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 : Information Architects (IARC): E-Commerce & EIP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tech who wrote (4492)	2/17/1998 9:14:00 AM
From: tech	Respond to of 10786

Two things I forgot. #1 Here is the link to the article > amcity.com btw- (Jeff, you've avoided my question regarding Gruder's "we are profitable now " statement) Do you still believe he may of not made this statement and do you still claim you don't remember the article ? - Just curious. #2 whenever you hear the term "a bidding war" you must understand that we are not talking about a normal market condition here. In most instances the more demand for a product the higher the prices go and then more supply will be created to match the demand and prices will find equilibrium again. However, when we are talking about the year 2000 market place and the need for staff, we are talking about an inelastic supply curve. Basically, the higher the demand and prices go, NO NEW SUPPLY WILL BE ADDED. There is a limited amount of supply and throwing more money at it WILL NOT create more supply. It will just make the existing supply more costly. That is what the reporter means when he says robbing from Peter to pay Paul. When companies get involved in bidding wars for bodies, it will eventually hurt them BOTH. They are making the market price for these bodies increase every time they outbid a competitor and as that competitor goes back into the marketplace to replace the employee, he will have to pay more and more every time.