The Anti-Gloom-and-Doom/Offshoring/Age-ism thread

College Majors Engineering Majors
1

<p>I am officially tired of all of these gloom-and-doom threads from someone who has not designed nor wrote a SINGLE block of code, deployed any software and probably would not know how to parse a string of 3 characters if his sorry life depended on it.</p>

<p>I have been in the I.T. and software engineering industry for over 20 years. That is 20 YEARS AFTER my B.S degree commencement. That should tell you how old I am. I have never been unemployed for no more than a week since college...and that week was because I would take a vacation between changing employers. I am also a MINORITY, so even with that being historically against me, I have been able to pretty much E-MAIL my resume and actually look at my watch and countdown when a recruiter will call.</p>

<p>How do I do it? I keep up with what is "hot" in the industry. I have my technical/scientific/engineering preferences AND I also stay abreast of what is "hot". Every year, I toss technical books to the trash bin that I originally paid $50, $60 and $70+ for. I AM A LIFELONG STUDENT. When the beta versions of popular software like Oracle, SQL Server or Red Linux are barely leaked to the public, I am at home...in my home office room learning everything about it....and that resume is updated.</p>

<p>I also keep several "technical areas under my hat". I don't really like doing project management because employers really don't pay senior engineers extra for it despite the additional headache BUT I maintain that PMP certification JUST IN CASE.</p>

<p>The word "BOTH" is what I used to guide my career. Should I specialize in what I like or specialize in what is in demand?.....Hell, do BOTH. Should I major in math or major in computer science. Hell, I did BOTH....then get the graduate engineering degree JUST IN CASE employers do not consider CS is engineering.</p>

<p>High Demand TRUMPS off-shoring, age, bad economy and just about any other negative thing about engineering. Yes, doing INTEL work does NOT lend itself to using the latest, cutting edge technology like pure private sector work...and NO I do not like having to "ask" the National Security Agency "can I travel here?" like a I am child, but the job security of INTEL work levels that out.</p>

<p>Do not allow the 1000th Off-shoring thread to sway you away from engineering. There are plenty of us who have been in engineering a long time...who probably retire from engineering and if I don't mess up my 401K, should be able to live pretty good as a result of it.</p>

<p>By the way, I live in Howard County, MD. Do some research on that area and how it is ranked.</p>

<p>I am done for now.</p>

2

<p>I have only worked in defense for 6 years. My other FOURTEEN years was non-INTEL private sector work. Healthcare, Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies need I.T. folks all day. The HICFAA laws of 3 years ago basically TRIPLED the amount of data and the processing of data that used to be needed.</p>

<p>High-Finance companies of the Northeast need I.T. folks all day. It’s kinda hard to find the quant who also knows C++ or Java. Those companies need data quickly to form decisions.</p>

3

<p>

</p>

<p>Yep. This is what I was thinking. For good or for bad, IT is seen as a support task or a backoffice function in finance companies (not just Wall Street). Even though it is really of central importance, it is first to be offshored. This is just based on how management prioritizes business function.</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>Not enough to make a dent…and definitely not off-shoring any I.T. that “matters”.</p>

<p>Who cares if some “storage management” admin’s task if off-shored? Folks go into computer science to DESIGN and DEVELOP and those developers could care less about “maintenance”.</p>

<p>Hell, I don’t even do maintenance. Once the system is deployed, I am in my technical manager’s face asking “Do you have any NEW startup projects?..or else I will have to leave the company.”</p>

<p>There is no money nor items that will get you promoted from mundane tasks. Engineers get pay raises and promotions from what they have developed.</p>

5

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, the plan is to convert more contractors to federal employees and phase the current federal employees out because the mindset of the typical contractor is to STAY abreast of the latest technology and “hit the ground running” when on a new project. That “mindset” is unfortunately not instilled in many federal employees.</p>

<p>The government knows that they cannot rely on the current crop of govies since the contractors have been historically doing the majority of the work. The government will need to hopefully convert contractors to govies.</p>

6

<p>But would you not end up with the same sort of situation anyway? It seems like it’s unavoidable.</p>

<p>Regardless, excellent post. I very much respect your philosophy of being a life-long student, I think if more people decided that learning is a good thing and that just because you’ve got your degree you can kick back and relax, they might find themselves in less trouble. I don’t understand people who have sense of entitlement when they don’t work hard.</p>

<p>Again, great stuff. I hate all those other threads.</p>

7

<p>While I do think there is some merit to the “Apocalypse” threads (mainly in the form ******bag corporations treat their stakeholders), it is preferable to listen to GLOBALTRAVELER and other experienced engineers/professionals on these forums.</p>

8

<p>Even if the situation is okay right now, I think that there is a cultural problem that society does not believe that engineers should be paid high salaries. </p>

<p>Consider all of the rhetoric about the “shortage” of engineers and how high their salaries are. On it’s surface, it simply means that society needs more engineers, but consider that in a free market economy there can only be a shortage at a certain price. Lawyers are definitely in huge oversupply, but nonetheless there is a shortage of lawyers at $7 / per hour. Likewise, while there may be a shortage of engineers at 70k/year, there is definitely not a shortage at 150k/year. So the claim that we have a shortage of engineers is logically equivalent to the claim that are engineers are overpaid, and that more people should enter the market to drive down their salaries. </p>

<p>Likewise, the claim that the legal market is saturated is equivalent to the claim that lawyers are underpaid. With lawyers who have at least 7 years of education makings under 50k/year, this is most definitely the case, but it is still grounded in societal beliefs about how much certain professions ought to be paid and respected in society. </p>

<p>Clearly, engineers are doing (relatively) well for the time being, but unless we can convince society that engineers is valuable, any gains will be purely temporary.</p>

