Forrester Says Tech Downturn Is "Unofficially Over" 130
alphadogg writes "The US IT market will grow by 6.6% as high-tech spending rebounds in 2010, according to Forrester Research's latest estimates. The research firm based its projections on data reported for 2009, though its fourth quarter numbers are incomplete. Forrester says hints of a recovery surfaced in the third quarter, and now the company expects the global IT market to grow by 8.1% in 2010. Forrester's US and Global IT Market Outlook: Q4 2009 reads: 'The tech downturn of 2008 and 2009 is unofficially over, while the Q3 2009 data for the US and the global market showed continued declines in tech purchases (as we expected). We predict that the Q4 2009 data will show a small increase in buying activity, or at worst, just a small decline.'"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We had a 2% cut in staff at the end of 2008. The 2% came from early retirement and not replacing people. There were a few small departments that were eliminated. Some of the people were absorbed into other departments, but not all. We haven't really added any FTE to our head count, but we have gone through a few contractors.
There were some other cuts. No company picnic at 6 flags in 2009. The holiday dinner at a nice steak house was moved to a less pricey Italian restaurant. Our company is spread out
Re: (Score:1)
Once you hit that submit button there is no going back.
Re:Anectodal info (Score:4, Insightful)
Or don't get bonuses, or don't get the resources/personnel/equipment they need, or entrepreneurs...
I wasn't affected by the recession until I was laid off, awesome how that works, eh? It's a boolean state, either you're employed and not feeling the effects, or you're not employed and can't get a new job at the same level as before, or do get one, but get picked out of far more applicants than before. At which point, your boolean downturn.effect() is reset to zero.
Re:Anectodal info (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult, but we are starting to see retirements now so don't give up hope.
Our company is so short staffed on support that customer satisfaction is starting to edge down.
The baby boomers retire at an ever increasing rate for the next 15 years now. In 10 years, 2 million extra people will retire a year (4 million total).
Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
The baby boomers retire at an ever increasing rate for the next 15 years now. In 10 years, 2 million extra people will retire a year (4 million total).
They used to be dumping money into the stock market via 401Ks, now they'll be pulling money out of the market via cashing in 401Ks. Also they used to buy stuff, which they won't be doing after retirement/death.
Folks whom understand supply and demand, you know what to do with your investments in the "medium term". Panic is OK, as long as you're the FIRST one to panic, so to speak. Folks whom don't understand supply and demand, well you keep on dollar cost averaging, OK?
Re: (Score:2)
This was a concern for me as well.
However...
I think small cap will be okay (since it is always full of new companies).
International will be okay (since there are billions of investors besides the 30 millionish baby boomers.
Also, that money coming out of the market is going to be spent and then... inherited by the boomer's kids who will spend much more freely than the boomers.
I'm currently heavy cash because I expect another major leg down but that cost me a lot doing so. The dollar cost averaging portion I
Re: (Score:2)
Financially, my situation improved quite a bit. I switched jobs in 2008 and again in 2009, both times having several interesting options to choose from, and not having a lot of competition from other applicants, as far as I know. Especially at my last job switch, some employers were really disappointed that I didn't pick them. But even in 2008, one kept contacting me after a few months to check if perhaps I wasn't happy about the job I picked and wanted to work for them instead. I now make significantly mor
Re:Anectodal info (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anectodal info (Score:4, Informative)
The U.S. job situation is made further worse by population growth, which is currently running around 1% annually in the U.S. (~3 million per year). After adjusting for deaths and retires, that necessitates, on average, an additional 100,000 - 150,000 new jobs to be created each month just to stay even.
Or to put it another way, in the 00s decade, there was roughly zero net job growth - there are about as many jobs today as back in 2000, but the U.S. population has grown by about 25+ million in that same time. Many of the jobs that exist today tend to pay less, when adjusted for inflation, than jobs did back 10 years ago.
Ron
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, every time the population grows, demand grows. Sure we need new jobs for them, but we also need new stores, new dry-cleaners, new wineries, new restaurants and a bunch of other stuff. On average population growth is job neutral.
The only pr
Re: (Score:2)
Surely population growth must be good for the economy overall. I imagine it increases demand for resources, partially counteracting some of the decrease in demand due to the recession. I.e. less might be spent per capita, but more is spent overall.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if the population growth is equally distributed, not when most of the population growth is in the poorer classes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's trivially demonstrable by counting the number of people working that our population has 25 million more people not working now than in the year 2000.
