The Demise of High Tech

My meaning was unclear, so the correct course of action was to accuse me of being elitist?Anyway, it wasn't elitist, but why do you think so? My opening post was elitist and it's "no big deal" that I disagree with you? Gee, how kind of you.High tech was a great place to have a career, and then it wasn't. I thought the Times piece I quoted summed it up pretty well, that's why I opened the thread. Instead of doing your usual accusatory schtick about my lack of clarity you could just ask me what I think on matters I didn't comment on.--Percy

That's not quite what I said. Which is the following:Your message conveyed elitism. I did not initially jump on that particular aspect, but ringo did. You posted another message that conveyed elitism, at least to me. After that message, I pointed out what I thought was elitism [i]without making any accusation.That's it. You then expressed something that I should have initially assumed that you were not being elitist because, well the truth of the actual situation was obvious despite the fact that your first message did not convey any such thing. Well, no it was not obvious that you were not being elitist just because everyone else knows that other people are in similar binds to the ones that tech folks are in. That's why you got a couple of responses filling in those details. That is not what I mean, Percy.I have described my impression of your message. We are way past that first impression now, and as best I can tell, we agree on . All that we disagree on now is if there was any basis my first impression. If you want to assume that you did not provide a basis for my impression, that is indeed no big deal. And in rereading my message I see that I pinpointed exactly the same issue as 'no big deal'. Not that you are elitist, but that your message did convey elitism.Lighten up. Not every disagreement with you is life or death. I explained this is quite a bit of detail. I yield. Your opening post was perfect. It is the readers who are idiots.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

AbE: NoNukes message evidently changed quite a bit from the one I replied to, but I'll leave my message unchanged. It wasn't obvious that I wasn't being elitist, so that's makes it okay to accuse me of being elitist? You're a great guy. That's a related topic, but that wasn't what I opened the thread to talk about. High tech used to be a fun place to work, now it's not, and that's the lament I and the Times piece made.If you and Ringo want to change the focus to talk about other related topics then that's fine with me. Why don't you just start discussing what you really want to talk about instead of giving voice to mean spirited thoughts?--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.

Call me elitist, then when I object tell me to lighten up? That's extremely disingenuous. What's wrong with you? No, you didn't. You made additional inaccurate comments. I again suggest that you begin discussing something related to the topic, instead of giving voice to inner thoughts better kept to yourself.--Percy

I'll try to reset the discussion by responding to a couple things from your Message 13 that I didn't explicitly respond to earlier. If you reread Message 1, the perks I specifically mentioned were stock benefits (meaning ESPP's (Employee Stock Purchase Plans)), private offices and Keurigs. Speaking just from my personal experience, private offices for senior people began disappearing back in the 1990's. Keurigs disappeared after the 2008 financial collapse, and around the same time the ESPP was discontinued for several years, eventually reinstated in diminished form with a deduction limit less than around a third its former value.I don't think there was anything special about high tech's benefits and perks versus many other industries. The gradual transformation into a sweat shop industry was what made high tech into a not-fun industry. The loss of benefits and perks made the transformation harder to swallow, but they weren't what took away the fun.Probably what most made the fun possible was that for much of my time there high tech was a growth industry. The companies I worked for always grew, the stock price always increased, the benefits always improved. That's no longer true, and it makes me sad, hence this thread.Ringo's comment about the zeppelin industry is accurate. Others experience similar losses all the time. That doesn't mean it's wrong for me to comment about my own personal experience of loss. And in making those comments I'm not denying anyone else's experience of loss, nor denying that we had it pretty good in high tech for a long while, nor denying that some industries have suffered more than high tech, nor denying anything else you decide I had a failure in clarity by not commenting on. I don't know why you ask if I'm more skilled than people in other professions. I never implied that I was.Anyway, don't forget artists and musicians, and if we thought about it a while we could probably come up with a long list of professions with long training periods, high skill levels, and poor compensation. It seems unfair to me, too.--Percy

This is an indicator of success, not an indicator of failure.People used to talk about some industries being labor intensive. And it occurred to me, long ago, that eventually everything becomes labor intensive.We reduce the dependence on labor with automation. But, after a while, the engineers who manage the automation begin to be seen as labor, and the industry again becomes labor intensive, but with a higher skilled variety of labor.This seems unavoidable.What I see as the big problem is related, but different. The technology has lowered the cost of production. The technologists have received some rewards for this. But most of the benefits have accrued to the already wealthy, to the fat cats who had very little to do with the technological change, other than to benefit from it. Much of this is due to that great swindle, the grand larceny that is reaganomics.If we have doubled productivity, the sensible outcome should have been that the average person works a 20 hour week instead of a 40 hour week. Instead, we have many people unemployed, with the super rich as robber barons who have taken most for themselves, and who spend their spare time whining about the freeloaders. But they themselves are the real freeloaders.

