Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Almighty Buck United States

Technology Spending On The Rise 355

Posted by timothy from the raise-you-a-dollar dept.
securitas writes "After the technology industry's so-called nuclear winter that has resulted in thousands of lost jobs over the last three years, the New York Times' Steve Lohr reports that technology spending is finally increasing (Google / mirror). Much of the investment in hardware and software is spurred by the natural corporate replacement cycle, but the positive change offers a glimmer of hope for techies everywhere. IBM CEO Sam Palmisano says that IBM plans 'to add 10,000 workers in fields of emerging demand over the next year.' Based on IBM's current Linux advertising campaign and market projections, this will probably mean hiring staff who are knowledgeable about Linux and open source software. Is this just a blip as some analysts believe, or is it the beginnings of a resurgence for the technology sector?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Technology Spending On The Rise More

Technology Spending On The Rise

Comments Filter:

  • Merrill Lynch (Score:5, Interesting)

    by prostoalex ( 308614 ) * on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:11PM (#7374912) Homepage Journal
    Merrill Lynch said that Q2 2003 spending was as good as it gets [com.com].

    ...IT spending improvement is unlikely before the second half of 2004, if not 2005...

    • Re:Merrill Lynch (Score:4, Insightful)

      by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @11:48PM (#7375329)
      Merril Lynch was doing a survey of large (i.e. stagnant dinosaur) company CIOs. Their ability to predict the future has been wrong for the entire history of the IT industry, and has been proven wrong in this specific case for the simple reason that government figures are reporting exactly the opposite of thier consensus.

      • Large companies account for a huge number of jobs. Yes, small companies are numerous but large companies are where the jobs are. If corporate CIOs say things aren't good, then I don't see things improving :(

        Sivaram Velauthapillai

        • Re:Merrill Lynch (Score:4, Interesting)

          by yog ( 19073 ) on Monday November 03, 2003 @10:11AM (#7377163) Homepage Journal
          Small companies employ over 60% of all employees in the U.S. (possibly more in Europe). Even more importantly, small companies are responsible for most job growth, at least in the U.S., where typically, small businesses account for 50% to 75% of job creation in the U.S. (see U.S. Small Business Administration [sba.gov] for details).

          Big company CIOs may say what they like, but it's typical during a recession for lots of new companies to take root and spring up and become the great companies of the next boomtime (1980 Microsoft, Intel; 1990 Cisco, for example). Being thrown out of work by job displacement or bankruptcy is traumatic and painful but also causes a reevaluative process that stirs the creative juices. It's a scenario that's been repeated many times in the U.S.

          I would take what CIOs say with a grain of salt; we will see another era of economic expansion and job growth in areas that most of us don't currently imagine. As usual it will be the few lucky and/or visionary folks who forge the path; certainly it won't be the stuffy, overpayed technocrats of the old guard.

  • Indeed, I see the same thing starting to happen... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Distan ( 122159 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:13PM (#7374919)
    After over a year out of work I managed to snag a job a few months ago with a good company. What I see starting to happen is some strengthening of the hardware market. Since most Slashdotters are software people, I don't know how far that will lag hardware. But it is certain that once people start upgrading their old boxes, sooner or later they will need new applications to run on them.
    • But it is certain that once people start upgrading their old boxes, sooner or later they will need new applications to run on them.

      Why?

      KFG

      • Re:Indeed, I see the same thing starting to happen (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Distan ( 122159 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:40PM (#7375052)
        Unless you propose the historical cycle is broken, that is what always happens. Put differently, people purchase boxes with new capabilities or more processing power, and they usually want new applications to take advantage of those features. People buying new boxes to run their old applications faster does occur sometimes, but isn't the historical norm.

        • Re:Indeed, I see the same thing starting to happen (Score:5, Interesting)

          by kfg ( 145172 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @11:06PM (#7375169)
          . . . people purchase boxes with new capabilities or more processing power, and they usually want new applications to take advantage of those features.

          Why?

          People buying new boxes to run their old applications faster does occur sometimes, but isn't the historical norm.

          Why?

          I have not proposed anything. It is not unreasonable, however, to question both historical norms and historical behaviours and assuming historical norms might well get one into trouble.

          So, since we're having a bit of trouble over low level questions let me aim one slightly higher above the horizon.

          What feature of the new systems (other than speed) do you see as opening support for new apps that answer some need of business?

          One can also ask ( and bear in mind that this is a different question) what app do you see business perceiving some need for that the new machines allow that the old ones didn't?

          One thing that seems apparent to me is that one of the possible attributes of a new app over an old from the business point of view is that it takes fewer people to implement and maintain than the old one. In the context of jobs newer more powerful machines with better apps may well mean fewer jobs for people.

          This has also been the historical norm for sufficiently large quantities of "history."

          Do you propose a new historical norm?

          KFG

          • Re:Indeed, I see the same thing starting to happen (Score:5, Interesting)

            by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @11:42PM (#7375308)
            What feature of the new systems (other than speed) do you see as opening support for new apps that answer some need of business?

