So...

[Guest.Visitor]

So...

91362 "Chris Ringer" wrote in message news:6ae9f4ef.14@WebX.WawyahGHajS... > Chuck, > > Perhaps Glen could move his family to your area of the country. What's a modest 3 bedroom house cost there in 2004? Or just give me your zip code and I can find out myself. Thanks. > > Chris > > PS: I'm 41.

[GlenKerner]

So...

Chuck, I was relocated to this area when I excepted a position while out of work (company outsource all of IT). When you are out of work, you cannot be that choosey. Second, the area was supposed to be growing and does have a lot of businesses running iSeries, the problem is that it is all being OUTSOURCED. This is a fact you can't find when researching an area. As for the area itself, yes it is desireable. It is one of the safest places I've lived and perfect to raise a family in. Yes there are trade offs, but I specifically was talking in general. There are more and more companies that are moving to smaller towns to save money. Leasing or buying property is cheaper, taxes are cheaper, and even the cost of living is lower. I grew up in a small town in Connecticut were the headquarters for GE, Marlin Rockwell, and several other aerospace companies were. Right next door (next town) had Stanley. The cost of living between the two towns was like night and day. You can't always know what the companies in the area you relocate to will do or are doing. Even when I lived in LA, finding a job was extremely difficult. I know IT professionals that were (and still are) out of work for almost a year. In their case it is not a matter of skills it is a matter of supply and demand (too much supply not enough demand). I don't think I live in a "high risk" area because any area in the country is a "high risk" area for IT professionals. Chuck, I know your comments are your opinion and I know that you try to think before you type. But in this case I think you are basing things only on your career and life path and not what is truely happening around you. I work in the trenches (by choice) and you work in the Ivory Tower. Maybe you need to visit the trenches occasionally, just like I visit the Ivory Tower occasionally simply to keep perspective.

[Guest.Visitor]

So...

Glen, First let me say that the "high risk" I mentioned was not based upon safety or crime rate, only IT jobs. You said that there were only two companies in your area that had iSeries jobs. One outsourced everything and the other one wasn't hiring. That appears to be a high risk location to move to from a career standpoint. Certainly that could have been known in advance. Second, I discuss things based upon my experience. We all do, that's the only thing we know. Yes, these are relatively slow times for iSeries professionals but according to my favorite head hunter the market is getting hot in our area. I know a lot of iSeries professionals personally and there are none in my circle that are currently unemployed. The only unemployed ones I've found are on this forum. In my "ivory tower" I've found myself unemployed twice in the last 6 years. I know what it's like to have a mortgage, 3 kids at home and not have work. I know the humiliation of working hard at finding a job and feeling that it could take a long time to find a new job. And, believe me, there are 10 times as many programmer openings as top IT management positions. Add to that turnover at top IT positions occurs less often and you'll see that my window of opportunity is much smaller. But I didn't complain to others that the government should step in and work on my behalf. I didn't complain to anyone how tough it was. I just went out and found a new job, where ever it may be, and at a pay cut. But I had the foresight to prepare for these inevitable moments. I chocked away money. I invested in the right house in the right neighborhood so that, if worse came to worst, I could sell and cash out. None of these thoughts are pleasant, but it's better to think of the unpleasant in advance and prepare for it. Don't get me wrong, there are circumstances sometimes beyond our control as Glen has pointed out. But preparing to be unemployed is something that IS within our control. Those that don't plan and then want to point fingers to others when it happens just get my ire up. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "Glen Kerner" wrote in message news:6ae9f4ef.16@WebX.WawyahGHajS... > Chuck, > > I was relocated to this area when I excepted a position while out of work (company outsource all of IT). When you are out of work, you cannot be that choosey. Second, the area was supposed to be growing and does have a lot of businesses running iSeries, the problem is that it is all being OUTSOURCED. This is a fact you can't find when researching an area. As for the area itself, yes it is desireable. It is one of the safest places I've lived and perfect to raise a family in. > > Yes there are trade offs, but I specifically was talking in general. There are more and more companies that are moving to smaller towns to save money. Leasing or buying property is cheaper, taxes are cheaper, and even the cost of living is lower. > > I grew up in a small town in Connecticut were the headquarters for GE, Marlin Rockwell, and several other aerospace companies were. Right next door (next town) had Stanley. The cost of living between the two towns was like night and day. You can't always know what the companies in the area you relocate to will do or are doing. Even when I lived in LA, finding a job was extremely difficult. I know IT professionals that were (and still are) out of work for almost a year. In their case it is not a matter of skills it is a matter of supply and demand (too much supply not enough demand). > > I don't think I live in a "high risk" area because any area in the country is a "high risk" area for IT professionals. > > Chuck, I know your comments are your opinion and I know that you try to think before you type. But in this case I think you are basing things only on your career and life path and not what is truely happening around you. I work in the trenches (by choice) and you work in the Ivory Tower. Maybe you need to visit the trenches occasionally, just like I visit the Ivory Tower occasionally simply to keep perspective.

