3 ms·

This article is slightly dubious. I have done a lot of work for IBM, they have been a great client, I admit that, that fact may bias me a bit but from my perspe

by kls 14y ago

This article is slightly dubious. I have done a lot of work for IBM, they have been a great client, I admit that, that fact may bias me a bit but from my perspective, what IBM has been doing is reducing permanent workforce with contract labor, that can be scaled up and down on a per-project basis. Is it a cost cutting measure? sure. Does it mean that Americans are loosing jobs? no. But it is easy to skew the numbers when you only show that IBM is shedding jobs. But when it is all tallied some of those jobs are being replaced with US based contract labor. This is the reality of the US technical workforce many times after a project you just don't need specific technical talent. The workers don't want to pasture and the employers don't want to carry them until they have work they can utilize them on. My experience is IBM has been moving to an on-demand workforce model. Their is no doubt that some of that is moving offshore but without mentioning the upswing in US based contractors the article does not paint the whole picture. Another fact not mentioned but that I hear from many IBM'ers turned freelancer is their average take home is higher in this model because IBM is willing to pay higher rates to only have to engage when the deals are inked. There is a whole argument to be made about their ability to retain really talented individuals with this model, but it's just not the market they service.

randomfool 14y ago
If so, I find it even more disturbing that the workforce would have limited interest in the long-term success of their team or their company.
- kls 14y ago
  Enterprise America is very different from small company America, that is why I made mention of talent retention, it is a tangential but related conversation but it does not really fit in the space of what the article is lamenting. I have worked in both, I prefer small business America because their is a stronger focus on quality and individualism but sometimes the enterprise is where the bills are paid. Those of us not in the valley have to split our times between what we would like to do and lucrative contracts that the likes of companies like IBM provide. The interesting part is it has created a culture of something akin to special forces teams, where groups of caravan style freelancers who have worked together in ad-hoc groups tend to come together on contracts many who have worked together many times over the years and yet other who have worked with others that you know. So sometimes you will go into a contract with guys that you don't know, but you know of them so the relationship develops quickly because it is like you know them. They are very talented individuals, but it's almost a mercenary mentality. They do quality work, but it is almost a robotic professionalism.
larrys 14y ago
"Does it mean that Americans are loosing jobs? no. But it is easy to skew the numbers when you only show that IBM is shedding jobs. But when it is all tallied some of those jobs are being replaced with US based contract labor." Agree. Two points. One - I know that when ATT did layoffs in the 80's many (or at least some I knew these people) of those laid off got contracts with ATT as subs and used them to build up companies. Second what you are saying also goes to the heart of the issue of job creation. People talk about startups creating jobs. But there is only so much purchasing power in the economy. A startup offering a product or service that is charging is going to take purchasing power away from a consumer or business that is most likely already spending that money somewhere. The only net gains sometimes are only if a country can take jobs from another country or a state or region can take jobs from another state or region or city.
- infinite8s 14y ago
  > Second what you are saying also goes to the heart of the issue of job creation. People talk about startups creating jobs. But there is only so much purchasing power in the economy. A startup offering a product or service that is charging is going to take purchasing power away from a consumer or business that is most likely already spending that money somewhere. The only net gains sometimes are only if a country can take jobs from another country or a state or region can take jobs from another state or region or city. That's the flawed zero-sum perception of economics, and history has proved that wrong. If it was true we'd still be living in caves and providing everything for ourselves.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    It's flawed over all space and time, yes, but it's true in a recession when total economic output (or at least, total economic output as available to the bottom 99% of the population) is shrinking.
  - kls 14y ago
    In sense larrys is right, but your observations is correct as well, at any given time there is only so much wealth in a society and the division of that wealth will happen any way you assemble it. But to your point, there are periods of innovation that create new and novel wealth that expands the pool for everybody. But after that innovation period is over, consolidation and efforts to streamline happen. IBM is in that streamlining period in portions of their business while in others (Watson for example) they are very much in the innovation phase.
forgotAgain 14y ago
Does it mean that Americans are loosing jobs? no. Do you have any proof to back up this statement?

by kls 14y ago

randomfool 14y ago

If so, I find it even more disturbing that the workforce would have limited interest in the long-term success of their team or their company.

kls 14y ago
Enterprise America is very different from small company America, that is why I made mention of talent retention, it is a tangential but related conversation but it does not really fit in the space of what the article is lamenting. I have worked in both, I prefer small business America because their is a stronger focus on quality and individualism but sometimes the enterprise is where the bills are paid. Those of us not in the valley have to split our times between what we would like to do and lucrative contracts that the likes of companies like IBM provide. The interesting part is it has created a culture of something akin to special forces teams, where groups of caravan style freelancers who have worked together in ad-hoc groups tend to come together on contracts many who have worked together many times over the years and yet other who have worked with others that you know. So sometimes you will go into a contract with guys that you don't know, but you know of them so the relationship develops quickly because it is like you know them. They are very talented individuals, but it's almost a mercenary mentality. They do quality work, but it is almost a robotic professionalism.

larrys 14y ago

"Does it mean that Americans are loosing jobs? no. But it is easy to skew the numbers when you only show that IBM is shedding jobs. But when it is all tallied some of those jobs are being replaced with US based contract labor." Agree. Two points. One - I know that when ATT did layoffs in the 80's many (or at least some I knew these people) of those laid off got contracts with ATT as subs and used them to build up companies. Second what you are saying also goes to the heart of the issue of job creation. People talk about startups creating jobs. But there is only so much purchasing power in the economy. A startup offering a product or service that is charging is going to take purchasing power away from a consumer or business that is most likely already spending that money somewhere. The only net gains sometimes are only if a country can take jobs from another country or a state or region can take jobs from another state or region or city.

infinite8s 14y ago
> Second what you are saying also goes to the heart of the issue of job creation. People talk about startups creating jobs. But there is only so much purchasing power in the economy. A startup offering a product or service that is charging is going to take purchasing power away from a consumer or business that is most likely already spending that money somewhere. The only net gains sometimes are only if a country can take jobs from another country or a state or region can take jobs from another state or region or city. That's the flawed zero-sum perception of economics, and history has proved that wrong. If it was true we'd still be living in caves and providing everything for ourselves.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  It's flawed over all space and time, yes, but it's true in a recession when total economic output (or at least, total economic output as available to the bottom 99% of the population) is shrinking.
- kls 14y ago
  In sense larrys is right, but your observations is correct as well, at any given time there is only so much wealth in a society and the division of that wealth will happen any way you assemble it. But to your point, there are periods of innovation that create new and novel wealth that expands the pool for everybody. But after that innovation period is over, consolidation and efforts to streamline happen. IBM is in that streamlining period in portions of their business while in others (Watson for example) they are very much in the innovation phase.

forgotAgain 14y ago

Does it mean that Americans are loosing jobs? no. Do you have any proof to back up this statement?