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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (67581)	4/12/2005 6:20:01 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

No one here has EVER put forth the above argument about how great the economy is, so exactly WHO are you debating with? I remember you as putting forth a positive (or bull) market sentiment a few mos ago when I said it was a bear. You called it a "pause" market or something. There are lots of straw man arguments put forth by both sides when discussing the economy. From my vantage point the 70s decade, as far as the stock market was concerned, was a bear. In truth, as far as the true definition of a bear market, maybe most of the 70s was not a bear, just because the mkt was flat. It certainly wasn't a bull.... maybe it was a "pause" market as you say! But most folks I know refer to the 70s as a bear. This market, today is very similar imho. That makes it a bear, to me.

To: Elroy who wrote (67581)	4/12/2005 6:43:58 PM
From: pfalk	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 77400

Elroy, You seem to have a problem with engineer's salaries. The pay rate isn't usually determined by the physical hardships associated with the work. If it was then CEO's would be paid less than cleaning ladies. The two criteria that usually determine the pay are: Supply and demand And Value added At Cisco a typical engineer generates revenue of between 3 and 5 million dollars, depending on what product he's working on. At a 65% contribution margin, which translates to a value-add of 2 to 4 million dollars. To paraphrase your statement: "So there you are, $2,000,000 a year is what you programmers are worth, and if you used to get more but can't get more now, tough titties." :) We both know that the "value add" is only setting the ceiling, it's really "Supply and Demand" that sets rates, and the ratio of supply to demand is what's changed with outsourcing. A lot of folks don't like this, since it is a new trend, and it's not rooted in simplifications in the work preformed. To quote you: The heavy lifting hasn't gotten easier. My beef with this has nothing to do with any of these two reasons (I've left engineering). I'm bothered by the fact that outsourcing ISN'T really saving any money for the corporations (while it does affect the lifestyles of the engineers in the US). It takes longer to do the development overseas, and the results are typically less good from a customer/usability point of view - ultimately making the company more vulnerable, not less. As a shareholder I don't like to see that money is being wasted, and the company's future imperiled, just so you can punish engineers. It's that simple. Peter