            Massive amounts of data storage capacity for the buck. Storage capacity growth has been increasing at greater than Moore's Law rates, and at the same time we have been accumulating 800 MB of data per every man woman and child on the face of the Earth every year. The need to manage all of this with software is a staggering business need, and will lead to lots of new software development.

            Another area in computer hardware that has been increasing at ridiculous rates is network bandwidth. This has been increasing faster than even storage capacity. The problem with taking advantage of this has been entrenched industrial concerns. Eventually, although maybe not this business cycle bandwidth growth will trigger ANOTHER software revolution where people will truly become walking network nodes. When that happens most offices will totally disappear.

            The fact is I think we haven't seen anything yet, and the Internet boom was just the first and weakest wave of what is yet to come.

            • Re:Indeed, I see the same thing starting to happen (Score:5, Insightful)

              by kfg ( 145172 ) on Monday November 03, 2003 @12:34AM (#7375491)
              Massive amounts of data storage capacity for the buck. Storage capacity growth has been increasing at greater than Moore's Law rates, and at the same time we have been accumulating 800 MB of data per every man woman and child on the face of the Earth every year. The need to manage all of this with software is a staggering business need, and will lead to lots of new software development.

              The vast majority of that data is untouched, and will remain untouched, by business. No business has any interest in storing a duplicate copy of every book on your shelf or a duplicate copy of every CD you own (on a one to one basis).

              Only a few megs per person is a business concern.That's still a lot of data.

              The technology to handle this amount of data (indeed any amount of data) is already known, although poorly implimented.That's a market issue, not a computing one. A proper implimentation would requiring the hiring of more well educated people, but fewer people overall than is now required. Business resents a dependence on education ("training" is not education. A dog may be trained. A dog can't perform analytical logic), but will resort to it, however reluctantly, when it shows significant financial advantage.

              You can always pray for more XML "technology." Yeah, that'll create a lot of jobs for awhile. Pointless and annoying jobs, but jobs nonetheless. (Type "Hello World" in Kword and save as raw XML. Count how many pages of text and files it takes. Virtually all of that text is redundant, but must be stored and "managed").

              Eventually, although maybe not this business cycle bandwidth growth will trigger ANOTHER software revolution where people will truly become walking network nodes. When that happens most offices will totally disappear.

              And in what way will this increase IT jobs? Remember the context of this discussion is IT jobs.

              It will also require a social revolution. Social revolutions happen slowly. Much of our social structure today is medieval and completely out of step with our technology, and even how we want to live, and yet it persists.

              As an example, phone tech support can now be outsourced to anywhere in the world, and yet most people doing such support must travel to an office to perform their tasks even though the technology could just as easily support their jobs from their homes.

              Most jobs aren't really about performing tasks. They are about hierarchical control. The people who wield the control like it that way. For some reason that escapes me so do the controled.

              The boss also likes his fancy office in the fancy building with the fancy receptionist. Wall Street isn't about to turn into a gathering of little cottages with English gardens within our lifetimes.

              KFG

        • Re:Indeed, I see the same thing starting to happen (Score:5, Interesting)

          by EnderWiggnz ( 39214 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @11:06PM (#7375174)
          people are about to buy less powerful boxes that are easier to manage, and show a significantly lower TCO.

          count on it.

        • You got it all wrong ... people buy new hardware after any Windows/Office release to cope with Bloat.

          Perhaps a bit tongue in cheek there, but my upgrades have usually been due to the software I already "owned" which would run annoyingly slow (once it was forced due to hardware breakdown). Heck, I got my first CD-ROM because programs stopped coming on floppies. Of course, an anecdote or two from a single person doesn't qualify as a national trend - still, I bet I'm not the only one whose upgrading is for

          • Re:Indeed, I see the same thing starting to happen (Score:5, Insightful)

            by whereiswaldo ( 459052 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @11:29PM (#7375262) Journal
            Perhaps a bit tongue in cheek there, but my upgrades have usually been due to the software I already "owned" which would run annoyingly slow ...

            Yes, I think the grandparent poster has it backwards. I buy new hardware because of software I already own. Or, in other cases, I buy new hardware because of software I would like to own. I don't go out and buy hardware and then go out and see what I can run on it. That doesn't make sense at all. I buy hardware to satisfy a need, not to create a need.
      • >>But it is certain that once people start upgrading their old boxes, sooner or later they will need new applications to run on them.

        KFG>Why?

        Because most companies run Windows. You have an engrained outsourced techs (what I do) reccomend Windows on everything because it breaks down. That equals more money for us. Also, people need the newest version of XYZ program (Office for example). To run Office 2003 on Win95 equlivalent hardware is asking for a mutiny.

        And since Linux has grown much since th
    • I notice that jobs for embedded programming close to hardware are picking up in the Toronto area. ATI even invited me to a job faire at a pub -- In Ottawa, oops! (I'll go to the one at their HQ in Markham, but I doubt there's beer. *sigh*)
    • Things are looking pretty good in Software too. Over a year ago I had to take a job in Michigan because there was nothing here in Seattle -- even though my skills are current and I have tons of experience. I worked there for a year and then came home (even though I could have stayed there). I really didn't want to spend another winter near the Great Lakes.