Sure, high tech did not become a failure. It became not-fun. That it suffered along with the rest of the country after the 2008 financial collapse was not to say that it was a failure. As the high tech industry matured the focus on the bottom line became more intense. I experienced this personally as distributing less and less manpower across greater and greater responsibility, the result being a diminution in quality as measured by multiple factors. We all experience the result, and in more industries than just high tech. In high tech we see this diminution in quality in programs, websites, apps, TVs and cable boxes that are difficult to use and/or lacking function. I think most people blame themselves, but they're wrong, they just lack an understanding of how good these products could be because they have no intimate knowledge of the industry. In other industries we see the diminution in quality in inferior design, shoddy construction, poor durability, etc. I think the appliance industry is a good example - fridges, washer/dryers, etc. This industry always had its bottom feeders, but now even the former top line appliance companies (GE was one) are producing junk. We're going to strongly disagree on this one. I guess even after all these years it's still fashionable to pick on Reaganomics. What Reagan did was baby steps compared to what came later, gradually over time. I think you could extend this down the economic ladder from the super rich to the merely rich. Once one has a few million dollars there's a lot one can accomplish to one's betterment that doesn't constitute constructive economic activity. Most of the rich whose income is primarily salary probably just go about their lives, but those who have a substantial interest in a business will inevitably involve themselves in the political process to advance their competitive standing.--Percy

I don't think "skill levels" are that easily measured. A waitress who can keep half a dozen complex orders in her head is highly skilled but also highly unappreciated. "Skill level" is really more of a code than a measurement. It has more to do with diplomas and certificates than with actual value to the employer.

My first thought was buggy whips but I like to say Zeppelins.Zeppelins.

I am in favor of great perks. There seems to be a double standard in this country regarding wealth. If investors use their own capital to finance technological progress, the general consensus is that they deserve all of the perks since they invested most of the money. On the other hand, folks like percy who did much of the labor involved in helping the industry grow are never pitied simply because cheaper labor edged them out. We face the same dilemma in the unionized grocery industry that I am employed in. Customers could care less whether we make a good wage or not. They would prefer self checkout if it gave them five less minutres in the store!! I stand by my belief that education counts and so does experience. Down with cheap labor for cheap labors sake! The problem is the global competitiveness that by necessity never favors the upper middle and middle class worker. Bunch of heartless socialists, if you ask me. There you have it, folks! Percy nailed it---which means that what we need more of are heartfelt socialists.

Furthermore, the value that a worker has to an employer should not be measured strictly by dollars and cents. The good thing about unions is that you get to earn your value based on time. This is also a bad thing in some ways... Edited by Phat, : clarification

If by "measured" you mean some kind of formal testing that assigns a number, then I agree. But job performance is periodically assessed, and skill level influences the assessment's outcome. Annual reviews are invariably imperfect and flawed, but the better performers with the better skill levels tend to get better reviews. I think many people possess amazing yet under appreciated skills, but the skills that matter are those employers value. It *does* seem that a waitress with an outstanding memory should be highly valued by her employer, but what if she performs only as well as other waitresses who write things down? Of what value are her amazing memory skills to her employer then? Speaking just from personal experience in my own industry, a bachelors or masters degree in computer engineering with good grades from a reputable college or university will get one a very well paying job. What happens after that depends upon job performance. The worse performing new hires find themselves with lower raises, less interesting assignments, and less responsibility, and some are okay with that, but many migrate into other roles (e.g., tech support) or leave the company. The best performing new hires rapidly climb the ladder getting assigned the best projects, the most responsibility, the best raises, and incentive stock options.Where I worked value to the employer was everything, and the imperfect and much and deservedly criticized annual review process was the only way to determine that value. If you wanted the big raises, the big stock options, the big promotions, then you had to work on the big and important projects. Working in the spotlight where all the VPs have their attention and where success is measured objectively by product revenue isn't easy, it isn't for everyone, and success has very little to do with degrees earned years before that did little but get one in the door.--Percy