 bear this out. 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 tha
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
I read similar stories in '91. This is just the cyclical effects of the economy. They'll be back in work. I know it sucks, but... ""nrf"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > They say misery loves company. Well, for what it's worth: > > http://news.com.com/2100-1017-832553.html > > Dude has an engineering degree from a respected school and an MBA and is > tossing mail for the post office for $13 an hour. A former marketing > manager is stocking shelves. Another guy with master's degrees from > Columbia and Harvard is doing lawn-care work (forklifts, fertizilier, etc.) > . Even more poignantly, a dude with computer and networking certifications > (doesn't specify what kind of certs) now has the hazardous job of clearing > crud in an oil refinery coker unit. > > > > > > > ""s vermill"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > When I was in high school (vocational) studying to be an electronic repair > > technician, I thought I would retire from that job a very wealthy man. > Two > > realities caught up with me and the rest of that career field pretty > > quickly. First, the throw away revolution. Second, a bloated job market > > (DeVry was as common as McDonalds for a while there). I'm glad I didn't > > mortgage the farm on a degree in that field. The Navy was kind enough to > > give me a "free" education instead. I guess if you have a perfect job, > you > > had better start looking for the next one. > > > > > > AMR wrote: > > > > > > Something I have noticed with clients is that they have laid > > > off too deep > > > and then end up having to use jr. staff or rehire staff with > > > the same > > > constrained budget to manage their systems and network. As a > > > result these > > > companies are still running their networks but with less > > > qualified staff at > > > much lower wages. It seems great at first but these companies > > > will come to > > > their senses when their network falls apart. But I hear your > > > frustration. > > > > > > You also have to understand that MASSIVE number of people > > > rushing into the > > > networking/IT job market. It's simple economics. The more > > > people that come > > > into the sector, the fewer the jobs, and the lower the wages. > > > If you are > > > old enough to recall or study historical data this has happened > > > to several > > > job sectors in the past. The last I recall reading about was > > > the jet > > > mechanics in the commercial airline industry. Not a lot of > > > highly skilled > > > people available so those that were qualified were writing > > > their own > > > tickets. Eventually more people were lured into that skillset > > > with the > > > amount of money they saw. The jobs became fewer and the > > > salaries lowered as > > > a result and then the airlines hit a few down periods and that > > > killed the > > > massive interest in being an airline mechanic. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35796&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 tha
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
Just a thought. Just as there is a glut of Fiber, I believe the market created a glut of Tech works. I remember going to a Technical School, and before slapping down 15k for a networking Degree in 1998 (BTW, the school went under a year ago http://clcx.com ) I heard numbers like "This industry will be behind 500k Tech workers due to lack of Skill by 2004...Get the skills now (paraphrasing)" Today I hear "man I really wanted to be a teacher, or be into real-estate, or Digital Video Editing (all real cases), but I got into this and was making so much $$" People jumped into the band wagon just like the Telecom Co's jumped into the Fiber Band Wagon. Most of the time with good reasons. Now we have so much Fiber and Tech Skills. I think this will be short lived (24 Months??? Thoughts, Comments...), but I believe the $$ mongers will move on to the next $$ maker, and those of us who love this field, will need to wait the shake out, and wait until the Big Bean counters at Telco's, Carries, and such learn how to make money while dong it with less. Perhaps the word "less" should be replaced with "reasonable number of Tech Workers & realistic goals". I know I am generalizing a bit, but think back a few years. I remember a friend working at a big Carrier (starts with "Q") making 100k. This dear friend got me into this Field. Now he paints houses. In fact, the guy who sat next to me got Pink slipped on Friday (80k Job). Today he starts painting houses by day, and selling insurance by night.. The Fiber leasers/owners, Telco Equipment makers, and us all jumped in. Now we (Tech Workers/Engineers) wait to see who gives up, moves on, and who waits it out because the want to do this. Not to be a miser, but I think this industry will be the last to recover economically. -Kevin nrf wrote: >They say misery loves company. Well, for what it's worth: > >http://news.com.com/2100-1017-832553.html > >Dude has an engineering degree from a respected school and an MBA and is >tossing mail for the post office for $13 an hour. A former marketing >manager is stocking shelves. Another guy with master's degrees from >Columbia and Harvard is doing lawn-care work (forklifts, fertizilier, etc.) >. Even more poignantly, a dude with computer and networking certifications >(doesn't specify what kind of certs) now has the hazardous job of clearing >crud in an oil