      In the last two weeks I have had three interviews (two in one day) and I have another interview tomorrow. I have people calling me saying things like "We

  • Well, what's the average desktop life? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gldm ( 600518 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:14PM (#7374926)
    I know there seems to be a little pickup in helpdesk and support IT around here, I think it may be related to machine lifespans. If the average company upgraded most of their desktops in 99 out of y2k paranoia, how long before they all start dying and need replacements?
    • My guess is 4-5 years. By that age, the machine will be almost too slow to do lots of stuff. Developers, such as myself, won't be very productive on old machines that take forever to run the newest software development tools.

      • Re:Well, what's the average desktop life? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        News flash:

        Computers do not get slower as they age. Just as digital clocks don't start loosing time as they age.

        Don't pointlessly upgrade your software.

        I know of a plumbing business that keeps it's customer address book, complete with driving directions and previous work histories, in text on a Commodore 64. The guy has two spares he bought at garage sales for $5 each, and said he will upgrade when he's down to one left.

        He's smarter than anyone on slashdot.
    • Y2k has nothing to do with it. Any company that had to upgrade PCs for Y2k is not the sort of company likely to be replacing PCs after only three years.

      Separately, where I work still has two of the original three PCs purchased when the company was formed. The third was water damaged beyond safe repair.

    • Re:Well, what's the average desktop life? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:32PM (#7375010) Homepage
      Well, a good chunk of sales in the last few years have been to individuals, but there is a problem here. Computers are FAST. When you're just surfing, doing e-mail, and writing in Word you don't NEED a faster computer. There is no new killer thing that many people will upgrade for (like Windows 95). The fact is, for many people, their computers are just fine and they don't need to replace it. And as computers get faster, businesses will no longer need to upgrade as often due to not needing more horsepower for using word and other such things.

      Basically, comptuers are getting too fast. Untill someone comes up with the next absolutly killer app that requires tons of horsepower, I think that we'll see computer sales and replacements stay low (except for CAD, video editing, and other horsepower intensive stuff).

      • Re:Well, what's the average desktop life? (Score:5, Funny)

        by EverDense ( 575518 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:44PM (#7375072) Homepage
        Basically, comptuers are getting too fast. Untill someone comes up with the next absolutly killer app that requires tons of horsepower, I think that we'll see computer sales and replacements stay low (except for CAD, video editing, and other horsepower intensive stuff).

        Don't worry, Longhorn is in the pipeline. Honest!
      • You're forgetting about the gamers (you know, the people whose sigs always include their CPU. motherboard and video card specs) and movie "sharing" community. Games eat up CPU, but even more than that, DVD ripping and re-encoding to SVCD or whatever is brutal.

        But you're right; for things that are worthwhile uses for a computer, almost no client-side apps make the user sit and wait for the computer to finish thinking. Nowadays power users run 10+ apps at a time, ripping and playing back MP3s, or maybe showi
    • If the average company upgraded most of their desktops in 99 out of y2k paranoia, how long before they all start dying and need replacements?

      There's an idea: Start a rumor of a 2004 date bug. If they buy the Help Nigeria email scam, they will buy this too.

  • Its coming back. Slowly. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AtariDatacenter ( 31657 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:16PM (#7374935)
    Seems to be mostly organic growth, but IT, from my perspective (outsourcing company) is making a comeback. We're actually hiring people now, which is a shock. And in numbers. Foreign workers don't seem to be too big of a problem right now because of the knowledge/service gap, and Canadians aren't taking US jobs because of the relative dollar. Things actually are looking good right now. Of course, this is one man's perspective.

  • Dang it...... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:17PM (#7374942)
    Stop spending money and give me a job you corporate bastards!

    Sorry, sorry. That's just the government cheese talking.

  • Economy on the rise? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rkabir ( 575053 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:17PM (#7374944)
    Personally, I think the last tech boom was simply all about the hype. People got excited. They blew money. We prospered :) It took the last few years for everyone to catch a breather and realize that amidst all the hype, there might actually be something in all this hype... My father (an economist in his day...) thinks that the job market by this summer will be much better than it is now... supposedly the US growth is around 7% of GDB in the *last quarter* [translation: 'off the charts'] not an expert opinion, but he predicted the bust a year ahead... Don't get your hopes up... but don't lose hope...
    • Hey do us all (or at least me) a favor the next time he says the bubble is going to pop... post an article or drop me an email letting me know so I can get out of my ESOP before the bottom falls out of it again?

      Thanks!

    • My father (an economist in his day...) thinks that the job market by this summer will be much better than it is now...

      Interesting, because my company just had its ass kicked in Q3. How do you explain that?


    • > supposedly the US growth is around 7% of GDB in the *last quarter* [translation: 'off the charts']

      I only turn half an ear to the economic news, but I'm pretty sure I heard the news follow up that report by saying consumer spending had already dropped again during September. It may still be a bit soon for chicken counting.