[B_Sing]

So...

I haven't read the report yet, but I thought I'd pass this along... http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs...es/001153.html "The American Electronics Assn., which bills itself as the nation's largest high-tech trade group, releases a report asserting that offshore outsourcing is likely to benefit the US, the economy and individuals in the long run." Direct link to report... http://www.aeanet.org/publications/I...utsourcing.asp

[J.Pluta]

So...

"More than 20 states are currently or have been considering legislation to prohibit companies from outsourcing. AeA is actively working to stop these bills and to promote policies that address the long-term competitiveness of the high-tech industry." Yet, in their own website, they show that, for example, Illinois lost over 7% of its high-tch workforce in 2001-2002: http://www.aeanet.org/pressroom/idmk...3_illinois.asp 'nuff said? Joe

[B_Sing]

So...

Does that mean you think the report is BS? Or did you not read it? If you didn't read the report, I hope you get some time to read it. I took some time to do so, and they are indeed a corporate mouthpiece, which they acknowledge on the first page. And, as you know, companies create jobs and keep the economy going. So we might want to pay attention to what they say, since we all have a vested interest in our mutual success. If you read the report, you'll find that they illustrate how they think that protectionist policies will harm the US's world-class competitiveness, and they're specifically worried that it will harm the high tech industry (that us) through "predictable retaliation". I think they've done a lot of research and have some very good points. In the report, they suggest that "offshore outsourcing is the least important variable in the decline of high-tech jobs. The decline of the world's economy, the end of the high-tech bubble, and dramatically improving productivity rates are the largest factors." And they back it with data. According to the report, in the timeframe you pulled out of context from a press release, Electronics Manufacturing accounted for the most significant loss of jobs - twice as many as software. And "The 20 largest world economies all experienced a loss of manufacturing jobs". However, the percentage decline in US high-tech jobs was the lowest of the 6 major nations they show. So just saying that we lost jobs means nothing. Many big, developed countries did. Global competition is getting fierce, and we need to really fight to remain competitive. I like their list of recommendations: retraining displaced workers, making permanent the R&D tax credits for research done here, getting more Master's and Ph.D peoples here, fixing up our lagging K-12 education system, and keeping our universities top notch. Sounds like a good start to me. Brian

[Guest.Visitor]

So...

B_Sing said: "If you read the report, you'll find that they illustrate how they think that protectionist policies will harm the US's world-class competitiveness" I'd have to say that I agree with this assesment. When it comes to jobs and professions our country is, and always has been, in a state of "destruction and creation." We constantly evolve destroying jobs that become commodities (i.e. garment industry, television assembly line, etc.) and creating new jobs that take their place (i.e. microprocessor chip design, web design, network administrator, etc.) Using protectionism to protect the desctruction of jobs in which we are no longer competitive only insures that our products and services won't be competitive. For example, if we tried to prop up the garment industry by creating tarrifs or making it illegal to sell clothes made overseas, it would only artificially inflate the price of garments to American consumers. And garments made domestically wouldn't be competitive anywhere else. I do not like legislation used spefically to prop up something that will eventually erode. It's a slippery slope that's hard to stop. What's next? Shall we protect the American auto worker by making it illegal to sell any car that isn't assembled in America? How about agriculture? Should it be illegal to purchase fruit or vegatables grown outside the U.S.? Any laws that try to prop up an American industry also invites retaliatory regulation by other countries. That is another slippery slope that will only take dollars out of your pocket and mine. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

[GlenKerner]

So...