9

<p>This guy does not mind talkin about himself lol.</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>As I re-read my post, there was a lot of “I’s” in that. Sorry about that but Homer kind of got to me there. </p>

<p>Still, there are a WHOLE lot of engineers that I know (my age and older) who would feel the same.</p>

<p>Yes, I agree with the early post about entitlement. Employers are not going let you just kick back and collect a check for merely staying 8 hours.</p>

11

<p>But many employers will try to collect 2x, 3x, 4x…Nx labor out of employees with little to no compensation (then again, from a business standpoint, there is nothing wrong with that). Engineers need to be a bit more conscious about the importance of their skills to society and should price themselves accordingly.</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>What happen when they convert contractors to govies? I am asking about the consequence? What would happen to the company?</p>

13

<p>

</p>

<p>I have to correct your economic reasoning here. How important one thinks a thing is cannot be gauged by whether or not they out-source it. Whether a person does something themselves, or hires somebody else to do it, is based entirely on who can do it the most efficiently, now how important they think it is. A doctor hires a receptionist because he can spend his time more valuably doing doctor stuff than he can greeting patients, scheduling appointments, etc. I buy fruit at a store rather than grow my own, even though nutrition is important to me, because it takes far less resources to buy apples as I need them than to buy land, plant a tree, wait for harvest, etc.</p>

<p>Companies outsource IT, or janitorial services or cafeteria management or marketing or any number of things, based on who does it the most efficiently (and thus the cheapest): them or a subcontractor. This, in effect, makes every employee hired by the owner(s) of the company a subcontractor of one. A doctor out-sources secretarial duties to a receptionist called Peggy, Inc., who happens to just be a lady named Peggy. The economics of the division of labor are the same regardless of whether it’s a single employee or a large sub-contractor in another hemisphere.</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>What happens is that the tax-payer gets screwed. The only reasons for using government employees instead of private sub-contractors are political, they are certainly not economic or engineering-related.</p>

<p>If this change happens, we would pay more money for less. The only people who would benefit are the bureaucrats who would see their salaries grow (they are often paid based on the number of people they have “working” under them), and the politicians who would then have thousands more unionized employees. More union employees means more money for the Democrats. It’s funny. Republican launder money through defense contractors, Democrats launder money through unions, now Democrats have found a way to screw over the Republicans by laundering money through unions and defense contractors at the same time.</p>

15

<p>When I first read the statement “convert contractors”, I was thinking about nationalizing the companies (state-operated). It needs to be clarify, if not, Obama is going to get more socialist tags than ever! Unions? I think we have enough headaches from the union these days. :)</p>

16

<p>Consider the new Boeing 787 for example, the wing is done in Japan and the tail piece is done in Italy. There have been mentionings of bringing some or most of the work in-house, ie within Boeing. However, top Boeing CEO stated that no matter what, they will always outsource part of their work. (Stating also that 80 percent of the customers are from China alone, and relation with China ie having some work done there is necessary.)</p>

<p>Sorry, I dont know how much this is relevant to the topic but just one of the reason why it is necessary from a company perspective to outsource work.</p>

17

<p>@strengr,</p>

<p>That type of work is not done my engineers, but it done by skilled trade workers.</p>

18

<p>

There are other factors as well. </p>

<p>When you subcontract a service or technology you sacrifice a certain amount of control over the process - my company has gotten screwed when subcontractors change “unimportant” parts of their manufacturing process (as allowed by their contracts!) in a manner that unexpectedly influenced quality. In-house assets are more nimble, and easier to correct. Plus, many subcontractors have very well-developed contracts - you may find yourself in a pickle later on as you find yourself unable to do certain things you really need to do.</p>

<p>When you outsource you have to account for a significant expense in interface and oversight of the subcontractor, plus you have to pay THEIR profit margin. This means that subcontracting is profitable only when the service/technology is something that the other party can do significantly more efficiently (to overcome the subcontracting costs). This is why you subcontract out “universal” services - maintaining a couple of IT guys is often more expensive than paying for the part-time services of dozens of specialists at a massive IT company. And even then, you’ll still maintain some in-house IT capability!</p>

<p>Also, it is not often advantageous to subcontract innovation (you know, that thing engineers are supposed to do!). If the technology is a flop, no loss, but if it is successful (which you are presumably hoping!) then you gain only minimal benefit - the subcontractor can run up prices later, use it in their own development, or even offer it to competitors! This is why companies usually only subcon their support services.</p>

19

<p><a href=“Stating%20also%20that%2080%20percent%20of%20the%20customers%20are%20from%20China%20alone,%20and%20relation%20with%20China%20ie%20having%20some%20work%20done%20there%20is%20necessary.”>quote</a>

[/quote]

This is quite common - many countries require a certain percentage of work to be done within their borders, or they will not allow the import/export. These requirements often please the CEO’s as well, as they then have cover for their outsourcing desires…</p>

20

<p>

Not always. In any given area there are several factors that determine whether or not it should be governmental or contracted, and since these factors often shift it is sometimes necessary to either farm out something new or to reclaim tasks from contractors. Most of the “reclaimable” things at which the government is looking are tasks that were in-house just a decade or two ago - they tried contracting it out and have realized that the “full picture” does not support it.</p>

<p>If this were not the case, then the government would consist entirely of elected officials and contractors - which has a certain redundency to it anyway.</p>

<p>

Um, private industry does this too. My entire department was reorganized a little while ago - they were afraid they would lose a certain individual in management if they did not promote him, and promoting him required a certain minimum headcount. As a result, my entire management chain got changed, and I now report to several individuals who (while still engineers) are as far away from part of the design process as possible.</p>