  • No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:18PM (#7374950) Homepage
    This is just the market in action. Companies hire folks when they need them and release them when they cant afford them anymore. Every other industry operates the same, its just new to us :) In a few short years, there will be a recession of jobs in the technology industry and the whole cycle will repeat itself

    • Not quite... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by NSash ( 711724 )
      That might be true if there was zero transaction cost to firing and hiring people.

      However, in the real world, it doesn't quite work that way, especially when you're talking about industries that require skilled workers. For one, it takes effort to seek out qualified workers, so companies will only do this if they really need more workers and they think that they will continue to do this in the future. For another, firing employees damages goodwill, so companies are rightly reluctant to do it when not n

    • the whole cycle will repeat itself

      Ever hear of something called a jobless recovery? Eventually technology will automate a lot of people out of work. Then they can either "adapt" to a new "make work" shit-job, welfare, the military, or homelessness ... unless society chooses to deal with abundance less greedily.

      --

      • many jobs have been automated over the past 300 years. New things to do have kept popping up. Over the past 300 years, more & more "common people" could be well fed, housed, and be educated. Things aren't perfect yet, but why couldn't technology give people new ways to create wealth?
      • Eventually technology will automate a lot of people out of work.

        It's called progress, and is the reason that the standard of living improves with time. It used to be that 90% of the population lived on farms because growing food was so labor intensive.

        What we are facing over the next 20 years is a MASSIVE labor shortage as the boomers retire. The result of this will be a large increase in individual worker productivity because businesses will be forced to automate to get the most from the few workers the
  • but I welcome our new Technology Spending Overlords.

  • IBM plans... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NightWulf ( 672561 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:22PM (#7374971)
    to hire 10,000 new employees. The important question is what country will these 10,000 new employees be in, if you know what I mean,
    • It read: And Mr. Palmisano took the unusual step of saying that I.B.M. planned to add 10,000 workers in fields of emerging demand over the next year.
      I think they meant: And Mr. Palmisano took the unusual step of saying that I.B.M. planned to add 10,000 workers in fields of emerging nations over the next year. Still not clear on why IBM needs field workers...
    • Yes, that number happens to match up with the number of people they announced about a month ago they are going to hire in INDIA in the next year.

      So... India.

      They have not announced how many they plan to fire in America... yet.

      • Re:IBM plans... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by twiddlingbits ( 707452 )
        As many as it takes to meet Wall Street's earning expectations. Sam is know as a "slash and burn" guy. One way or another he'll make the numbers. I was one of those slashed and burned right after Lou retired. Lou had a plan for the future that involved spending money to hire/train people. Sam sees them as individual cost centers he can remove at will to make numbers. I read something else recently that indicates the hiring in the IT biz is mostly going to be in India. But I also hear that India is now scar
    • to hire 10,000 new employees. The important question is what country will these 10,000 new employees be in, if you know what I mean,

      Let's also remember that it's not unusual for companies like IBM to lay off or terminate the contracts of a thousand employees with their left hand, and still hire another thousand employees with their right hand.

  • General Economy Resurgence (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cr3d3nd0 ( 517274 ) <Credendo&gmail,com> on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:22PM (#7374972)
    I'm sure many people will flame over this but I think the economy is generaly on it's way up anyways. A lot of the early warning signs have started to show up (Real estate is at a 60 year high, manufacturing is showing vastly increased earnings etc.) I've often been suprised that many people blame the current administration for the downturn in the economy when to signifigantly change the path of the economy takes at least 3 years of work, in my opinion this is just the initial effects of the current economy plan coming in to action.

    Flame if you want but remember, getting the economy to work has never been a set in stone progress... maybe Bush's plan really will work :-)

    • Re:General Economy Resurgence (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FunWithHeadlines ( 644929 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:45PM (#7375077) Homepage
      " I'm sure many people will flame over this but I think the economy is generaly on it's way up anyways."

      No flame, just a cautious disagreement. There were a lot of headlines this week about the economy finally doing well, but it was based on GDP numbers. I'm not sure how much the war in Iraq is affecting that, but I'm sure it is having some impact. Lots of manufacturing is needed to repair the damage. In addition, consumer spending went up in the 3rd quarter, but there are problems with that: Part of it is the spending of the latest tax refund. And part of it is the continued hot real estate buying as a result of historic low interest rates.

      Why are those problems? The war is not something to base long-term economic revival on, and can easily mask hidden GDP weakness. Tax refunds are one-off events. And real estate has gotten about as hot as it can for now since rates will not go lower, but will go higher in the next year.

      There's a bigger problem: This "recovery" doesn't look like one to the average wage-earner. Note this look at wage and salary income [epinet.org] and how this "recovery" doesn't look like other recoveries in the past. If the average guy doesn't see benefits, there will be no real recovery. Thow in massive deficit spending and a pending credit crunch when interest rates inevitably rise, and I'm not yet convinced that we are seeing a real recovery.

      See? Not a flame. Just a reasoned disagreement. I would be interested in people's views of the above.