I must appologize for not reading the entire article but I read most of it. The language and attitude of the article comes across, to me, as pro-offshore outsourcing. It does say that there is no data currently showing what effect outsourcing has on the loss of jobs, but tries to use the world economy to justify people loosing there jobs. The information they seem to use comes from the corporate level and what statistics they can find from the government. I don't see corporations saying "we outsourced a portion of IT reducing our cost by X amount of dollars, but we also laid of 15 employees". The one thing I know about statistics. The are not set and concrete. Two people can use the same statistics and come up with two different conclusions. It depends on perspective and what point you are trying to make.

[J.Pluta]

So...

"Does that mean you think the report is BS?" Yup. "I took some time to do so, and they are indeed a corporate mouthpiece, which they acknowledge on the first page. And, as you know, companies create jobs and keep the economy going." Huh? Multinational corporations don't give a damn about the worker or the economy. If companies could make money without hiring ANYONE, they would. And if outsourcing everything allows these corporations to replace the Aemrican consumer with the Indian consumer, they'll do it in an instant. "So we might want to pay attention to what they say, since we all have a vested interest in our mutual success." I have no, zero, zilch interest in a multinational corporation putting American workers out of work by hiring offshore replacements. "I think they've done a lot of research and have some very good points." I think their research is biased, their points weak and unsustainable and their logic for the most part circular. The conclusions drawn simply are not borne out by the facts. For example, they point to the loss of 234,000 jobs in 2001-2002 as a sign that "the hemorrhage may be lessening". It may not be as bad as the loss of 500,000+ jobs after the Y2K/dot-com bubble burst, but anybody who points to a net loss of 234,000 high-tech jobs as a good sign is a blithering idiot. "According to the report, in the timeframe you pulled out of context from a press release, Electronics Manufacturing accounted for the most significant loss of jobs - twice as many as software." Dude, I didn't pull anything out of context. You want context? Try this: Analysts expected 148,000 new jobs in December. There were 8,000. Analysts expected 150,000 new jobs in January. There were 97,000. Analysts expected 128,000 new jobs in February. There were 21,000. These numbers were based on the earnings reports of companies. And even though the expected numbers were far lower than what we need for a sustainable recovery, we didn't even come close to those numbers. The economists' models are breaking down because multinationals are no longer putting their savings back into the American economy. That's why we can have record earnings, and yet have suffered the worst four-year period in jobs growth since 1956. The truth is out there, if you actually do your own research and exercise a little bit of common sense. "Global competition is getting fierce, and we need to really fight to remain competitive. I like their list of recommendations: retraining displaced workers, making permanent the R&D tax credits for research done here, getting more Master's and Ph.D peoples here, fixing up our lagging K-12 education system, and keeping our universities top notch." America is being sold to the lowest bidder. Jobs are being thrown overseas at a rate unprecedented in human history. I'll be publishing some more numbers in an upcoming article - the truth is that companies are using their offshoring savings to pad their bottom line and pay off shareholders and officers. No jobs are being created, no economical stimulus is reaching the middle class. You can quote 20 papers like this, Brian, and I'll point you to the REAL source, the US DOL. But don't take somebody's skewed analysis - take the time to do the research yourself, like I did. A little respect, please. I DID my homework. Joe

[B_Sing]

So...

Hey Joe, Thanks for the reply. First off, let me say that I have the utmost respect for your positions and thoughtfulness. I was, however, a bit surprised at how dismissive the previous post was.

Multinational corporations don't give a damn about the worker or the economy.

That’s the beauty of capitalism – what you say is true, and yet it still benefits everyone better than any other system created, at least in terms of material stuff. I just don’t think you can legislate “caring”, so we’ve got to compete.

if outsourcing everything allows these corporations to replace the Aemrican consumer with the Indian consumer, they'll do it in an instant.