Clearly something changed in the last 10 years compared to the previous 200.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about cherry picking, 2000 was the year with the lowest unemployment rate since the 1960s, so surprise surprise now during a recession it is higher than the 50 year minimum.
And trying to go back 200 years destroys your argument anyway. In fact you only have to go back 60 or so to see that women entered the workforce - increasing the number of people wanting to work dramatically and yet unemployment didn't hit 40%.
And ignoring the cherry picking what changed is that the unsustainability of a "service" e
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise with the population growth. It doesn't really affect the unemployment until they start looking for work - a lagging trend of about 15-25 years. So tho
Re: (Score:2)
It's not made worse by the population growth. It's made worse by other factors, but the positive effect from the population growth balances the negative effect from other stuff, so you just see the population growth without economic growth.
In this case, "correlation does not imply causation" is very appropriate.
Re: (Score:1)
Well said. I'm in the UK, and it depresses me when I hear the xenophobic rants about how immigrants are "stealing" "British" jobs. Heaven forbid that someone try to do an honest day's work, get paid, and then use their wages to create more demand in the economy. Perhaps they should go off and live on an island somewhere - population 1, it should be no trouble getting a job, by their logic...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the UK ... Perhaps they should go off and live on an island somewhere
They already did, you insensitive clod!
On a serious side, immigration can drive wages down, but there are some preconditions for that. Specifically, the immigrants (or at least some part of them) must be discriminated against (not necessarily legal discrimination, it could just as well be purely social), so that they find it hard to get a job paying them as much as a native would get doing it. They are then forced into lower-paying jobs, and that drives wages down for everyone.
This is still not as simple as
Re: (Score:2)
You are saying we don't need jobs because of population growth, but sure we need jobs for population growth. Pick one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you really haven't thought it through, and that's a big part of why you're reacting so violently.
Your premise in paragraph 1: Job losses aren't worse due to population growth.
Reality: Job losses understate the actual problem being measured - a measure of unemployment. Since the US needs +100k-ish jobs to 'stay even'. That means when you lose 86k jobs in December, you're actually 186k jobs behind.
In addition, your example of the colonies was also a lousy attempt at reductio-ad-absurdum. The poin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the long run, we're all dead so nothing matters.
To drop the sarcasm, no actually it doesn't even out. Those 100k people who didn't enter the workforce in December? They're behind now. They will be making less money for the rest of their lives, because they won't have as much experience. For example, when they're 35 they might only have 8 years experience instead of 12. That's going to result in a significant loss of i
Re: (Score:2)
They will be making less money for the rest of their lives, because they won't have as much experience.
Sometimes life kicks you in the balls. Some people it kicks harder than others. It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, you have to deal with it.
Over decades, the number of years you work is significantly less important than the knowledge you have. People who win the lottery often lose it all within a few years. Many rich people have failed completely before achieving wealth.
If those people spend their time away from work doing nothing, you are right, they will be making less money the rest of thei
Re: (Score:1)
The point is, if you have job growth of 0.01% and population growth of 1%, then you have a significant under-employment problem. Obviously, between the 13 colonies and today job growth has met or exceeded population growth.
Yes, more people means more demand, which means more jobs. But given that "job growth" is the actual measurement of those jobs created, you're already taking that into account. If there are 100 million jobs and you add 500,000 jobs, you have 0.5% job growth over that period of time. Y
You don't need jobs, you need wealth (Score:3, Insightful)
100,000 - 150,000 new jobs to be created each month just to stay even.
No, what you need is more wealth.
That is, you will need the resources those people will consume over their lifetime: food, textiles, space, vehicles, energy, and so forth. Plus, those people need to have it.
Of course, a sensible thing to ask of those people is to do something in return for being given those resources, e.g. get a job. But that's not a necessity.
Imagine you had robots who could do all the work we need humans for now, and because they were well built, we only rarely needed to repair, dispose
Re: (Score:2)
No, what you need is more wealth.
Imagine you had robots who could do all the work we need humans for now
The Marxian view that the only source of wealth is labor just doesn't work "outside of the lab". Resource limitations, energy limitations, social fads (paying adults millions to play a childs playground game), private property issues...
Also the Marxian view that only the means of production matters, is a bit out of date. You'll still have problems with distribution, fads, marketing, intentional market distortion, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
You could be right, but none of the things you listed creates wealth, so I'm not sure what the point of listing them was. What, other than labour, creates wealth?