      • This "recovery" doesn't look like one to the average wage-earner.

        One thing that people have a hard time understanding is that the wage earner doesn't see a recovery until it is well underway. Businesses don't hire until they absolutely have to - until their current staff is saturated, and they can't get enough contractors to get the work done.

        Job creation is a 'trailing indicator'; when it starts improving the recovery is already well underway.

        Leading indicators are things like building permits, intere
        • That was an interesting response and I think you are right that wage earners see the recovery later in the process. An excellent point.

          "Leading indicators are things like building permits, interest rates, stock prices, and so on. These have been positive for a while now."

          Hmm...but that's also the problem. Building permits have been positive, but probably we've seen the hight point for now. With interest rates this low this long, those who wanted to buy or re-mortgage have done so. Which ties into in

      • In addition to the manufacturing to repair the damages from the war, do not forget the following impacts on the consumer side of the economy:
        • Increased pay to servicemen and servicewomen for overseas duty, imminent danger pay, hazardous duty pay, FSA (Family Separation Allowance) etc. etc. All of this goes back into the U.S. consumer economy, and most of this will not be taxed. People who serve in areas labeled as "warzones" do not have to pay taxes for that calendar year (if I remember correctly).
        • Service

        • Re: General Economy Resurgence (Score:5, Informative)

          by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Monday November 03, 2003 @12:35AM (#7375492)


          > In addition to the manufacturing to repair the damages from the war, do not forget the following impacts on the consumer side of the economy:

          • Increased pay to servicemen and servicewomen for overseas duty, imminent danger pay, hazardous duty pay, FSA (Family Separation Allowance) etc. etc. All of this goes back into the U.S. consumer economy, and most of this will not be taxed.


          Actually, the families of many of the National Guard members are suffering a great deal of economic hardship right now, because for many of them their military pay is far less than the civilian jobs they left when they were called up.

      • Nah, alas you've roughly nailed it.

        Estimates of the Bush tax cuts is that we get something like $500,000 of deficit spending per new job created. I'm not sure what they wanted these tax cuts for, but they clearly weren't tuned to provide maximum job creation at minimum cost.

        I don't know that the war is causing that much economic activity. Deficit spending is my big worry. Deficits lead to higher inflation, which causes the Fed to raise interest rates. Higher interest rates tend to push housing down. Since
    • Is that the president has much less effect on the economy than most people think, ask any economist. However people seem to give them sole credit or blame for it. In reality while their policies can have an effect, the economy is far larger than any one person, even the president, can control. That's actually the problem really. If the economy was completely in the control of one person, we could prevent downturns. However it isn't, it's a force of its own.

      I think that both Clinton and Bish have had rather

      • > Is that the president has much less effect on the economy than most people think, ask any economist.

        Directly, yes. But remember that about 2/3 of the American economy is consumer spending, so consumer confidence is a weighty matter. A friend analyzes it as the President being "the national cheerleader" for the economy. If people think his economic policies are going to benefit them, their confidence goes up and then their spending goes up. And vice versa.

        This isn't the whole story, because it's sup

    • I've often been suprised that many people blame the current administration for the downturn in the economy when to signifigantly change the path of the economy takes at least 3 years of work, in my opinion this is just the initial effects of the current economy plan coming in to action.

      While I agree with the several year lag time theory, it actually works against the idea that recent positive developments have anything to do with the current administration's policies. Bush et all will have been setting

    • Re:General Economy Resurgence (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Brian Stretch ( 5304 ) * on Sunday November 02, 2003 @11:11PM (#7375190)
      Agreed, but in addition, it's interesting how GDP growth was the best it's been in 19 years. 19 years ago was about 2 years after Reagan's tax cuts had taken effect, and now we're 2 years into the Bush tax cuts. The marginal rate cuts have a BIG impact on small businesses (most of which are "pass-through entities", sole proprietorships and whatnot, which are taxed at the individual and not the corporate level), and the accelerated capital equipment deductions help too.
    • We can't have the economy come back, then people will credit Bush and he'll have to get re-elected! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa! :)

      (funniest part is, half the wild-eyed libs are already posting shit like that)

      • > We can't have the economy come back, then people will credit Bush and he'll have to get re-elected! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa! :)

        > (funniest part is, half the wild-eyed libs are already posting shit like that)

        Modulo the screaming, it's a pretty good call. USAians tend to vote for whoever they think will provide them with the highest bank balance. Our society is very polarized over other political and social issues right now, with about a 50/50 split between the two parties that matter, so unless there's a

  • I think it's more about cycles. The pendulum swinging back the other way. I hope (and I'm pretty certain) it will never swing back as far as it did during the boom, but it seems that it would swing back to a point of stasis. After the bubble burst there was this huge vacuum. Now, hopefully, the void will begin to fill again. However, I think we have to just face the fact that things will never be where they were with so many people employed in the tech sector. A lot of jobs are being outsourced overseas, bu

  • Ummm (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Duncan3 ( 10537 )
    Wake up people.

    Hardware is almost completely put together by machines - no jobs for humans at all.

