The PLAN

[scottw]

Originally Posted by striperman36

No hiring but record profits, just wonderful,

NYT
This breakneck pace can be partly attributed to strong productivity growth — which means companies have been able to make more with less — as well as the fact that some of the profits of American companies come from abroad. Economic conditions in the United States may still be sluggish, but many emerging markets like India and China are expanding rapidly.

again, why would you hire employees that you don't need? in any business???

if you can fill current demands with X number of employees...is a tax credit going to incentivize you to increase your number of employees to X+10 to fill the same demand????? or are you assuming that demand automatically increases with an increase in employees.....or is hiring just the patriotic thing to do?

[striperman36]

Exactly, fortunately there'll always be a demand for IT people, even if they pay significantly less for more hours.

[spence]

Originally Posted by striperman36

Exactly, fortunately there'll always be a demand for IT people, even if they pay significantly less for more hours.

Your biggest fear should be the Cloud.

With defense spending certainly to decline, program rationalization will be a very hot topic on the floor of Congress. IT will be in the cross hairs as contractors try to shift their spend towards retaining specialized talent critical to rapid project completion.

Be thankful for that little bit of US Government regulatory oppression called ITAR. It's perhaps your trump card to not get outsourced!

-spence

[striperman36]

no DoD 8510 is the trump card.

Been doing cloud since 2006 or even early when it was called ASP's in 96. Also doing large private clouds with rapid provisioning, still very complicated to set up, have 2 large engagements underway, one DoD the other Agency.

It's more complicated than you think it is, it's not all pre-built. You gotta get to it (the cloud) and requires (or should) more security than private cloud.
Also you have to transition stuff (apps, data, users, management)

Nice buzz word but totally bogus when it comes to some of the implied benefits unless done right.

[spence]

Originally Posted by striperman36

no DoD 8510 is the trump card.

Same issue, certification will be a bitch. I think ITAR has a lot more visibility in millions of dollars of fines.

Been doing cloud since 2006 or even early when it was called ASP's in 96. Also doing large private clouds with rapid provisioning, still very complicated to set up, have 2 large engagements underway, one DoD the other Agency.

It's more complicated than you think it is, it's not all pre-built. You gotta get to it (the cloud) and requires (or should) more security than private cloud.
Also you have to transition stuff (apps, data, users, management)

Nice buzz word but totally bogus when it comes to some of the implied benefits unless done right.

Improved network latency and stability is allowing better private cloud performance, but the commercialization of public Cloud apps and increasingly open applications is the game changer we're just getting into. For the heavier applications, yes, it's still a lot of hype, but already CIO's are starting to drink the Kool Aid.

Next time you're over for beers we should draft a few talking points I can use to help with these conversations. I've got the high-level pitch but you can give me some specifics.

-spence

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by spence

Same issue, certification will be a bitch. I think ITAR has a lot more visibility in millions of dollars of fines.


Improved network latency and stability is allowing better private cloud performance, but the commercialization of public Cloud apps and increasingly open applications is the game changer we're just getting into. For the heavier applications, yes, it's still a lot of hype, but already CIO's are starting to drink the Kool Aid.

Next time you're over for beers we should draft a few talking points I can use to help with these conversations. I've got the high-level pitch but you can give me some specifics.

-spence

This is sooo over, it's a myth

[spence]

Originally Posted by striperman36

This is sooo over, it's a myth

What's a myth?

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

NYT
This breakneck pace can be partly attributed to strong productivity growth — which means companies have been able to make more with less — as well as the fact that some of the profits of American companies come from abroad. Economic conditions in the United States may still be sluggish, but many emerging markets like India and China are expanding rapidly.

again, why would you hire employees that you don't need? in any business???

if you can fill current demands with X number of employees...is a tax credit going to incentivize you to increase your number of employees to X+10 to fill the same demand????? or are you assuming that demand automatically increases with an increase in employees.....or is hiring just the patriotic thing to do?

It's an incentive to increase innovative behavior.

Basically, you can't automate everything and usually automation requires an existing and proven process.

If I'm trying to invent a new product or revolutionary manufacturing process the additional labor burden required is a large part of the overall investment. If the investment costs are too high relative to the benefits I won't take the risk.

Many companies today are still profitable because they've cut their cost structures to the bone, but their people don't have the bandwidth for anything other than short-term profit motivated work. Sure, they can produce today's product more efficiently, but are they prepared to compete 5 or 10 years down the road?

The bottom line is that people are the lifeblood of any innovative organization.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It's an incentive to increase innovative behavior. that is hilarious

The bottom line is that people are the lifeblood of any innovative organization.

-spence

if that were true ....government would be incredibly innovative, efficient, productive and cost effective with all of those people

there seem to be plenty of government chosen "innovative" exploits recently that were subsidized with "incentives to increase innovation" and subsequently couldn't find demand(Volt) or couldn't compete in the marketplace(Solyndra)....

business will innovate just fine on their own and as they see fit...don't need Obaba giving pointers....

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

if that were true ....government would be incredibly innovative, efficient, productive and cost effective with all of those people

The majority of Government jobs are transactional.

there seem to be plenty of government chosen "innovative" exploits recently that were subsidized with "incentives to increase innovation" and subsequently couldn't find demand(Volt) or couldn't compete in the marketplace(Solyndra)....

These are different scenarios.

business will innovate just fine on their own and as they see fit...don't need Obaba giving pointers....

As usual you're pretty much missing the point completely. This isn't a situation where the government is dictating anything, just helping to defray a little risk as an incentive.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The majority of Government jobs are transactional.
the majority are unnecessary and we should reduce the number of government transactions
These are different scenarios.
not really, both are examples of companies that with much government fanfare sought to "innovate" through government "encouragement" thinking that "innovation" would result in a successful business venture despite the lack of demand in one case and any ability to compete in the other....all hype....then.... all disappointment.....Like Obama

As usual you're pretty much missing the point completely. This isn't a situation where the government is dictating anything, just helping to defray a little risk as an incentive.

-spence

this is a situation where Obama has nothing left to regurgitate so he thinks that this will be some solution to the lack of hiring and later he can complain that companies didn't take advantage of his benevolence when they don't take advantage of what is actually a really bad idea...

this is Obama's version of 100,000 cops on the streets

Kudlow - Businesses like to look ahead at least three to five years for their employment planning. And they’re already worried about the tax and regulatory mandate costs of Obamacare, which has become a great deterrent to job creation. But nobody makes clear business decisions based on temporary one-year tax cuts. That’s not the way business works.


see above
NY Times
Employers Say Jobs Plan Won’t Lead to Hiring Spur

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

Kudlow - Businesses like to look ahead at least three to five years for their employment planning. And they’re already worried about the tax and regulatory mandate costs of Obamacare, which has become a great deterrent to job creation. ]

The unknown effect of Obamacre is one of the biggest reasons for not hiring
by small companies. No one has a clue as to the cost to them or how it will be paid for.

How is that ,what it is 5 or 500 billion, savings from fraud in Medicare and Medicaid
coming along???