refinery coker unit. > > > > > > >""s vermill"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >>When I was in high school (vocational) studying to be an electronic repair >>technician, I thought I would retire from that job a very wealthy man. >> >Two > >>realities caught up with me and the rest of that career field pretty >>quickly. First, the throw away revolution. Second, a bloated job market >>(DeVry was as common as McDonalds for a while there). I'm glad I didn't >>mortgage the farm on a degree in that field. The Navy was kind enough to >>give me a "free" education instead. I guess if you have a perfect job, >> >you > >>had better start looking for the next one. >> >> >>AMR wrote: >> >>>Something I have noticed with clients is that they have laid >>>off too deep >>>and then end up having to use jr. staff or rehire staff with >>>the same >>>constrained budget to manage their systems and network. As a >>>result these >>>companies are still running their networks but with less >>>qualified staff at >>>much lower wages. It seems great at first but these companies >>>will come to >>>their senses when their network falls apart. But I hear your >>>frustration. >>> >>>You also have to understand that MASSIVE number of people >>>rushing into the >>>networking/IT job market. It's simple economics. The more >>>people that come >>>into the sector, the fewer the jobs, and the lower the wages. >>>If you are >>>old enough to recall or study historical data this has happened >>>to several >>>job sectors in the past. The last I recall reading about was >>>the jet >>>mechanics in the commercial airline industry. Not a lot of >>>highly skilled >>>people available so those that were qualified were writing >>>their own >>>tickets. Eventually more people were lured into that skillset >>>with the >>>amount of money they saw. The jobs became fewer and the >>>salaries lowered as >>>a result and then the airlines hit a few down periods and that >>>killed the >>>massive interest in being an airline mechanic. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35803&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
Whoops. Sorry for the multiple posts. Apparently the groupstudy server somehow thought I was a spammer and didn't post my responses in a timely fashion, causing me to resend. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35821&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 r
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
Hey, maybe we do need all that extra bandwidth, for all your posts! Just kidding! ;-) Priscilla At 10:15 PM 2/18/02, nrf wrote: >Whoops. Sorry for the multiple posts. Apparently the groupstudy server >somehow thought I was a spammer and didn't post my responses in a timely >fashion, causing me to resend. Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35823&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
I work for one of those Telcos and I have worked for others (read "laid off"). The main problem with the CLECs is that each of them needed such a large percentage of the market to gain profitability that if they had all been successful they would have taken 140% of the market share from the LEC. Do the math, there are/were too many CLECs all competing for the same business. The CLEC that I now work for, Time Warner Telecom, took a whole different approach. We did one bond sale and funded our business plan for 7 years. We are fiscally responsible, do not spend money unless there is a return on investment and we sell at margin. It is tough sometimes when we have to compete with the CLECs that are buying business by selling at less than cost to simply show revenue to Wall Street, but our approach has us in a position to come out of this Telecom nightmare with a profitable business. The only thing that concerns me is that some of these CLECs going in to Chapter 11 bancrupcy will come out of it with a low debt network that they basically stole and they will be able to continue to whore out services because they never actually paid for their networks. We'll see what happens, it's been fun so far Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Darrell Newcomb Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 6:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] nrf wrote: > > ""Chuck"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > in the case of a number of the CLEC's, part of the problem was the old > telco > > monopoly that they had to fight. > > Maybe it was part of the problem, but not the whole problem. True, the > RBOC's were hindering the DSL CLEC's. But that doesn't explain the > financial failures of international network backbone providers (Global > Crossing), the biggest cable-modem ISP (Excite@Home), or the biggest hosting > service (Exodus). Or the downward spiral of many of the other big > providers. > > Now you might say that all these companies made mistakes, and surely they > did. On the other hand, I believe it is the case that even if these > companies had executed perfectly, they still would have failed, although I > agree they would have lasted longer. The biggest factor contributing to > their decline is that the demand wasn't there to sustain them. If there had > been as much demand as these providers thought there was, then I believe > that most of these providers would be doing quite well, mistakes or no. First it's nice to see folks from the trenches talking about these things in public. I totally agree that demand was less than projected. This really beat to hell the working capital management practices companies had adopted. A shortfall in demand in the short term wasn't a big deal as that'd been happening throughout the boom. It was the lack of access to new capital so that there was time to build the demand. The time horizons for profitability on many of these firms was tightened by several years. Massive changes needed to take place to realize thatwe're watching that now along with a general economic recession. Another factor that most large telecom builds have in common is the use of debt(usually bonds) to fund the builds. Given two equal providers; one who has a significant debt/interest burden can't last nearly as long. We have seen much progress with providers dumping debt by negotiating with bond holders.