Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (159128)	8/28/2003 10:58:45 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

<< the fact is we have lost more jobs in the last few years than any other presidential period. More jobs than in the 70s recession, more than that awful 82 period with the goring of manufacturing and the horrible productivity of the US worker. What caused it- offshoring of service professionals and I don't mean just IT. >> That's baloney. 'Offshoring' is not to blame for th job losses in the last few years. The bursting of the bubble is. Co's like Lucent with Carly Fiorina laying off high-wage people like crazy, now she's at HPQ doing the same thing.. Enron.. Worldcom .. Nortel .. Global Crossing .. Value America .. T .. NRG .. Pets.com .. AMR .. CMGI .. VA Linux .. Vicinty .. these co's did not 'offshore' - they hit the delete key on all those jobs.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (159128)	8/28/2003 11:44:59 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

The big tech companies are actually selling more, not less than they did in the late 90s. Oh? Let's test your claim. I've pulled revenue numbers for five of the real biggies in tech-land - CSCO, IBM, INTC, MSFT and ORCL. Guess what, Liz - only MSFT has continued to grow (and impressively so) in spite of the bust. IBM comes in second, but its last twelve months'(June) revenue of $85.2B just barely surpasses its peak year number of $85.1B in 2000. CSCO is running about $19B in trailing revenues, down from a 2001 (July FY) peak of $22.3B. ORCL did $9.5B in it's 2003 fiscal year (May), down from $11.0B in FY2001. And bringing up the rear, mighty Intel did $27.2B the last twelve months. They peaked in 2000 at $33.7B in sales. And that's just the companies who are still biggies - what about all the one's that were once big, but now don't make the cut? Take LU for example. They were a $20B sales company in 2000 - now they're a mere shadow of their former selves at $8.7B, ttm. Then, of course, there are the pretend former biggies like WCOM, but we'd all like to forget the frauds. There are many more near-biggies, though, that just went away quietly after blowing the hundreds of millions invested in them. Of course, the survivors will benefit from the disappearance of so many competitors, large and small, but to point to one or two (actually, you made a broad claim, but that was wrong - I found the one or two) that are back to, or ahead of their peak sales and say "we've worked through it now" and expect tech employment to also be back to bubble levels is just plain wrong.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (159128)	8/29/2003 7:51:12 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

liz, you made a TON of money in stock, right? you sold a TON for some good cash, didn't you. you converted to real estate, right? just b/c YOU don't feel SERIOUS pain to the level millions of others do, doesn't make their PAIN UNREAL. come on! selectron is liquidating TONS OF ASSETS! that's lost jobs, lost homes, etc... 1.5 MILLION people, NET, left california b/c there is a dearth of opportunity here now (excluding illegals). i will grant you, it isn't a full fledged bust. yet. imho, that's still coming. it absolutely is related. i'm neither republican or democrat and i am free to call it like it is. i do. i have nothing to "protect." to say it isn't related is as silly as saying the bust of 1929 on isn't related to the boom of the late 20s...