[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [school-discuss] Re: [IIEP] Retraining initiative

See inline comments.

> On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 13:34 -0700, Bill Kendrick wrote:
>> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 12:39:24PM +0300, Teemu Leinonen wrote:
>> > I agree that the training should always explore different kind of
>> > (free/open source) technologies. I am afraid, that if the training is
>> > only about LAMP or Zope or any other specific (free/open or
>> proprietary)
>> > technology the programmers will be again unemployed when the next
>> (big)
>> > technology comes.
>> One way in which Open Source Software is different from the current and
>> previous "big" technologies is that it's open.  Due to its openness, and
>> its separation from "Company XYZ" who may go bankrupt or change
>> direction in 5 years, Open Source would seem to have a much longer
>> 'shelf-life' than some proprietary tools.
>> -bill!
> Bill - your post is fine but does it address Teemu's concern?
> I'm hearing numbers like 2.5 million tech jobs lost permanently.

OK.  Where have these people gone then?  Have they A) Left the country  B)
Living off their wealth gained pre-bust C) Living on skid row  D) Moved
back in with their parents E) Taken to traveling the country searching for
a better way F) Died  G) Left to find meaningful employment in other
sectors, H) Taken any and all temporary positions that keep them and their
family alive or  I) ALL OF THE ABOVE.

I'm guessing H is true.  As one of those majorly affected....haven't had a
meaningful permanent type tech. job [meaningful meaning that it actually
paid the bills] since before 2000 [yes I hold a Bachelor's Degree in
Computer Science and approximately 20 years commulative experience], I may
have a few unique insights on this issue.... Then again with 2.5 million
of us around perhaps I don't....

> More
> jobs lost in IT than all jobs created since 2000. A large percentage of
> those jobs have 3-5 years of moss. They are not counted in the
> "official" unemployment statistics. We can also talk about manufacturing
> jobs lost and so on.

If we wish to have people with fulfilling work then we have to create an
economic environment where that can happen.....  As stated in "Small is
Beautiful" by economist E. F. Schumacher, we have to treat economics as if
people mattered.

> We have a big pool of IT talent unemployed and we see headlines that
> students do not want to go into tech careers in college. So, we need
> "retraining" or "skill enhancement" or something.

You have to ask yourself if our tech. jobs meant all that much, if the
world hasn't had that much difficulty (apparently) dealing with life
without us????

> I'm just throwing an idea around. What's wrong with curriculum that will
> focus on the hot IT topics to help people find jobs now and then
> curriculum growing as the landscape changes?

What "hot IT topics" are there right now?  What does the business world
need solved that they are willing to pay for?  What does the government
world need now that they are willing to pay for?  Do the things these
spheres desire make sense when you look at them in terms of people (not
just tech. people) mattering?

> I don't see open source technology solving this problem but I'm willing
> to listen. IMHO, this shift in employment trends transcends the open vs
> proprietary argument.

To me open source technology represents the major transition in thinking
within our economy.  We are changing from an economy where "consumers eat
products and shit cash" to one where "we help our neighbors and friends
and community members make life better for each other".

Anyway, those are my current thoughts on the matter.  Perhaps you might
find them useful.


Jeff Waddell

Personally I'm currently using E and H on the list above.