(At least the bond holders are getting something now while they can) These facts of telecom providers led to psuedo price wars with a big downward spiral in prices. Firms trying to survive dropped pricing beyond sustainable levels to increase revenue, they have(are) gone(going) out of business. Their assets are being purchased at much lower price points with the resulting providers able to offer services much cheaper than the debt burdened providers. I'm not going to speculate here about how the telcos will pull out of this mess, but in looking at this we can't ignore the tightened timeframe to profitability higher interest payments from longterm debt aquired during the boom. Darrell Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35820&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
At 09:51 PM 2/18/02 -0500, Kevin St.Amour wrote: >Just a thought. > Just as there is a glut of Fiber, I believe the market created a >glut of Tech works. I remember going to a Technical School, and before >slapping down 15k for a networking Degree in 1998 (BTW, the school went >under a year ago http://clcx.com ) I heard numbers like "This industry >will be behind 500k Tech workers due to lack of Skill by 2004...Get the >skills now (paraphrasing)" > >-Kevin Do not know about you, but on average, most of the guys I see in the industry are woefully inept and incompetent. I am shocked they get paid anything even close to the amount they do. If one thing is for certain, we definitely need BETTER guys out there. However, it seems like, most companies do not realize what good people are. Such a disparity only helps in the downturn. What is sad is, instead of appreciating technical ability and learning capacity, most companies are doing a fire sale and axing what few good people they have. While some of the incompetent upper management survive due to nepotism and what not. So, while I agree a downturn is occurring, I do NOT agree that there is an "oversupply" of qualified individuals. I would say 60-80% of the "IT" people I meet are inadequate. -Carroll Kong Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35826&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
Agreed! I would say there is only a handfull of us that have had it up to here with the lack of training budget and just built our own lab a the house. I dare say there are fewer of us that actually try to learn this stuff after work as well. Les --- Carroll Kong wrote: > At 09:51 PM 2/18/02 -0500, Kevin St.Amour wrote: > >Just a thought. > > Just as there is a glut of Fiber, I believe > the market created a > >glut of Tech works. I remember going to a > Technical School, and before > >slapping down 15k for a networking Degree in 1998 > (BTW, the school went > >under a year ago http://clcx.com ) I heard numbers > like "This industry > >will be behind 500k Tech workers due to lack of > Skill by 2004...Get the > >skills now (paraphrasing)" > > > >-Kevin > > Do not know about you, but on average, most of the > guys I see in the > industry are woefully inept and incompetent. I am > shocked they get paid > anything even close to the amount they do. If one > thing is for certain, we > definitely need BETTER guys out there. However, it > seems like, most > companies do not realize what good people are. Such > a disparity only helps > in the downturn. > > What is sad is, instead of appreciating technical > ability and learning > capacity, most companies are doing a fire sale and > axing what few good > people they have. While some of the incompetent > upper management survive > due to nepotism and what not. > > So, while I agree a downturn is occurring, I do NOT > agree that there is an > "oversupply" of qualified individuals. I would say > 60-80% of the "IT" > people I meet are inadequate. > > -Carroll Kong [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Leslie McIntosh Network Engineer CCNA, CNE, CNS, A+, Network+ Certified [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35828&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