    Software is rapidly becoming more and more self repairing and remote or centrally managed - no jobs there. And open source is free, that's a hobby not a job.

    How exactly does corporate spending mean jobs again? Oh yea, it doesn't.

    And don't forget the new business mantra "We're hiring, just no Americans, we're not stupid".

    • Re:Ummm (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mtrupe ( 156137 )
      A better question to ask is how does corporate spending NOT translate into more jobs?

      Every time corporations spend more money someone, somewhere along the line has a job and more jobs are being created. Even if company A is only buying new computers, someone, somewhere has to be employed to sell the computers, build the computers, build the software to go on the computers, support the computers, and on and on and on.
      • Every time corporations spend more money someone, somewhere along the line has a job and more jobs are being created.

        Do you think just because you make a statement, we are to immediately believe it?

        Wake up! It isn't happening! It won't happen!

        Supply and demand works for people too. In time, human labor will be irrelevant for production. This is the inevitable result of technological progress. Now, you may want to believe there is something else over the rainbow, some new work that revolutionizes work.

    • Re:Ummm (Score:3, Funny)

      by snarkh ( 118018 )
      Software is rapidly becoming more and more self repairing


      Yes, I noticed software that. Software on my computer self-repairs every couple of days.

    • You have no idea where prgramming jobs really are (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:39PM (#7375045)
      Weither proprietary or open source, the vast amount of programming jobs revolve around custom applications (or customizing applications) for corporations. People have been thinking like you have for at least twenty yars and the amount of programming work has only increased.

      Right before I went to college I saw an ad in a compter magazine for a program called "The Last One" meant to replace programmers everywhere. I still got a CS degree, and lo and behold!! There were still jobs, just as there are, now and will be for some time. Even nanotech will not change the need for programming jobs.
  • I think IT is still "where its at", its just that this time around it will be without all the bogus hype. Think about in the early days of the car industry, when there were hundreds of auto companies. The economy just couldn't sustain it and they fell apart.

    I have to laugh when people act as though software jobs will never return. We just have to learn what niche of software we fit into. Software QA, management, and specialized programming jobs will continue to be available, and I think they will grow trem

  • Technology Purchases are always Periodic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sielwolf ( 246764 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:34PM (#7375019) Homepage Journal
    Seriously, there should be a lemma or something on Moore's Law that states that because of bureacracy and the pile up of data the business world will always buy technology on a cycle. Seriously. Monitors get old, keyboards get too mungy, your data storage needs an upgrade. Most corps, for upkeep reasons, buy machines in bulk. They probably waited longer this time (due to the recession and all) but still that was three years. That seems to be they average.

    No one should be surprised by this. Likewise, no one should be surprised when the computer buying cools down in a year or so. Why? Because you only need so many PCs.
    • no one should be surprised when the computer buying cools down in a year or so. Why? Because you only need so many PCs.

      If PCs were all there were to it, that would be true. Real services are still needed out there. Many people are STILL running on paper. Paperless billing, records keeping and research are relativly new and cost effective. Not everyone has gone there yet. There's still plenty of growth space in real services, though the M$ Outlook will make you superman is tapped out.

  • Economy for Slashdotters (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AvantLegion ( 595806 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:36PM (#7375030) Journal
    Shit don't stay bad forever.

    Shit don't stay good forever.

    If you're one of the boo-birds that dismisses every indication of improvement, you're an idiot.

    If you're one of the optimists that ignored every indication of the "dotcom's" impending collapse, you were an idiot.

    Stuff has been bad. Stuff is getting better.

  • IBM is Poised to Do Very Well, methinks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Master Bait ( 115103 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:41PM (#7375054) Homepage Journal
    Not just because they're all fitted up with Linux. They've gotten all their bases covered. They make Apple's CPUs. They are connected up with AMD, and they're selling Opteron Servers like hotcakes. They sell Itaniums, Pentiums, Power Series. Very pragmatic.

    I think there's chinks in most of the other big company's armour because they each have a 'religious' ball and chain holding them back:

    • Sun has their SPARC religion.
    • HP has their Itanic religion. They have all those other dead-end achitectures to support. Their current IA86 lineup is ho-hum whiteboxes.
    • Dell has Intel religion, no matter what. Serious whitebox sticker slappers. Also, are they moving too much support to India?
    • SGI has serious marketing problems.
    • Dell has Intel religion, no matter what. Serious whitebox sticker slappers. Also, are they moving too much support to India?

      Sadly, management and bean counters (the ones that generally end up having the final say in what servers are bought) don't care about this...that's why they hired sysadmins they say...and here's a clue for you...IBM is one of the biggest offshore outsourcers...especially to IBM India...

      SGI has serious marketing problems.

      No, SGI has serious market problems. they can no longer sel

  • That sucking noise (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    you hear is the record federal deficits sucking the capital out of the economy and stunting growth. See the 80's for historical precedent. And the 90's for what happens when the deficits are covered. I wouldn't bet on any recovery with the current policies in effect.