They will, especially if it’s cheaper and better to do business in other countries altogether due to protectionist laws. Why not just move the whole company there, if America has protectionist laws that make American products so expensive and subject to retaliatory trade barriers. If that happens, the US companies and workers that survive will be in our own inefficient little market and the rest of the world will pass us by.

It may not be as bad as the loss of 500,000+ jobs after the Y2K/dot-com bubble burst, but anybody who points to a net loss of 234,000 high-tech jobs as a good sign is a blithering idiot.

Do you think the authors of the report thought it was a “good sign”, or just less of a bad one, and perhaps an indication of change? You used that as an example of a weak point of the report, but there were certainly other very strong points. Did you find any others weak? What were they?

Analysts expected 148,000 new jobs in December. There were 8,000. Analysts expected 150,000 new jobs in January. There were 97,000. Analysts expected 128,000 new jobs in February. There were 21,000.

Yet there was net job creation, not loss. Be carefully with that word “expected”, because it means nothing in real terms. Your illustration does not negate the report’s contention that jobs were lost to other factors besides offshoring. What about the continual increases in productivity provided by technology in general, like the example of the automated checkout stations I mentioned previously?

You can quote 20 papers like this, Brian, and I'll point you to the REAL source, the US DOL.

Is the U.S. Department of Labor different than the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics? Because they and other recognizable sources were cited extensively in that report. I’d be curious to know the difference between the two agencies, if there is a difference, and why one is better than the other. Companies have demonstrated since the beginning of the industrial revolution that they’d replace workers with machines any time it’s more efficient. That same thing extends to cheaper labor. To say any different is to deny reality. Soon enough, the cheap labor will be replaced by machines anyway. Then what? We (through our industries and the politicians we elect) have been beating the drum of free trade for years now. It would be a tragedy to march backwards into protectionism just because swallowing our own medicine gets a little tough. Offshoring is easy to blame for the job losses, but the reality is that there is much more to it than that, and I share the opinion that protectionism will lead to even more job losses. I also recognize that it is rare for people to change one another’s viewpoint through straight argument, and I’ve made my points here and in numerous other posts, so I’ve got to let it stand at that. At least for now. :-) Brian P.S. I thought this was interesting. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/id/17606.htm

[J.Pluta]

So...

"Did you find any others weak? What were they?" Brian, I'm not going to spend my time critiquing an obviously flawed report. You want to believe the report, fine, I was just showing that it took almost no time to find inconsistencies. "Me: Analysts expected 148,000 new jobs in December. There were 8,000. Analysts expected 150,000 new jobs in January. There were 97,000. Analysts expected 128,000 new jobs in February. There were 21,000." "You: Yet there was net job creation, not loss. Be carefully with that word “expected”, because it means nothing in real terms. Your illustration does not negate the report’s contention that jobs were lost to other factors besides offshoring. What about the continual increases in productivity provided by technology in general, like the example of the automated checkout stations I mentioned previously?" Brian, you're missing the point. You're brainwashed by the media. There have been continuous "increases in productivity" since the 50's. And yet jobs have been added at a much higher rate than are being added now. In the period from 1996-2000, over eleven million jobs were added - that's nearly a quarter million a month. In the last four years, we've barely seen two million jobs added. That's not enough to sustain the population growth, much less an economic recovery. Economists say we need close to 300,000 jobs per month added to sustain recovery. We're not even close. No matter how you spin it, Brian, this economy is devastating. The numbers prove it, as does the empirical evidence of simply talking to your friends and coworkers. Do you know ANYONE who is saying this is a robust economy? Use your common sense, exercise critical thinking, recognize when you're being sold a bill of goods. Joe

[A.Garrison]

So...

