rc3.org

Strong opinions, weakly held

Tag: business (page 8 of 9)

Links for April 16

Links for April 2nd

Links from March 19th

Links from March 16th and 17th

Links from March 14th

Is there an IT skills shortage?

Duke professor Vivek Wadhwa has research that shows that there’s no shortage of IT skills on the job market, in spite of the assertions of executives and analysts. Some other researchers agree:

“No one who has come to the question with an open mind has been able to find any objective data suggesting general ‘shortages’ of scientists and engineers,” said Dr. Michael Teitelbaum, vice president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, in testimony to Congress last fall. “The RAND Corporation has conducted several studies of this subject; its conclusions go further than my summary above, saying that not only could they not find any evidence of shortages, but that instead the evidence is more suggestive of surpluses.”

Dr. Ron Hira agrees there is no shortage of skilled IT workers. In his capacity as a professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, a fellow at the Economic Policy Institute and co-author of the book Outsourcing America, he has pored through Bureau of Labor Statistics data and university graduation rates and found that the United States has consistently graduated more than enough computer scientists and engineers to fill the IT jobs available in the country. Similarly, there he has seen no in unemployment rates to indicate any kind of IT worker shortage

The researchers do have a point in saying that wages don’t appear to reflect a shortage:

“It doesn’t add up,” Wadhwa said. “We live in a free economy. If we were sitting in a government controlled economy it would be one thing, but in a free economy what happens is that when shortages begin to develop is that prices rise and the money compensates for the shortage.”

On the other hand, what I’ll say based on personal experience is that it is very difficult to find competent software developers. I have had the opportunity to participate in the hiring of a number of developers over the years, and it has never been easy to hire developers that I actually want to work with. In 2003, when I had a hard time finding a job and when a lot of people were out of work, it took a very long time to find a solid Java developer to join the team where I worked. We went through at least 100 applicants and interviewed 10 or 20 people before we found someone qualified to do the work — straightforward Java Web application development.

It hasn’t gotten any easier. So I’m not sure what to think about these kinds of articles. The market is complex, but from where I sit, there’s an acute shortage of really solid programmers. I’d say the same for software testers and systems administrators as well. There are a lot of people out there who claim to be able to do those jobs, and who have experience in those fields, but they’re not actually any good at what they do.

We live in this sort of bizarre world where the market looks very inefficient from up close. Salaries seem to indicate that there’s no shortage of talent, but at the same time it’s very difficult to find and hire talented people. Salaries do not tend to vary greatly based on talent, either. Theoretically the most talented programmers are working at companies with stock options that are increasing in value, but I’d be shocked to find that the best developers at Google or Apple make much more money than the worst developers, given equivalent experience. Maybe the academics need to do more research.

Real estate numbers that astound

Here’s an astounding statistic: 10% of homeowners have no equity at all in their homes. Click on the link to read about some of the implications of that number.

In related news, aggregate home debt exceeds home equity for the first time since 1945.

Thoughts on Microsoft and Yahoo

My first impression of Microsoft’s $44 billion offer for Yahoo is that this is one of those big mergers that’s doomed to tedium, if not failure. It sort of reminds me of HP buying out Compaq. What was the end result other than some people getting a lot richer and a bunch of other people getting laid off? Was the merger a failure or success? Does anybody even care?

Something tells me that Yahoo is a bad cultural fit for Microsoft. This is a company that built its infrastructure on FreeBSD — not only did they go with an open source operating system, they went with a non-obvious open source operating system.

Yahoo hasn’t even been able to figure out the right way to integrate companies they’ve acquired — note the different ways that Flickr, del.icio.us, Launch, and others have been treated. The problem is determining the degree to which they need to be subsumed into the Yahoo brand. How can merging Yahoo’s disparate online properties with MSN be handled in a sensible way?

I’m very curious to know what other people think, so please comment, especially to reactions to the deal elsewhere (including your own).

Update: Nelson Minar’s analysis is worth reading. (I love the BBC quote.) Paul Kedrosky’s covering the offer as well, but his blog appears to be inaccessible.

Scott Rosenberg on the deal:

These big takeovers — AOL/Time Warner was the biggest — are always about failure in the present and fear of the future.

Here’s one way of looking at the merger, courtesy of Tim Bray:

I have a Yahoo userid. I bet you do too. I wonder how many of those there are, in total? I wonder what that number divided by $44,600,000,000 is?

Quit blaming poor people

As the mortgage crisis unfolds and expands, you see a lot of blame laid on subprime loans, and more specifically, people who signed up for subprime loans. In fact, subprime was voted the word of the year. People are clearly responsible for the contracts they sign, but simply blaming people who took out mortgages they couldn’t pay back is the wrong way to look at the problem.

Last month I talked about the similarity of the mortgage crisis to the junk bond crisis. One of the most important similarities between that implosion and this one is that the entire market was driven not by demand for loans but rather demand for investments. Here’s the question you rarely see asked. Why were banks so eager to sign people up for such incredibly risky mortgages?

The reason is that they had already originated as many good mortgages as they could, and there was still more demand for mortgage backed securities. So mortgage brokers had to find more mortgages to sell, and the easiest way to do it was to loan money to people who really shouldn’t be buying a house, or to convince people to upgrade into larger houses that they couldn’t afford by offering them low monthly payments.

So when you search for the source of the crisis, look in the direction of the big investors who were willing to buy up any old mortgage backed security, no matter what its risk profile was. Those people put billions and billions of dollars on the line, and funded an avalanche of loans sold to the confused, the ignorant, the overly optimistic, and the dishonest.

As the economy continues to go badly, you’ll see more and more people blaming the same people who are losing their homes and watching their financial futures go down the tubes. And while I agree that they do bear responsibility for the decisions they made, they didn’t create this crisis. In many ways they’re the victims.

Andrew Leonard on today’s rate cut

Here’s Salon’s Andrew Leonard on today’s 75 point emergency rate cut from the Federal Reserve:

If Bernanke has been “wrong” so many times, was he wrong Tuesday morning? As of this writing, around 2:20 p.m. EST, the lead headline on the Wall Street Journal declared “Fed’s Deep Cut Appears to Soothe Markets.” After falling almost 500 points at the start of trading, impelled by massive sell-offs on stock exchanges around the world, the Dow Jones industrial average had fought its way back to a relatively minor 118-point drop. What if Bernanke had done nothing, or even waited just eight days until the regular meeting of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors meeting to deliver his rate cut? If Monday, Jan. 21, is already being called the 21st century version of Black Monday, summoning up memories of the crash of 1987, what would Tuesday have looked like without a rate cut bailout?

Given the clear connection between Tuesday’s rate cut and global market turmoil, it is hard to avoid at least one conclusion. Bernanke has proven, once and for all, that juicing the stock market is now considered Job No. 1 for the Federal Reserve Bank. The material effects of rate cuts do not show up in economic growth statistics for months or even years after their enactment. By making an emergency “inter-meeting” cut a mere eight days before its regularly scheduled meeting, Bernanke is conducting economic policy in order to appease market psychology. The fragile psyches of Wall Street traders who played such a pivotal role in creating this mess by romping through the derivatives wonderland, are now in control of government strategy.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2024 rc3.org

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