Re: (Score:2)
Knowledge. And not just knowledge gained through experimentation or research, sometimes you can gain profitable information just looking out the window at the right moment.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure information can be classed as wealth. Wealth can not usually be infinitely duplicated at zero cost. Which definition of wealth are you using?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, thinking about it, I retract my previous comment. Information has to be counted as wealth, even if it makes it a rather weird kind of wealth.
However, information gathering certainly counts as labour. How easy it is, is irrelevant. You could stumble across a nugget of gold on the ground, but gold mining is still labour.
Re: (Score:2)
The knowledge of when not to act requires no labor.
Just to clarify my point (Score:2)
Also the Marxian view that only the means of production matters, is a bit out of date.
I'm not arguing that view. Leave distribution and marketing to the robots; they're (by unrealistic assumption) programmed to also do that part.
The Marxian view that the only source of wealth is labor
I think I'm especially not arguing that point. At least I'm not arguing that the only source of wealth is human labour---again, leave that to the robot.
On the other hand: the robots originate from human labour. And if nobody ever works, we have no services, and nobody transforms raw natural resources into products, so we have no increase in wealth over what the na
Re: (Score:2)
You can't just make half the people disappear with a right-shift like that; though it would do wonders for the unemployment rate.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to think the problem was a lack of jobs--that is, that the disparity between humanity's cleverness at building machines to replace workers and the increasing population would inevitably lead to mass unemployment, and that the capitalist system itself was inherently flawed.
But then I thought about it on a more personal level. I have an employer, but there's no reason I couldn't be self-employed except for the fact that it would require someone else to front me the initial capital. In fact, there's n
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there are other ways, but most of them are illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lovely vision of life 50+ years from now. But I have this unfortunate habit of eating and clothing myself today, not 50+ years from now.
Re: (Score:2)
True. But the point wasn't really "what if", the point was that the goal should not be jobs, the goal should be wealth and livelihoods---that is, means whereby people can obtain a certain amount of wealth, enough to live decently by social standards.
While it is true that jobs tend to create wealth (by the job done) and livelihoods (by paying wages), maybe the number of jobs isn't the most important but the wealth generated by them.
A more realistic alternative to more jobs, if we would all suddenly become m
Re: (Score:2)
And the only currently practical solution to that is through creating jobs. By definition, anything else is a 'what if' scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lovely vision of life 50+ years from now.
Do you drive a car? They're mostly put together with robots today. That vision might not be as far away as you think.
It's already cheaper to outsource certain repetitive jobs to a robot on-shore than it is to outsource them to an off-shore firm, irrespective of the disparity in wages, which effectively disappear with robotics as the productivity per FTE equation (you still need some people to run them) goes way up.
And, there are many repetitive jobs that increasingly coming under the scope of a robotic
Re: (Score:2)
The robots that have replaced workers in some jobs did not result in an idle life for those workers. They had to go find new jobs.
So no, it's not a vision that's close. We'd have to make some pretty big changes to our society to replace jobs with robot-slave-created wealth for all.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe the robots will run Linux, thus making them cheaper to build.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anectodal info (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have an established career, then it's merely difficult (but not impossible) to find a good job these days. New grads have it worse than everyone else in this economy... not only do they have to compete with each other, but they also have to compete with hordes of other people who have years of experience and are clamoring for the same jobs as the grads because they are desperate. I was told that a degree would give me a huge advantage, only to graduate right in time for this huge recession. (or minor depression, depending on who you talk to) I blame the university for lying to me just as much as I blame myself for actually believing them. New grads can send out a million resumes for all the good it would do, and it's not going to make much of a difference if there's a huge glut of unemployed workers with real-world experience on the job market. It's easy to lose hope and stop trying after 6 months or more of no results. These days, employers have all the advantages and can afford to be choosy.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey,kid, give it 15-20 years and you will find that nobody wants to know about all your work experience and all the good jobs go to the new grads.
