Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
Dear Sam: Thanks for the reply and websites. You will excuse my confusion in that when I went to these various addresses, I did not see even one request for an employee. In fact the only place there might have been some gold was at Y2K jobs and there was a place for employers to list jobs at $300 per listing and a place to post resumes, at $75 a pop - but I did not see one job listing or one resume. Instead, I got mostly the conventional pap we are reading all the time of which I have taken a few cut and pastes below to show you. http://www.year2000.com (quote from) "In 1997, 1998 most of IS will wake up and realize they need to increase staff by 30%, or some such number, over two years to complete the Year 2000 project. If we all require even a 10%-15% increase in skilled staff, supply cannot meet demand."* Thomas: This little gem using percentages gives no information. Until you tell me how many IT professionals there are, 30% or 10 - 15% more is meaningless information. As the dates are 97 - 98, it still leaves my question begging, where the hell are the ads for these personnel? >http://www.itaa.org (quote from) 1999 National IT Workforce Convocation On April 12-13, 1999 in Austin, TX, hundreds of key practitioners in education, government, and industry will gather to gauge the nation's progress in dealing with the shortage of IT workers, highlight replicable programs that are expanding training & recruitment opportunities, determine priorities for private sector & government action and recognize excellence in innovative partnership Thomas: Now it would seem to me that a Convocation on April 12-13 is a pretty rediculous attempt to solve a problem that requires massive allocation of training, people and matching of skills and jobs. Perhaps, I am missing something, but it seems like the Officers of the Titanic are about to have a staff meeting after hitting the iceberg, but first they have serve tea. http://www.info2000.gc.ca/Welcome/Welcome.asp (quote from: Give your business a fully customized, hands-on assessment by one of our specially trained university or college students. He/she will go to your workplace, assess your computer system and software, and discuss ways that you can prepare your office for the Year 2000. Thomas: Gee, this is such a minute problem that we can take a University student away from his classes for a little part time work to solve your problems - I guess this is part of the 30% of personnel required that was alluded to in the first statement. http://www.can2k.com (quote from) of 200,000 COBOL programmers should be added to the existing pool (Under the assumption that 1999 would be used, for fire-fighting measures). Going by the Gartner estimates, the total cost to correct the entire COBOL code would be US $48-65 billion. All these only for COBOL. Add Assembler, PL/I, Pick, ... Thomas: Once again I see these astronomical projections for people and money and yet I cannot find one goddam ad for a Y2K personnel. Is this the biggest hoax since the tulip scandal in Holland or are we all in total denial and the Emperor really has no clothes on. I worry more about Western Civilization, the more I try and pin this problem down. Help me Please! -Original Message- From: Sam Lanfranco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: February 12, 1999 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists >Since a Canadian (Thomas Lunde), having taken a preliminary look at >Canada, has asked: where are all the workers and where is all the >training, to deal with Y2K testing and correction?, it is only >fitting for another Canadian to answer. > >I will not comment on the magnitude of the problem, the extent of >the hype, the level of awarness, or the overall adequacy of trained >personnel. I will comment on the supply side. First, the market for >such talent is not found in the newspapers - it is (no surprise) >found on the internet. Makes sense. > >Second, there is lots going on. Enough? hard to say. In Canada, for >insights into y2k approaches, and for insights, the rapid training >of front line testing skills, small scale correction skills, etc. >see: > >http://www.can2k.com >http://www.strategis.ic.gc.ca >http://www.info2000.gc.ca/Welcome/Welcome.asp >http://www.itaa.org >http://www.year2000.com > >and for a partnership between Canada and the U.S. state of >Pennsylvania >see: > >http://state.pa.us/Technology_Initiatives/year2000/ > >The Canadian Year2000 Workbook is available (in Canada) in English >and in French. > >What is missing here is the political will (elsewhere) for a lot >more strategic partnerships built on what has already been done in >Canada and done between Canada and Pennsylvania. > >The doing isn't difficult. The deciding is. > >Sam Lanfranco >Bellanet, Distributed Knowledge and York University > > > >
Fw: Krugman and the Austrians (round two)