    • Yes, the 80s with Reagan. If I remember correctly, an unprecedented number of jobs (17% growth) were created during that period of history, and inflation was slowed by over 10%. Probably the most impressive economic recovery in the history of mankind.
      • Of course it also caused some of the biggest deficits and biggest accumulated debt in the history of the U.S., and may have led to the recession of the early 90's that lost Bush his Presidency. Aren't Republicans supposed to be fiscal conservatives and Democrats Tax & Spend? Not in the last 20 years.

        Well, I'll say this for Reagan, he did stick it out in the fiscal slugfest with the CCCP and won a very important match. The problem is that W wants to be Rocky II and he's fiscally tiring the USA out agai

  • Nobody Knows (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tintruder ( 578375 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:44PM (#7375068)
    For every positive prediction, there is an equal negative one.

    Some cycles are routine enough to be usable any time.

    The simple fact that there is a growing population as well as a growing government in the US indicates there will be at least some sort of spending to accomodate these people.

    Further, the growth of government and associated functions (e.g. financial, medical, personal records accessable for Patriot Act requires more technology) indicates added spending.

    The backbreaker is how to make predictions which show growth in one venue (business IT spending) when, on the other hand, so much is being exported overseas, resulting in fewer workers earning higher salaries and fewer total workers contributing proportionally to the tax base.

    Bottom line?

    Just because some companies are buying more stuff does not necessarily extrapolate to a better life for the worker bees.

    In fact, evidence would suggest the typical worker in a civilized country is at greater risk of financial ruin and more likely to be unemployed or underemployed in order for the companies to internalize profit by pillaging the world.

    Cynical? You bet!

  • 10,000 more jobs at IBM (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CatGrep ( 707480 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @10:49PM (#7375097)
    IBM CEO Sam Palmisano says that IBM plans 'to add 10,000 workers in fields of emerging demand over the next year

    Of course he failed to mention that those jobs would be in India.
  • So, Slashdot, where should our money be? What stocks look good for the next tech boom, and who will be the next dot-com-bust?
  • I'm admittedly in a weird niche (compressed video consulting and training), but the demand for my services has been ramping up nicely since February, and just blasting off in the last month. I expect to bill more Q4 of this year than I billed in all of 2002.

    And it isn't just one client. It's coming from a lot of different directions, from a lot of different companies and industries. And nice, juicy, interesting jobs too. It was like the outsourcing switch just got turned on.

    Of course, independent consultants like me are often a good six months ahead of the rest of the economy. When things get tight, consultants get cut first, and when things are looking up, consultants get hired before full-time employees, since if things turn out to be not THAT up, we're easier to get rid of.

  • My tech spending's gone up... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @11:19PM (#7375223) Homepage Journal
    .. but I'm not sure how relevent it is to this article. I'm an artist, not an IT dude. So why am I even posting? Well, I've noticed a trend in recent weeks. There's a lot more 'gotta have' deals floating around. Just today I purchased an upgrade for Lightwave. They're about to release version 8. By pre-purchasing it, I'm getting another piece of software for free (made by another company, it's sort of like After Effects, costing around $1400...) and I'm getting a free subscription to a magazine that normally costs $100.

    In recent weeks, I've also noticed that DVD prices have gone down significantly. Both the Hulk and Matrix Rebloated were $15. I bought another DVD player for the house for $40. I bought a good DVD burner for under $200, whereas months ago it would have been $300-400. I got a cell phone for $150 where not long before it was a $300 item.

    I think what has happened is prices down the board have gone down. Your hard earned dollar buys you more stuff. If this trend continues, I think we can expect more positive growth. It's hard to spend $500 on something that has questionable usefulness, but when it's $200, then it starts getting down to the "I can afford to experiment this" range.

  • Slashfinance (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BoyHowdyAAF ( 659522 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @11:33PM (#7375275)

    "Is this just a blip as some analysts believe, or is it the beginnings of a resurgence for the technology sector?"

    Have you Meta Analyzed lately?

    Re: The Economy

    by Anonymous_Analyst on Thursday, October 30 ,@8:32 AM

    I think this is just a blip.

    Rating: Insightful.

    This rating is Unfair/Fair

    :)

  • IBM & Linux... (Score:3, Informative)

    by OneFix ( 18661 ) on Monday November 03, 2003 @12:27AM (#7375464)
    Yes, but the problem with IBM and their new Linux jobs is that most managers are trying to get by with hiring Linux personel at the same costs as Windoze personel. Trust me, I know (don't ask, can't tell)...

    The problem with Linux becoming mainstream is that Linux (and as a result *NIX) knowledge is starting to become more widespread and therefore less of a commodity...

    I think you will start to see more Linux positions, but they will be paying much less than before...

    Of course, as always it is my opinion that the real good ppl will still be paid highly, they will just have to take on more jobs or more demanding positions...

  • Picking up in the mid-west (Score:5, Informative)

    by Keighvin ( 166133 ) on Monday November 03, 2003 @01:08AM (#7375601)
    After an 18 month period with almost zero good positions in the area matching my skill set, I've suddenly had 6 interviews in the last 45 days with contacts for more this week. From my very limited subjective experience things are definitely beginning to heat up again.