Keep trying for jobs, especially when you have one, try to keep debt to a minimum (easier said than done, but evaluate and compare prices on _everything_ you buy and you will find surprising variations, also save up for things as by the time you can afford it you might find you don't want it any more), remember that your employer doesn't give a crap about you, don
Re: (Score:2)
I was in your position when I graduated, there had been a real dip so all the poor jobs figured I'd jump as soon as conditions got better (honestly, not such a bad guess) and the good jobs always found someone with a bit of real-life experience who they didn't have to "train" to be a worker instead of a student. I know it's not a help right now, but trust me once you do have a few years experience that education will pull you out of the ranks and into senior positions. I was interviewing recently for a job
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, hang in there -- things will get better eventually. I graduated after the dotcom bust in 2002 so I found it pretty tough then as well. I must've sent out two hundred cover letters and job applications over the course of a year, it drove me nuts. You might have to work in another industry field for a while until things pick up. The web and tech industry is much more advanced these days, so I say now is the time to innovate and start new ventures.
Re: (Score:1)
zmollusc speakum de truth, at least in programming you're "senior" by the time you have 3-5 years of experience, and after 10 years few will look at you, with the assumption that you're too high-priced. It's basically like being a pop star -- you're struggling now to get noticed, and when you finally do, for a short period of time you'll be in high demand and your income will rise dramatically, but then soon you'll be yesterday's news, assumed no longer hip to the latest trends. So take some comfort that yo
Re: (Score:2)
Damn straight.
In a conversation with a (fairly honest) recruiter a while back, I asked him about the market for new grads, since I had friends who were just graduating and might want some referrals. He explained that any software guy with less than 3 years of experience was considered essentially impossible to place, because statistically most techies make their biggest mistakes in the first 3 years, and all employers know this. Well, about 3 years after that policy became the norm, for some reason a lot of
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Simple solution to achieve your wish... Deport all the cheap labor Indians on H1-B visas and there would be a huge upswing in demand for domestic IT personnel."
Or else, a huge upswing in demand for attornies with experience on outsourcing companies to cheap labor countries like India.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the same for at least 70%, given most states have only a 15% unemployment rate.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Chill out, it's all good. I'm not gonna lie, but, um, can we talk? Dude! I am just doing my due diligence, in trying to help me to help you to be honest about things.
Sheesh. And I thought AC for for warm climates only!
Soup is good food (Score:4, Insightful)
Quoting Soup is good food by the dead kennedys;
We're sorry
You'll just have to leave
Unemployment runs out after just six weeks
How does it feel to be a budget cut?
You're snipped
You no longer exist
Your number's been purged from our central computer
So we can rig the facts
And sweep you under the rug
See our chart? Unemployment's going down
If that ruins your life that's your problem
=====
I guess it's going up, depending on who's perspective you see it from.
Still unemployed (Score:4, Interesting)
Does this mean I'll get a job this year?
The tech jobs market in Boston does feel less dead now than it did for most of 2009. I entered the job market in April and it was six months before I had an interview. Now I've had three in three months. It's tricky to extrapolate from those data points to locate a job offer but it does give me hope.
Re:Still unemployed (Score:5, Funny)
Man I'm lucky I took longer to graduate. Local large company did all of its hiring during end of Spring semester when most people graduate. I missed that. But I graduated in Fall and got picked up by another company 3 months later. Turns out the other company did lay-offs.. w00t.
Then the market crashed.. good time to start my 401k. My 401k started about 2 months before the crash. Within 8 months and investing $1k into it, it's worth $6.5k. That's a good return me thinks.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the market crashed.. good time to start my 401k. My 401k started about 2 months before the crash. Within 8 months and investing $1k into it, it's worth $6.5k. That's a good return me thinks.
Bernie Madoff would be jealous of that return.
Re: (Score:1)
Bernard Madoff got that return.
--
Correlation does not cause implication.
Re: (Score:2)
I misread that as investing 1k a month and though "yes, probably slightly above market average"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When I got hired on, I saw the "global" option for all the different portfolios. Figured with the USD dropping, be a good idea to set my money on more global. I'm in a VERY small city, like 8k people. A local bank manages the 401k for my company. The bank said they would be removing the option of several large companies from their portfolios. Few months later, most of the companies removed from the options crashed from the bubble. go go small bank!
It may be true (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It may be true (Score:4, Insightful)
if it pays the bills and keeps me from being homeless...I would...and I'm sure the millions who are unemployed on the brink would agree with me.
Re:It may be true (Score:4, Informative)
If it paid the salary, I wouldn't care if I was paid to just keep one Windows Small Business Server PC up and running. You get what you can take in this economy. No, it wouldn't be as fun as a rackful of high end suns with a root prompt just waiting for you, but it is better than nothing.
"unofficially"? (Score:3, Funny)
What makes it official? Netcraft?