I'm sending this again. Not sure it made it to the list first time. If it did, please ignore. Ed Weick From time to time, some members of this list have voiced a grievance against Paul Krugman, theMIT economist because he has appeared to dismiss "the Austrians", proponents of one of the lastgreat schools of classical economics. I've argued that, no, he doesn't really dismiss them. Whatthey say is of no interest to him. I was wrong. He dismisses them. More than that: in an articlein the January-February issue of Foreign Affairs entitled "The Return of Depression Economics",he argues that they are wrong and have virtually nothing useful to say to the present day world. What Krugman is calling wrong-headed is the belief that the business cycle can be self-correctingif it is largely left alone. The Austrian theory of the business cycle holds that boom is inevitablyfollowed by bust and bust by boom. These oscillations need not be wide, but wide enough toclear out bad investments during busts and reward sound investment during booms. The invisiblehand is at work. During booms, productive factors become increasingly scarce and prices rise tolevels which marginal firms find unaffordable. They fail, freeing up productive resources andcausing prices to fall. At some point, prices will again be low enough to permit reinvestment andthe economy will begin to grow. Supply will have created its own demand, and the system moveson. The proper role of government in all of this is minimum interference. If government has anyrole at all, it is to help the system to self-correct by, for example, cleaning out the dead wood andcorruption in the banking system and combating rigidities in capital and labour markets -- inother words, by ensuring that the system keeps moving toward competition and efficiency. To Krugman, what is wrong-headed about this, is not that it is all wrong -- in the long run theeconomy may very well work that way -- but that it is wrongly applied to policy. In his essay, herepeatedly refers to the pre-Keynesian early thirties, when European countries, having recentlyexperienced hyperinflation, applied extremely parsimonious policies to emerging financial crises. He argues that essentially the same types of policies are being applied today, and that they are aswrong now as they were then. Though there are now signs that the IMF is reconsidering its approach, a parsimonious approachto policy has been central to all of its bailouts. The IMF has argued that recovery must be basedon making capital and labour markets more efficient. What it has not recognized, according toKrugman, is that it is essentially applying long run solutions to economic problems that areessentially short run. Its policies have encouraged restraint when expenditures are needed, andhave catapulted already bad situations into worsening ones. The policy instruments by which the IMF's prescriptions have been applied have involved a mix ofbudgetary restraint, higher interest rates and rising taxes, all designed to wring excess out offailing economies and make countries able to honour their foreign indebtedness and resistspeculative attacks on their currencies. The disease must be cured by the application of leeches tosuck out the blood and by hot baths to shrink the fat. Pointing out that such policies will result in falling effective demand, disinvestment and a fall inpersonal consumption, hence large-scale unemployment and falling income, Krugman argues forthe opposite approach. Spend. Lower interest rates. Get the economy moving. Restoreconsumer confidence. Get people feeling good about working and earning. If they feel good, theywill buy and invest. Accept that this will be inflationary, and live with it. Krugman recognizes thatthis approach will make it difficult for a country to maintain a fixed exchange rate. If it has to letthe value of its currency fall, as most recently Brazil has done, repayment of foreign debt maybecome difficult or impossible. Depending on how bad the situation is, it may require theimposition of exchange controls or other drastic measures to keep capital from fleeing. Butwhatever pain will result should not last. The prescription is essentially short run get thingsmoving and worry about how to keep them moving later. Krugman does not consider the possibility that the pain may not stop. Here he is as vulnerable asthe Austrians. What happens beyond the short run? Another short run, and then another? Whatis not recognized (though I'm sure Krugman sees it) is that a lot of dross is carried from one shortrun to the next. Eventually, all of this dross becomes the long run, and limits what short runaction may be possible. Here the Austrian's prescription of making certain that the house is keptin order appears more appropriate. One can dismiss their notions about self-correction, but onemust
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
