
The U.S. computer industry is dying - ableal
http://www.cringely.com/2015/06/24/the-u-s-computer-industry-is-dying-and-ill-tell-you-exactly-who-is-killing-it-and-why/
======
TheMagicHorsey
This guy is not smart.

The tech industry is only expanding. Not only in terms of total revenues, but
also total employment. In fact its one of the few sectors where employment is
increasing.

This guy is not educated in what he is talking about. His narrative about
American manufacturing is wrong too. American manufacturing has only increased
almost every decade since WWII. There has not been a decrease. What HAS
decreased is employment in manufacturing. But that decrease has happened
because of automation. Is that a bad thing?

You know, we used to be 70% employed in agriculture, but then we figured out
how to use machines to reduce the people required by an order of magnitude.
That's how we had enough people available to become a manufacturing power.

Now we are a service/tech power because people are slowly not needed in robot
factories.

Employment isn't the goal of an economy. Production is. We can give people a
basic income if necessary, if robots are doing everything. But we shouldn't
artificially boost employment where it isn't needed.

This guy is supposed to be a tech author and he's talking like a Luddite. In
the end I think this guy is just warm in his pants because he doesn't like so
many foreign looking people in the industry he covers.

Well, its too bad. The cat is out of the bag. Everyone knows how to program
and make tech now. You either bring them here, or they'll go work for tech
conglomerates in China, India, and Europe. All the colored faces in Google and
Facebook aren't there because they are accepting less money than American
graduates--they are getting paid a lot more than most graduates would get in
their random IT jobs around the country. We are hiring the best of the best
for our tech sector. That's good for America, and keeps America ahead of the
competition.

~~~
supercanuck
Everytime, I read hacker news comments, I feel like the folks in Silicon
Valley are dense to the fact that there is an entirely different IT Industry
out there providing services to Fortune 500's that are not Google, Facebook,
Microsoft, Amazon and other technology companies. etc. Cringley is talking
about the technology companies who provide technology services to the other
companies, not customer facing companies.

>All the colored faces in Google and Facebook aren't there because they are
accepting less money than American graduates

No they are definitely not, but they ARE at Verizon, Disney and ExxonMobil.

~~~
mc32
They are also at the companies founded by local arms of foreign companies.

I've observed Chinese companies paying Chinese speaking workers and Indian
founded companies paying Indian nationals less than they paid Americans (of
varying ethnicities). On my limited observation, this practice is not
uncommon. And, as we know, small and medium sized biz employ more people than
do large firms. This wage variance is little mentioned but quite prevalent.
Same as the hole in the wall taco joint run by foreign nationals, they tend to
exploit their own the most taking advantage of national affinity or whatever.

------
PythonicAlpha
Basing the compensation of CEOs on the stock price is a real problem.

I also see a link to politics. In politics we have a similar situation: Most
politicians (at least in our country) are planning for one or two terms of
office. After that, they are eligible for a pension big enough for them. And
when this is not enough, they also can get money from corporations just by
being a consultant after their time in office. So, the plan is just short
term: Get into the parliament, get a big seat as secretary if possible or
other good job and after just a few years you don't have any trouble in live
any more, money-wise. This can be best reached, by short-term thinking. Be
helpful to the right people, be a "party soldier" (as it is called in Germany)
that does what the party top wants from you.

Own thinking, or long-term success or even thinking, what is best for the
people, is counter-productive in this scheme.

So what we more and more get, are short-term solutions, that only make you
popular for a short-term but does not help with the long-term problems.
Troublesome decisions are shifted into the future, when you are out of office,
even when the troubles will increase meanwhile.

The same short-term thinking is produced in CEOs today. A CEO just has to get
the job and be there, for 4-8 years to earn enough money, most people don't
have in a lifetime. So what does he do? Make troublesome decisions, or
decisions, that cost money for the next 3-5 years and will pay maybe in 6
years, maybe later??

You know the answer.

I think, this short-term thinking and the greed, that is injected in many of
us today, are the reason of the most problems we face today.

------
Consultant32452
I get so tired of this "sky is falling" crap. I've seen the outsourcing, I've
seen the H1B fraud, I've seen the shit performance from IBM and virtually
every other household name IT consulting firm out there. I've even seen the
Google/MSFT/Apple salary collusion scandal. But you know what? In spite of ALL
OF THAT five out of the top ten salaries for bachelor's degrees are all IT
related. [http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/majors-that-
pa...](http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/majors-that-pay-you-
back/bachelors)

IT unemployment has been 2% in my region for nearly a decade. That means
everyone with any skills who wants a job has a job.

I can hardly imagine how you could try to screw over IT workers any harder
than is being done by the corporate big wigs and yet IT is still one of the
best places to be. And if it gets bad? God help us, we can just unionize. But
it's hard to convince people to organize and complain when they're making more
money and enjoying more benefits than most people on the planet.

~~~
colordrops
I'm not sure what your point is. I'm reading it as: "You shouldn't be
complaining, because you are being fucked, but you are being fucked over less
than others. So stop complaining." Is that what you are saying?

~~~
Consultant32452
My point is that we're not actually being fucked. In spite of people trying to
fuck us over right and left, it would appear we're winning.

~~~
s73v3r
Then you'd be completely wrong. We are being fucked.

~~~
Consultant32452
In what way?

------
aytekin
"Do HP’s or IBM’s whole organization understand the “value” of their service?

It is only a matter of time until a company emerges that truly understands the
value of IT service, because that need isn’t going away."