It is absolutely true that there is a lot of laziness and incompetence floating around the industry. People don't want to take the time to really learn the material, and that's a serious problem. But I think Carroll Kong said it best when she alluded to the fact that this kind of thing may be neither here nor there. Specifically, what does it really matter if you train and study hard if companies are just going to indiscriminately lay you off anyway? Or even if you're well-trained and educated and you still can't find anybody who wants to hire you? While you might take pride in the fact that you worked hard and gave it your 100% effort, in the final analysis, you still don't have a job. ""Leslie McIntosh"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Agreed! > > I would say there is only a handfull of us that have > had it up to here with the lack of training budget and > just built our own lab a the house. I dare say there > are fewer of us that actually try to learn this stuff > after work as well. > > Les > > > --- Carroll Kong wrote: > > At 09:51 PM 2/18/02 -0500, Kevin St.Amour wrote: > > >Just a thought. > > > Just as there is a glut of Fiber, I believe > > the market created a > > >glut of Tech works. I remember going to a > > Technical School, and before > > >slapping down 15k for a networking Degree in 1998 > > (BTW, the school went > > >under a year ago http://clcx.com ) I heard numbers > > like "This industry > > >will be behind 500k Tech workers due to lack of > > Skill by 2004...Get the > > >skills now (paraphrasing)" > > > > > >-Kevin > > > > Do not know about you, but on average, most of the > > guys I see in the > > industry are woefully inept and incompetent. I am > > shocked they get paid > > anything even close to the amount they do. If one > > thing is for certain, we > > definitely need BETTER guys out there. However, it > > seems like, most > > companies do not realize what good people are. Such > > a disparity only helps > > in the downturn. > > > > What is sad is, instead of appreciating technical > > ability and learning > > capacity, most companies are doing a fire sale and > > axing what few good > > people they have. While some of the incompetent > > upper management survive > > due to nepotism and what not. > > > > So, while I agree a downturn is occurring, I do NOT > > agree that there is an > > "oversupply" of qualified individuals. I would say > > 60-80% of the "IT" > > people I meet are inadequate. > > > > -Carroll Kong > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > = > Leslie McIntosh > Network Engineer > CCNA, CNE, CNS, A+, Network+ Certified > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games > http://sports.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35831&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
Carroll and others wrote: I hate to sound like the old geezer of the group, but I've seen the up/down turns of the industry many times I got into the industry in 1981 working for Burroughs later they merged with Sperry-Univac and became known as Unisys Back then, pretty much no one had ever heard of Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Apple, etc.IBM was it At the time I was in my early 20's, I watched grown men in their 50's, who were career employees of Burroughs/Unisys leave work crying like a baby because they had been laid off with no hope of getting another job paying close to what they were making, remember the IT industry was nothing compared to what it is today. I made a decision then that I would never be in a situation that I absolutely had to have any particular job I currently work for a small systems integrator, I do mostly Cisco and HP Openview work, but from time to time I do desk top work, basically whatever is called for. I come to work everyday knowing full well that it might be the last day I'm employed. I always have a plan in the back of mind of what I would do if I did get laid off. My plan is to become an Independent Consultant if/when I ever get laid off, I maintain a list of potential customers that I've done work for that I would contact in a minute if I get let go... The IT industry is in a state of turmoil as many of you have noted, I view the situation as one with tremendous opportunities, many of you have indicated companies are cutting to the bone getting rid of higher paying more competent Engineers leaving their networks in the hands of neophytes. I would be all over these companies offering my services for a contracted price. The potential customer might be interested because they don't have to incur the cost of hiring an employee, plus they can get rid of you without the severence costs associated with employees Basically, what I'm saying is, those of you wondering where your next job is coming from, create the job yourself, don't wait for it to come to you. Stephen Manuel -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Carroll Kong Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 12:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] At 09:51 PM 2/18/02 -0500, Kevin St.Amour wrote: >Just a thought. > Just as there is a glut of Fiber, I believe the market created a >glut of Tech works. I remember going to a Technical School, and before >slapping down 15k for a networking Degree in 1998 (BTW, the school went >under a year ago http://clcx.com ) I heard numbers like "This industry >will be behind 500k Tech workers due to lack of Skill by 2004...Get the >skills now (paraphrasing)" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35842&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 Step
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
