internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
Re: [internetworkers] loyalty [was: Sure is quiet, innit?]
- From: "Greg Brown" <gwbrown1 AT gmail.com>
- To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [internetworkers] loyalty [was: Sure is quiet, innit?]
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 12:26:34 -0500
Moreover I think the problems facing the entire IT industry are the same: the same work can and will be completed by people working remotely for less money and, arguably, equal quality. VPN technology, as well as high speed Internet and cheap, fast WAN links translate into a scenario where anyone, nearly anywhere on the planet being able to administer any system regardless of proximity or geography. People still have to be around to replace hardware or hit the power button when something locks up but that kind of employee could be a non-technical person making 1/4 what a qualified, US based IT person is making, perhaps less.
Personally, I find the future outlook at big, Fortune 500 companies to be rather bleak, unless that company is in the business of IT to begin with or has a specific product to support. I'm heading back to school, I figure that can't hurt anything. I'd like to go back to school full-time and learn something totally different, like law for example, but that scenario just isn't practical with two mortgages. Anyone want to buy a beach condo? Lol.. forget it! You can't have it. That's my slice of paradise.
Ugh.. let me turn off the vent machine for a bit.
Greg
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:08 PM, David Matusiak <dave AT matusiak.org> wrote:
On Mar 6, 2008, at 7:01 AM, Greg Brown wrote:Don't think for a second that things are any better in the university
> I think as long as there is a "new market" jobs can be shipped to
> (India, etc.), companies will continue to treat their workers like
> dirt.
>
> Smart companies treat their people right. I've not run into very many
> smart companies.
>
> --[Lance]
>
> Well, I think that is true for public companies especially. The
> company exists because of and for the shareholders, not the
> employees. It sucks, it really does, but that is the way business
> is run. If a public company doesn't gain every market advantage
> over it's competitors the bottom line will suffer, the shareholders
> will get angry and the board will be voted out in favor of a board
> that will send jobs overseas, etc.
sector. (Maybe if you are a tenured professor, but there are 1,000+
other wage slaves who don't get that royal treatment.) From Greg's
paragraph above, just replace 'shareholders' with 'students' and
'market advantage' with 'whatever the students and their parents are
bitching about' and you have the exact same scenario.
---
Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site! http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
To unsubscribe visit http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
-
Re: [internetworkers] Sure is quiet, innit?
, (continued)
-
Re: [internetworkers] Sure is quiet, innit?,
Thomas Beckett, 03/04/2008
-
Re: [internetworkers] Sure is quiet, innit?,
Lyman Green, 03/05/2008
- Re: [internetworkers] Sure is quiet, innit?, Tarus Balog, 03/05/2008
-
Re: [internetworkers] Sure is quiet, innit?,
Lance A. Brown, 03/05/2008
- [internetworkers] loyalty [was: Sure is quiet, innit?], Phillip Rhodes, 03/05/2008
- Re: [internetworkers] loyalty, Gregory S. Hopper, 03/05/2008
- Re: [internetworkers] loyalty, Lyman Green, 03/05/2008
- Re: [internetworkers] loyalty [was: Sure is quiet, innit?], Lance A. Brown, 03/05/2008
- Re: [internetworkers] loyalty [was: Sure is quiet, innit?], Greg Brown, 03/06/2008
- Re: [internetworkers] loyalty [was: Sure is quiet, innit?], David Matusiak, 03/06/2008
- Re: [internetworkers] loyalty [was: Sure is quiet, innit?], Greg Brown, 03/06/2008
- Re: [internetworkers] loyalty [was: Sure is quiet, innit?], Cristóbal Palmer, 03/06/2008
- Re: [internetworkers] loyalty [was: Sure is quiet, innit?], Phillip Rhodes, 03/06/2008
-
Re: [internetworkers] Sure is quiet, innit?,
Lyman Green, 03/05/2008
-
Re: [internetworkers] Sure is quiet, innit?,
Thomas Beckett, 03/04/2008
- Re: [internetworkers] loyalty [was: Sure is quiet, innit?], Phillip Rhodes, 03/06/2008
- Re: [internetworkers] loyalty [was: Sure is quiet, innit?], Michael Czeiszperger, 03/06/2008
-
Re: [internetworkers] Sure is quiet, innit?,
Tarus Balog, 03/05/2008
- [internetworkers] Stephenson [was: Sure is quiet, innit?], Phillip Rhodes, 03/05/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.