I have read the comments in this thread with interest and thought I might throw in the situation as I see it here in Memphis. We have a sizeable iseries presence here, but there are also lots of unix and microsoft shops around. The dotcom companies that started up in the 90's (two of which I worked for) have almost totally gone. I only know of a couple remaining, and they are mostly 3 or 4 person shops handling the accounts left by the fallen dotcoms in the area. Several of the big corps here are either laying off or have almost permanent hiring freezes. International Paper, Autozone, and my own employer (who shall remain unnamed) are doing well to hold onto the employees they have. FedEx went through some big layoffs late last year, however, that seems to have settled down as well. My employer is increasing our IT project workload and holding steady on our staffing. Instead of increasing staffing, we are increasing our outsourcing. Are all of our contractors from India? No, probably 8 out of 10 are from India. The rest are US citizens from several smallish firms around the US. Are jobs to be found here? Yes, but they dont just fall into your lap like they used to. There was a time when headhunters called monthly to ask how I was doing, was I happy, did I know of anyone who could fill this particular job (wink,wink)... I get these kinds of calls maybe once every quarter now (probably 4 in all of last year). I see continued strong job market from smaller companies that either dont want to outsource or havent found a profitable way to do so. Several people from my current employer, for example, have recently left to take positions in smaller companies that offered them more personal growth (not necessarily more money). Thomas Stockwell's recent articles advocating focusing on more than the technical skills have caused me to rethink my own situation. However, in the final analysis I just dont see making that change. For me, I am in IT because of the technical aspects of the job. I am in it precisely to have the new toys, to play with the latest software, to learn the latest buzzwords. I get tremendous satisfaction when Eclipse successfully builds my Java code and I see it running without modification on both the iseries and pseries. The job is not just a job. Heck, for the equivalent effort there are lots of other professions to make more money. Money is necessary, like air and water. But beyond some basic amount to live comfortably, it doesnt act as a motivator for me. I really hesitated posting this because I dont want to be insensitive to those out of work currently. I do understand how stressfull that is, and I am not saying I have all the answers or some magic bullet. On the other hand, I am not willing to concede the technical jobs to overseas programmers. I like my tech job and if some overseas outsourcer wants it, they will have to pry it from my kung-fu death grip. If they do, I will find a IT job somewhere else paying a lower salary and adjust my lifestyle yet again. For me personally, I have found that I can get a job somewhere if I am flexible on the salary and willing to move anywhere. My experience is much more like Chuck's. I dont see anyone I know personally that cant find a job in IT. I do know some that are working on db2 payroll support, for example, when they would rather do something else; or are working support when they would rather be in development. I am rambling a bit, so I appolgize to those who had the patience to read this whole post.

[GlenKerner]

So...

Joe, Thank you for doing the research. I would have but don't have the foggiest of where to start. Respect given.

[J.Pluta]

So...

"For me personally, I have found that I can get a job somewhere if I am flexible on the salary and willing to move anywhere. My experience is much more like Chuck's. I dont see anyone I know personally that cant find a job in IT." Sure, you can get a job if you're willing to work anywhere for anything. Most people with families don't have that flexibility. And as to not knowing anybody who can't find a job, this may sound a bit mean, but how many people do you know? My guess is that nearly every reader of this forum can identify at least one person who is unemployed right now. Throw in people who have left the profession because they couldn't find work, people who are working in positions far below their abilities, and people who are living through multiple rounds of layoffs waiting for their jobs to be next. If you know nobody who fits any of those descriptions, then I have to believe that either you live in a special time-space vortex where IT didn't get hit, or you just don't talk to a lot of people. I don't mean to be mean, Alex, but I know lots of people right now looking for work and most people I know say the same. Your position is very much the minority as you can see from just reading this thread. Joe

[A.Garrison]

So...

"I dont mean to be mean, Alex..." I dont take it as mean-spirited at all. I do see that my experience is just not in line with some posters on this forum. That's the reason I decided to post at all. I just am not seeing this level of problem here in my area. As to how many people I know and so forth, I know most of the active programmers in Memphis who are involved with the iseries. I also am in regular contact with the headhunters around here since I have been in this area for many years. All I can say is what I see, and I dont personally know any programmers who are out of work in my area at this time (including my coworkers from the several dotcoms). I do indeed know some people who are working in IT below their abilities (believe I alluded to that in my other post). However they are still in IT. They have a chance to figure out what tech skills are in demand and move in that direction. They do NOT have to abandon IT or show they have other skills outside the technical arena. You probably do meet alot more peeps than I do, but a hermit I am not. I do understand that you and other posters are seeing something completely different. Hence my interest in this thread. Thought perhaps you might want to know that not everyone is seeing what you are seeing in the marketplace. Alex