My first message never came through, so I'll try again... It's true that TV's, phones, radios, and cable have a larger market share, but it took like 50 years for those technologies to reach critical mass! As I keep saying, the Internet is still in it's infancy. The problem that the dot.bomb's, telecom providers, and others had is the same you seem to be having - it's not going to happen overnight. It's going to take time. It's also going to take new and creative uses for the Intenet in order to create demand for Internet useage and high-speed links. Just as the static web page is popular now, it will be replaced with things such as video-on demand, file-sharing peer-to-peer apps that Napster proved to be so popular, and even peer-to-peer computer OS's (every major company is trying to come up with one, .Net, JINI and others just to name a few). Thses things need networks. Plus, tehcnology has gotten better, faster and cheaper since the ancient times, so I don't doubt that prices will come down. I would never bet against technology. Remember, "640k ought to be enough for anyone"? Also, there isn't a computer in evey home yet, as they can be complicated for granny and grampa to use, and they are still quite expensive. The web will soon be accessed with simple devices other than computers, such as your cable box or reffrigerator, greatly expanding the net. All these things will expand the Net and create jobs. I nrf wrote: > > ""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 bear this out. 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
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
Oh, don't get me wrong. I have no doubt that the Internet is here to stay and will continue to grow. Obviously there will have to be some kind of successful service-provider business model that will emerge. That is inevitable and indisputable. You have to remember what the original thread was all about. A guy asked what was wrong with the job market, and wondered who was running all those networks, with the strong assumption that the number of networks has remained static. I am pointing out that this assumption is incorrect, and that the number of networks has indeed gone down significantly (which therefore means less trained people needed), and I used the intense turmoil in the provider space as my best example. So if people want to understand why there is so much difficulty in finding work now, you need look no further than the provider space. Then of course people wondered whether the turmoil with the providers is really bad as I made it out to be, and that was when I responded with all those articles, in effect saying "Yes, it is indeed as bad I made it out to be, possibly worse, and here's proof." So inevitably technology will advance, or consumer tastes will change, or something will happen to make providers viable again. But again, the question is when? In the long-run, surely. But, again, with Keynes: "In the long run, we're all dead." It reminds me of what happened in the Great Depression, when classical economists stated emphatically that in the long-run, the economy must recover, but then of course Keynes made his famous quote, stating that in effect waiting for a theoretical long-run scenario is just not feasible for lots of people who need to pay the bills now. No I'm not talking about myself, as I'm doing just fine, don't worry about me. But I do feel sympathy for all those other guys who got in the business and now can't find work. ""Steve Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > My first message never came through, so I'll try again... > > It's true that TV's, phones, radios, and cable have a larger market share, > but it took like 50 years for those technologies to reach critical mass! As > I keep saying, the Internet is still in it's infancy. > > The problem that the dot.bomb's, telecom providers, and others had is the > same you seem to be having - it's not going to happen overnight. It's going > to take time. It's also going to take new and creative uses for the Intenet > in order to create demand for Internet useage and high-speed links. Just as > the static web page is popular now, it will be replaced with things such as > video-on demand, file-sharing peer-to-peer apps that Napster proved to be so > popular, and even peer-to-peer computer OS's (every major company is trying > to come up with one, .Net, JINI and others just to name a few). Thses > things need networks. Plus, tehcnology has gotten better, faster and > cheaper since the ancient times, so I don't doubt that prices will come > down. I would never bet against technology. Remember, "640k ought to be > enough for anyone"? > > Also, there isn't a computer in evey home yet, as they can be complicated > for granny and grampa to use, and they are still quite expensive. The web > will soon be accessed with simple devices other than computers, such as your > cable box or reffrigerator, greatly expanding the net. > > All these things will expand the Net and create jobs. > > I nrf wrote: > > > > ""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 as
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
A few more random thoughts I would add that the first wave of college students who got used to 100-Mbps in their dorm room are graduating. They aren't going to put up with 56-Kbps modems at home. Plus they expect to do file sharing with enormous music and video files. They will expect cheap bandwidth, however. The prices need to come down, I think. This industry is cyclical. It will come back. It always has before, anyway. And, new uses for the network are going to drive bandwidth needs. They always have before anyway. For many years we have been able to forsee new uses for networking that aren't available yet. But they will become available. One more thought: Security is hot. Maybe companies aren't building up their networks now, but they definitely want to protect them. People I know who got laid off in September are back to work doing security now. Priscilla At 01:41 PM 2/19/02, Steve Ridder wrote: >My first message never came through, so I'll try again... > >It's true that TV's, phones, radios, and