Not a single company but their business is being eaten by all these thousands
of new small SaaS businesses that cost a fraction of what they charge for
their terrible enterprise software.

We are only focused on a niche but we do it amazingly and we have customers
from virtually all big businesses. These companies don't need IBM any more,
because employees in these companies can now do their forms on JotForm, their
CRM on Salesforce, their communication over Slack, their emails on google apps
and hundreds of other products that focus on only one thing but do it
amazingly well.

------
heimatau
I like the first half talking about the poor decision to link stock price with
CEO's performance. Also, his ultimate conclusion is that the USA lost
manufacturing industry and half of the car industry, but it doesn't have to
lose the technology industry (Cringely thinks if the status quo is kept, the
USA will indeed lost the tech industry). After reading his article, I strongly
think Microsoft is positioned to realize this. Their CEO recently said
something of this effect, 'Our goal is to solve more of our customers problems
everyday. So that they can do things that add value in the world.' It's how
I've viewed Apple (minus the past two years) and I think MSFT is on the right
track.

~~~
sounds
I'd love it if you documented some of the following:

• 'Our goal is to solve more of our customers problems everyday. So that they
can do things that add value in the world.'

• (Separately) How Microsoft is on the right track.

• How you've viewed Apple (minus the past two years)

~~~
heimatau
Sure.

Point 1: " revealing the company’s new, official mission statement: To
“empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more.”"
Source: [http://www.geekwire.com/2015/exclusive-satya-nadella-
reveals...](http://www.geekwire.com/2015/exclusive-satya-nadella-reveals-
microsofts-new-mission-statement-sees-more-tough-choices-ahead/)

Point 2: Microsoft is shifting to create scaled services that solve various
problems (Azure, CRM, mobile first campaign, etc).

Point 3: I've viewed Apple that simplified the users' experience with
computers and made it easier for their users to 'do more' as Nadella has been
saying in the press. Apple did a solid job but unless they find other ways to
add value to their users lives, their competition will squeeze most of the
market share. *Note: I understand that Apple has a monopoly on the premium
smartphone sales (~75% last time I checked) but this can all easily changed
due to Moore's Law. Ie., most desktops and laptops sucked 10 years ago but
now, they all are fairly solid products.

------
strictnein
> "USA IT workers make about 10 times the pay and benefits that their
> counterparts make in India."

There's medium to high quality workers in India that only cost companies ~$15k
/ year? Nothing I've ever read indicates that. Always seen $25-$30k/year
cited, with the number steadily increasing every year.

~~~
jlgaddis
> "... pay _and benefits_ ..." (emphasis added)

I'm guessing the benefits we in the USA get are much better than in India.

~~~
strictnein
Yes, that was accounted for. Pay and benefits for a mid-level US dev is
probably in the $140-$150k range. $90-$100k in pay. $40-$50k in
401k/Retirement, Health, PTO, Bonus, etc.

1/10th of that is ~$15k

------
hga
As _Bloomberg Business_ puts it, "How Bill Clinton Helped Boost CEO Pay"
([http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2006-11-26/how-bill-
clin...](http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2006-11-26/how-bill-clinton-
helped-boost-ceo-pay)), or more succinctly:

 _In 1993, Section 162(m) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code was passed into
law. The intent of this law was to reign in outsized executive compensation by
eliminating the tax-deductibility of executive compensation above $1 million
unless the excess compensation was performance-based._

([http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=942667](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=942667)).

I'll also note that those running companies are, by definition in the US,
responsible for providing good returns to the owners, AKA stockholders. And
it's been noted since 1941 or so, in James Burnham's _The Managerial
Revolution_ , that there's a divergence between the interests of managers and
owners, so efforts like Section 162(m) are understandable.

------
anupshinde
This guy has got many facts wrong here. And why is he using HP/IBM examples to
represent the industry - These co's have earned some disrespect quite some
time back.

I believe the opposite is true. The US computer industry would have been dead
out of cost and competition if it did not embrace offshoring. Instead what it
is doing now is taking a bit of hit and staying in control. It has generated
more leaders than just workers. I can only wonder what country would be the
leader in the computer industry within a decade of the US banning offshoring
or H1Bs.

------
apalmer
i am somewhat conflicted on the article. on the one hand his arguments are
almost all logically weak, they just aren't compelling in most cases. They are
mostly emotional appeals more than logic.

on the other hand i actually agree with a lot of what he is saying so there is
that...

~~~
tjradcliffe
And when have emotional appeals ever let anyone down? :-)

Sounds like a valuable opportunity to practice Bayesian reasoning. One thing I
like to do in situations like this is see if I can figure out any data that
contradict my emotional response, so I can build a data-driven case that makes
what seems to be emotionally right as implausible as possible.

If you're a Bayesian, you've got to go with what is most plausible according
to the data. Your emotions are data about you, which may be really relevant in
some cases, but probably not in the case of international trade...

~~~
escherplex
'Fuzzy logic' may be a better fit since individual subjectivity isn't always
that amenable to quantification. There you can wind up with results that look
stochastic and range from 0 to 1 but technically are the just numeric values
assigned to value judgments. You probably know the text book example where the
18YO who views 40 as 'old' assigns 29 a value of .73 if what has been defined
as 'young' is < 26\. Something else to play with...

------
NoFormFactors
We have, and actively are moving away from "form factors".

Technology is not necessary.

Enjoy.

;-)

~~~
hartator
Following the same logic, human life is not necessary. Technology, in the
broad meaning of the term, is what make us men and not animals.