Guess what, science was also done by h u m a n s and at least as long ago as god. The human brain evolved to make patterns, to generalise, to abstract, to imagine, etc, as planning/picturing for the future proved to be an asset. When there was not enough data, god and superstition filled the gaps. When science, education and openness retreat, when there is uncertainty and insecurity, not to mention unexplicable-seeming poverty, god again returns in the guise of new-agism and fundamentalism to fill the reoccuring gaps of ignorance. In the US a large percent of scientists claim to be religious. Scientists are exactly like other humans, reflecting their physical and social environment, and given the right conditions, doing the human- defining act TOGETHER: changing both for the better, using the communication, cooperation and imagination that also evolved exactly for the execution of this very task. We are not ** common heard animals with some higher evolved race of scientists, Jay, wake up from this irrational nightmare of yours. Yes there are lots of horror instances when we behave like animals, when - by definition - wel o s e our humanity. It is not a normal state! And if you build a future environment that expect people to behave like animals - they will. I - and I hope most futureworkers - want a future fit for humans. And yes, we need a picture of this future for our mental well-being, that doesn't mean it is an illusion, it means a rational and practical plan to work towards a yes, ideal and optimal human existence (and most of us have a nonsurprisingly similar picture) - even when we know, that we can only do an approximation - but that is far more preferable than an insane, unplanned and inhuman present that leads nowhere.. Eva "... s mint rajta a rak, egy szorny-allam iszonyata rag." Jozsef, Attila >.. No matter what the issue -- from > democracy to nuclear power -- it works great when abstracted from the > real world. > > People evolved to believe in illusions -- not to discover real world: > > "The human mind evolved to believe in gods... Acceptance of the supernatural > conveyed a great advantage throughout prehistory, when the brain was > evolving. Thus it is in sharp contrast to [science] which was developed as a > product of the modern age and is not underwritten by genetic algorithms." > The Biological Basis of Morality, E.O. Wilson > http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/bio2.htm > > The idea that the common herd animal can solve problems in complex > systems, is the biggest illusion of all. > > Jay -- www.dieoff.com > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
Eva: I very much agree with what you've written. In any generation, knowledge can only extend so far. Beyond that there is uncertainty and speculation and, yes, the invention of gods. Religion is a way of organizing uncertainty, and it can vary from the loony to the profound. Keep up the good fight. Ed Weick Eva Durant: Guess what, science was also done by h u m a n s and at least as long ago as god. The human brain evolved to make patterns, to generalise, to abstract, to imagine, etc, as planning/picturing for the future proved to be an asset. When there was not enough data, god and superstition filled the gaps. When science, education and openness retreat, when there is uncertainty and insecurity, not to mention unexplicable-seeming poverty, god again returns in the guise of new-agism and fundamentalism to fill the reoccuring gaps of ignorance. In the US a large percent of scientists claim to be religious. Scientists are exactly like other humans, reflecting their physical and social environment, and given the right conditions, doing the human- defining act TOGETHER: changing both for the better, using the communication, cooperation and imagination that also evolved exactly for the execution of this very task. We are not ** common heard animals with some higher evolved race of scientists, Jay, wake up from this irrational nightmare of yours. Yes there are lots of horror instances when we behave like animals, when - by definition - wel o s e our humanity. It is not a normal state! And if you build a future environment that expect people to behave like animals - they will. I - and I hope most futureworkers - want a future fit for humans. And yes, we need a picture of this future for our mental well-being, that doesn't mean it is an illusion, it means a rational and practical plan to work towards a yes, ideal and optimal human existence (and most of us have a nonsurprisingly similar picture) - even when we know, that we can only do an approximation - but that is far more preferable than an insane, unplanned and inhuman present that leads nowhere.. Eva "... s mint rajta a rak, egy szorny-allam iszonyata rag." Jozsef, Attila >.. No matter what the issue -- from > democracy to nuclear power -- it works great when abstracted from the > real world. > > People evolved to believe in illusions -- not to discover real world: > > "The human mind evolved to believe in gods... Acceptance of the supernatural > conveyed a great advantage throughout prehistory, when the brain was > evolving. Thus it is in sharp contrast to [science] which was developed as a > product of the modern age and is not underwritten by genetic algorithms." > The Biological Basis of Morality, E.O. Wilson > http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/bio2.htm > > The idea that the common herd animal can solve problems in complex > systems, is the biggest illusion of all. > > Jay -- www.dieoff.com > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