cable have a larger market share, >but it took like 50 years for those technologies to reach critical mass! As >I keep saying, the Internet is still in it's infancy. > >The problem that the dot.bomb's, telecom providers, and others had is the >same you seem to be having - it's not going to happen overnight. It's going >to take time. It's also going to take new and creative uses for the Intenet >in order to create demand for Internet useage and high-speed links. Just as >the static web page is popular now, it will be replaced with things such as >video-on demand, file-sharing peer-to-peer apps that Napster proved to be so >popular, and even peer-to-peer computer OS's (every major company is trying >to come up with one, .Net, JINI and others just to name a few). Thses >things need networks. Plus, tehcnology has gotten better, faster and >cheaper since the ancient times, so I don't doubt that prices will come >down. I would never bet against technology. Remember, "640k ought to be >enough for anyone"? > >Also, there isn't a computer in evey home yet, as they can be complicated >for granny and grampa to use, and they are still quite expensive. The web >will soon be accessed with simple devices other than computers, such as your >cable box or reffrigerator, greatly expanding the net. > >All these things will expand the Net and create jobs. > >I nrf wrote: > > > > ""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 bear this out. 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 > >
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
If I may propose a few counterpoints: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 4:09 AM Subject: Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] In a message dated 2/18/2002 9:13:35 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: nrf, I tend to agree with what you said about broadband. However, I think I can sum it up in 3 points: *The Broadband market is not the success story vendors had claimed because: 1. The low learning curve of the average internet usergrandma and grndpa are just learning about how to operate that dial-up thingy! But apparently grandma and grandpa have learned the dialup thing pretty good by now. I read a story on CNET that says that Internet penetration (almost all dial) in the United States is now above 60%, so that obviously includes a lot of people who aren't particularly tech savvy. But again, that leaves you with an even more depressing taste in your mouth. Obviously lots of people have used the Internet and understand what it's about. But, having this understanding, apparently the vast majority of those users do not see why it is worth it to pay more money for greater speed. Again, from Hart/Whitman: "... 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. And of course dropping prices is not really an option because offering broadband at too low of a price is what got all these providers in trouble in the first place. And maybe price really isn't the issue at all - according to Hart/Whitman, 48% of those without broadband are not interested in it at any price. 2. None of the mid-level providers have the capital to sustain slow growth and none of the "big 4" want to invest in a recession..its just not economically prudent to sell a secondary service such as internet when people are out of work and can barely afford food and rent! That would make sense, except for the fact that these laid-off and poor workers are still apparently willing to shell out dough for other kinds of telco services that I would consider 'secondary'. For example, digital cable TV has more than double the uptake rate of broadband. I would consider having the ability to watch 5 different HBO channels to be rather 'secondary'. Satellite TV (DirecTV, Echostar) has also achieved greater success than broadband. Isn't the ability to watch every single NFL game in the country on Sunday the very definition of 'secondary'? Cell phone penetration is highly successful, much more successful than broadband. Isn't that secondary (after all, most cell-phone users also maintain their landline, so the cellphone just an extra, expensive, although highly convenient phone)? In each case (digital cable, satellite TV, cellphone), the monthly cost is roughly the same or more as broadband, if you factor in the costs of equipment (especially for satelliteTV, where the cost of the receiver is large). So we're talking about roughly the same amount of money, so obviously consumers have money they are willing to spend. Then that begs the question - if broadband is really that good, how come consumers would rather spend money on those other services? 3. The chain of events over the last 9 months that have compounded the socioeconomic struggles of the United States as a whole have left us a nation of fear and apprehension of the future..you can't tell me that this factor, especially, doesn't come into play when IT companies are deciding how to best spend next year's budget! Really? Fear and apprehension of the future? Well, again, that would make sense if there was a corresponding massive shift down in consumer spending across the board. Yet, economic reports indicates that consumer spending has stayed surprisingly strong even after September 11, and in fact, many articles from the major business magazines - Businessweek, Forbes, Fortune, etc. have expressed surprise at the remarkable relatively strength in consumer spending - and in fact have gone so far as to credit the consumer as the one shining beacon of hope in an otherwise dismal economy. For example, "...Fear of terrorism was expected to keep shoppers at home. But consumers seemed to shrug off uncertainty. That was especially clear in the yearend trend in home sales. Consumers showed great willingness to take on the huge financial commitment of paying off a mortgage. December sales of new homes rose 5.7% to an annual rate of 946,000. Sales of new houses set a record of 901,000 for all of 2001." http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_06/b3769037.htm "...Consumers may actually be set to boost their spending. Even if it seems that home and aut