Re: (Score:2)
Yay for the second derivative! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Real progress" from the second derivative! (Score:2)
Point taken! It reminds me of this poster we had in our test lab where I first worked:
(in big bold letters)
We're making REAL PROGRESS!
(in much smaller letters underneath)
Things are getting worse at a slower rate.
Real "boost" or just upgrades? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Hardware starts to die after a certain time (bathtub curve) and for laptops three years is pushing it pretty hard for hard drives and batteries. Batteries are fairly easy to replace, but a hard drive crash on a laptop will cost a company way more in lost work than the cost of a new laptop.
That and at certain points, it's more cost effective to replace a computer with a faster computer - if a computer hardware upgrade means you can make 8 runs of a particular large batch process in the same time it used to
Re: (Score:2)
At an old job of mine 1998-2003 we had when I got there, a batch-job called Overnight.bat, while I was there we upgraded the servers, raid arrays, network from 10/100 to gigabit for data processing group, and spent some time figuring out which AMD/Intel chips and Intel/VIA chipsets were best for running our SAS jobs. By the time I left we could have called it Afternoon.bat
The inflection point there is if an overnight job fails, it can take days/nights to find out what went wrong and fix it. When the whole j
Re: (Score:1)
How common is that scenario, especially on a laptop? Most computers in business spend more CPU cycles waiting for user input than they do processing.
Re: (Score:2)
More and more laptops are being used as mobile desktop replacements. All of my development is being run from a laptop running a full database (DB2), a development version of WebSphere Application Server, plus all the assorted productivity tools (Outlook, Word, FireFox, SoapUI, etc.)
I would be willing to bet that I spend an hour a day (maybe more) waiting on incremental code compilation after I tweak some code in Eclipse - I'm doing it while I watch the effects in the debugger and on the application, and ea
Re: (Score:1)
You must be right. Based on a sample of one, you have a 100% hit rate. The fact that I've seen thousands of counter examples - like basically everyone I've worked with ever - is clearly a statistical blip.
Perhaps next time you're waiting you can google for "anecdotal evidence".
Re: (Score:1)
There's more to tech than Intel x86 CPUs!
Yes, my desktop computer is for more purposes good enough - in the 1990s it seemed like a continual struggle to upgrade, and still not be as good as I'd want. Now I upgrade the desktop when something breaks.
But at the same time, in the last few years I've been buying a laptop, flat screen monitor, mp3 player, two phones. Other possible purchases include netbooks, media players, ebook readers. Add to that the continual income generated by broadband, mobile broadband a
Re: (Score:2)
Tech whining (Score:1, Insightful)
Tech workers are comparable well payed and in a good position. Haiti had a sudden downturn--that's real problems. Perspective and all until we all hit Singularity.
Re:Tech whining (Score:4, Insightful)
Much easier said if you were employed mid-year 2008 and remained so throughout the 'downturn'.
That 'downturn' hurt, bad. Being out of work for 6 months would have been nice, but there were weeks at a time when there were no tech related positions, and nobody was interested in hiring someone with "professional" work experience for even tasks such as menial labor or food service. Good luck finding work out of your general area, too: my observation has been that there are so many IT types out of work, most places aren't even bothering to interview non-locals. There are just too many qualified applicants to pick from locally.
(I suspect concern that I would "up and leave" at the drop of a hat/promise of decent employment.) It's been 2 years, and at this point, I suspect there's not an end in sight due to the extended sabbatical.
The most extravegant thing I've bought since around March 08 was the occasional six pack of beer - maybe every other month. So yeah, that's not a terribly "good position".
Parse alert (Score:1)
"That 'downturn' hurt, bad. Being out of work for 6 months would have been nice, but there were weeks at a time when there were no tech related positions, and nobody was interested in hiring someone with "professional" work experience for even tasks such as menial labor or food service."
Uh, what?
Recovery? (Score:2, Insightful)
"The most likely alternative to our forecast that the U.S. and global IT markets will recover in 2010 is a faltering tech market due to a double-dip recession that returns in 2010 after a brief two- to three-quarter economic recovery," the report reads. "Should this happen, U.S. tech purchases would decline by 3% to 4% in 2010, with a second-half decline offsetting a first-half tech revival."
Maybe if the economy has a double dip recession the politicians will learn that their stimulus plans and the continued inflationary policy of the Fed are bad ideas. By then I think it will be too late, the dollar is on a fast pace to destruction. Perhaps that's Obama's job creation plan, debase the currency so much that it will be too expensive to outsource to Indian and Russian labor. Delaying a market correction will only make it worse, Government intervention cause and prolonged the Great Depression.