    Not at the same pace, mind you - most companies after having been scared away from IT are just realizing that doing business requires the technology to stay competitive. They aren't hiring at the trumped up rates of a few years ago, but they are at least acknowleding the need and beginning to take steps to fill roles.

    • Ditto here--I managed pretty nicely as a consultant for the last few years. I'm not rich, but I was living well. Then, this summer, all of a sudden the horizons just dried up.

      Summers here tend to be pretty grim anyway for consultants, but this one took the cake. There was literally nothing around.

      Then, all of a sudden, in September the phone began ringing. Job interviews, requests for help, new projects, everything hit within a few weeks.

      We've always had more business around October and March, and we

  • It's all Bush's fault .... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Luscious868 ( 679143 ) on Monday November 03, 2003 @01:25AM (#7375649)

    This 3rd quarter GDP boom is all George W. Bush's fault .... wait a sec ... the GDP boom is probably a good thing .... George W. Bush had nothing to do with it!

    On a serious note folks, when things were not looking very good I heard a lot of people on Slashdot (and everywhere else) placing the blame squarely on Bush. Now that things are looking better, and if they continue to get better, will the same people give him any credit? I highly doubt it, but it will be entertaining to see how they can justify not giving him credit for a good economy when they could justify giving him grief for a bad one.

    I personally belive that the president doesn't have all the much control over the economy. Don't get me wrong, he has some degree of control, but not much as many people would like to believe.

    • Re:It's all Bush's fault .... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Monday November 03, 2003 @02:41AM (#7375923) Homepage Journal
      getting better?

      will see. there are other factors:
      1) previouly unemployes persons now getting jobs to replace all the men and women who get to go to the desert and die for oil.

      2) The war machine will create an increased demand in certian secotors, as well as the supporting sectors.

      The president can have a huge impact on the economy. Perhaps Bush should make some efforts to institute programs to get people working. Interior stuff, then I'd be impressed.

      As much as People hate to here this, making the internet open to the public sparked the last boom.
      I have grave doubts that Bush would have opened it up the same way. I'm pretty sure if he had his hand in it, it would have been opened up to corps. probably through some FCC like liscensing.

      This is not a Dem vs. Rep statment. I base this on Bush's history.

  • The funny thing about spending... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rosewood ( 99925 ) <<ur.tahc> <ta> <doowesor>> on Monday November 03, 2003 @02:14AM (#7375845) Homepage Journal
    I don't know about your market but here, in the SOHO market, over spending is going up. I can't tell you how many times I've lost bids because my price is too low.

    Example - a small office wants a network. They want to share files and printers. They want a central location for files that can be backed up easily and taken off site. They have the PCs and will never have more then 5 at the site, currently they have 3 -- two with XP home and one with Windows 98.

    My bid? $3000. This was cost of the cable, running, the router, a network storage device and a cdrw installed in one machine for the backups.

    The winning bid? $12,000. Other bids? $15,000 and $22,000.

    I know the 15k and 22k bids included some insane server setup situation. The 12k bid had a setup not far from mine ... it definatly wasn't "better" ... instead of a simple network storage device they used a whole server :(

    So in this case, spending went up ... WAAAAAY up.

  • Machiavelli's Rule (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Baldrson ( 78598 ) on Monday November 03, 2003 @05:45AM (#7376358) Homepage Journal
    Machiavelli stated, in The Discourses [amazon.com] I believe, that the time it is most dangerous for the powers that be is not during repression but during relief from repression. It seemed that the decimation of the baby boomer generation [geocities.com] had been a repressive era particularly for technologists -- primarily due to the sexual dynamics surrounding engineering professions in the era of sexual liberation and women's liberation. The end of female boomer fertility was a time when the primary source of a lot of that oppression, misled sexual power of young women combined with testosterone overload of youthful males, was being relieved and the thumbscrews were being loosened on the techs. What I didn't expect was what happened: a whipsaw pumping up the techs and then popping their bubble. Machiavelli didn't really have much to say about this weird circumstance. What is interesting is that it does make a kind of perverse sense to do that to the folks that might start getting some of their standing back after a lifetime of disenfranchisement -- keeps them discombobulated. Then there is the problem of what to do for an encore if you can't keep the thumbscrews tied down after the whipsaw. If it worked once then why not try it again? Hopefully you can keep whipsawing until the boomer tech males are near retirement and unable and/or unwilling to do anything about their lifetime of displacement and disenfranchisement from their culture, fertility, territories and wealth. The outsourcing craze and H-1b craze are a part of this but I think the global elites may have to really pump things up again if at all possible, and try to whipsaw everyone again to avert Machiavelli's Rule again. If that is the case then theForesight Exchange claim REBOOM [ideosphere.com] is in for a quick rise soon.

  • IBM India research center (Score:4, Informative)

    by heroine ( 1220 ) on Monday November 03, 2003 @03:27PM (#7379768) Homepage
    Be aware that those 10,000 jobs are in the IBM India research center.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno

Close