RE: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
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 u
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
In a message dated 2/18/2002 9:13:35 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: nrf, I tend to agree with what you said about broadband. However, I think I can sum it up in 3 points: *The Broadband market is not the success story vendors had claimed because: 1. The low learning curve of the average internet usergrandma and grndpa are just learning about how to operate that dial-up thingy! 2. None of the mid-level providers have the capital to sustain slow growth and none of the "big 4" want to invest in a recession..its just not economically prudent to sell a secondary service such as internet when people are out of work and can barely afford food and rent! 3. The chain of events over the last 9 months that have compounded the socioeconomic struggles of the United States as a whole have left us a nation of fear and apprehension of the future..you can't tell me that this factor, especially, doesn't come into play when IT companies are deciding how to best spend next year's budget! My .02c, Rob H. > Subj:Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] > Date:2/18/2002 9:13:35 PM Central Standard Time > From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (nrf) > Sender:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (nrf) > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > ""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
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
one reason so many CLEC's have gone under is that prices are too low, not too high. They were unable to attain positive cash flow. All these 100 mbs college students have benefited from what has been effectively a free resource. Once they start paying their own bills, their attitudes may well change. this is a well known economic principal, essentially a function of supply and demand. When a product or service is free, then demand is limited only by supply. When a product or service costs, then demand becomes limited by the willingness and ability of people to pay. If my high speed internet access is free, then I "need" all these services. If I have to pay for it, then maybe I don't really "need" as much as I thought I did. Chuck ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > A few more random thoughts > > I would add that the first wave of college students who got used to > 100-Mbps in their dorm room are graduating. They aren't going to put up > with 56-Kbps modems at home. Plus they expect to do file sharing with > enormous music and video files. They will expect cheap bandwidth, however. > The prices need to come down, I think. > > This industry is cyclical. It will come back. It always has before, anyway. > And, new uses for the network are going to drive bandwidth needs. They > always have before anyway. For many years we have been able to forsee new > uses for networking that aren't available yet. But they will become > available. > > One more thought: Security is hot. Maybe companies aren't building up their > networks now, but they definitely want to protect them. People I know who > got laid off in September are back to work doing security now. > > Priscilla > > At 01:41 PM 2/19/02, Steve Ridder wrote: > >My first message never came through, so I'll try again... > > > >It's true that TV's, phones, radios, and cable have a larger market share, > >but it took like 50 years for those technologies to reach critical mass! As > >I keep saying, the Internet is still in it's infancy. > > > >The problem that the dot.bomb's, telecom providers, and others had is the > >same you seem to be having - it's not going to happen overnight. It's going > >to take time. It's also going to take new and creative uses for the Intenet > >in order to create demand for Internet useage and high-speed links. Just as > >the static web page is popular now, it will be replaced with things such as > >video-on demand, file-sharing peer-to-peer apps that Napster proved to be so > >popular, and even peer-to-peer computer OS's (every major company is trying > >to come up with one, .Net, JINI and others just to name a few). Thses > >things need networks. Plus, tehcnology has gotten better, faster and > >cheaper since the ancient times, so I don't doubt that prices will come > >down. I would never bet against technology. Remember, "640k ought to be > >enough for anyone"? > > > >Also, there isn't a computer in evey home yet, as they can be complicated > >for granny and grampa to use, and they are still quite expensive. The web > >will soon be accessed with simple devices other than computers, such as your > >cable box or reffrigerator, greatly expanding the net. > > > >All these things will expand the Net and create jobs. > > > >I nrf wrote: > > > > > > ""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