Re: (Score:2)
Massive inflation is my big hope ... I'm buying a big fixed asset right now with a loan (a house), the most house I can afford with the depressed rates from the banking shenanigans and the reduced prices.
So if inflation goes crazy, it's all good for me. Make my payments on the loan seem like nothing. Woohoo inflation!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On the loan, yes. But you're overlooking what is, in many locales, the fastest growing homeowner expense, property taxes.
So while your fixed rate mortgage payment on the asset will stay the same, don't expect the same for property taxes.
There are many people paying over of 30%, in some instances upwards of 50%, in addition to the mortgage rate they were originally quoted.
For example, an 6% fixed rate loan for a home at $200,000, assuming 10% down, would come out to around $1100 monthly payment. Sounds prett
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fortunate to live in CA, where property taxes are fixed at the time of purchase, thank you prop 13, and of course was not stupid enough to buy into an HOA.
Re: (Score:1)
But even if you rent, you still indirectly pay those property taxes - what do you think the landlord does to the rent each year if his taxes have gone up? So yes, it's true to say that you're not immune to inflation, but property tax applies to both home owning and renting, and as long as he gets salary increases with inflation too, he'll still be better off.
Admittedly I'm in the UK though, where evidently things are better - my property tax (council tax) is lower than your figures, and about 10% of my mort
Re: (Score:2)
In short, don't automatically assume real estate is the safe place to be in an inflationary environment, because it may not be unless one buys in an area with low property taxes and is relatively certain they won't increase much nor get hit with special assessments.
Not to mention you also sacrifice flexibility. If the job market tanks bad in your location it is FAR more difficult to up-root yourself to another area where the suck isn't so bad. If you think it is tough finding a job in a dying community, try selling a house in one! The job market is always asymmetrical in it's ups and downs - some areas will fail first, and others will recover first.
Re: (Score:2)
Real estate doesn't do that well in times of "massive inflation". It isn't exportable and hence there's a limit on price that lots of other things don't have.
A farmer can grow his corn and export it overseas where people can afford to pay a lot more (because in terms of their currency the price hasn't inflated). But a real estate owner can't export rental properties (in most markets anyway, in a tourist area you effectively can) and hence the rent he can get is limited by what people in the area can afford
Re: (Score:2)
They'd be bad ideas if there wasn't high unemployment and similar problems. Those are creating deflationary pressure. You combat that with inflationary policy, because 10% inflation is infinitely better for the economy that 1% deflation.
That was the top of this year ;-) (Score:3, Insightful)
The new reality. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think Forrester is being overly optimistic. CIOs may be ready and willing to spend, but it does not mean the business (read: owner, CEO/Board, CFO) are going to jump on the bandwagon. Each purchase/hire will need to undergo a serious cost-benefit evaluation, and the lowest possible dollar paid. This is a result not only of the recession of the past year-plus, but also the very real and serious concerns businesses have of what upcoming legislation (and associated regulatory environments) is going to cos
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention continued interest in offshoring almost all actual production capacity (ie, programming, industry, etc)... I'm still competing with folks overseas who cost much less.
Re:The new reality. (Score:4, Interesting)
I was talking to a co-worker today.. he said one year of college (& dorm) was now 15k at the local universities in texas (19k in arkansas for out of state after grants).
How can you justify paying $60-80k for a college degree that pays zippo and may not even get you a job.
More if you put dorms on credit too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's precisely why more people are doing 2 years of community college + 2 (or even 1.5) years of university. Halve the cost of your education, and get the same degree. Unless you're weighing going to an ivy league where the connections you'll make in the freshman dorm may earn you a few million extra in lifetime earnings, there's just no reason to go to university for those first two years any more.
Over ? (Score:2)
"IT" covers a lot of ground... (Score:2)
... and I didn't see anything in the article that led me to believe that this upturn wouldn't just be an increase in business for hardware and software vendors. Most people working in "IT" work for other types of businesses. That hardware manufacturers and software development companies are going to see improvement is great but that's only a small part of the business environment that involves "IT".
I suspect that what Forrester is seeing is that a lot of companies may be, at long last, planning on opening
Re: (Score:1)
In times like these the sales are the worst field to be in. It's buyers market all the way down - employment, real estate, consumables...