Searching \ for '[EE] Engineering salaries -- survey' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=engineering+salaries
Search entire site for: 'Engineering salaries -- survey'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Engineering salaries -- survey'
2007\10\30@235533 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
M. Adam Davis wrote in "[EE] Help writing a PIC job ad":
>
> http://www.ganssle.com/salsurv2006.pdf
> Chances are you're looking for 5-9 years experience, so should expect
> to be paying around $82,000/year with variation based on cost of
> living in your area, demand, etc.  Software engineers are paid better
> than firmware engineers, which are paid better than hardware
> engineers.

Summary (rounded off):

0-4 years of experience: $65k/year
5-9 years: $85k/year
10-14 years: $95k/year
15-19 years: $100k/year
20-24 years: $130k/year
25-29 years: $100k/year
30-34 years: $95k/year
35-39 years: $95k/year

Question: based on your current salary, would you say that the salary
figures given are too low, too high, or just right (+/- 5%)?



2007\10\31@024115 by Richard Prosser

picon face
Way too high - but I'm comparing NZ salaries.  I guess there are
likely to be regional variations whin the US as well.

RP

On 31/10/2007, Vitaliy <spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTspammaksimov.org> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\10\31@045820 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Way too high - but I'm comparing NZ salaries.  I guess
> there are
> likely to be regional variations whin the US as well.

Is that before or after you allow for the exchange rate ?
:-)



   R


2007\10\31@053403 by Richard Prosser

picon face
Unfortunately - before.

RP

On 31/10/2007, Russell McMahon <.....apptechKILLspamspam@spam@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\10\31@083957 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Also keeping in mind that these were last year's figures, I'd say just right.

Keep in mind that Jack Ganssle's survey may be somewhat self selecting
- I suspect that the engineers that read him are likely above average
in a number of areas - too many average and below average engineers
don't care to 'sharpen the saw'.  I doubt the variation is great,
though.

-Adam

On 10/30/07, Vitaliy <spamspamKILLspammaksimov.org> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\10\31@090012 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 10/31/07, Vitaliy <.....spamKILLspamspam.....maksimov.org> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

This is still way too high if comparing with Singapore even after
two big changes.
1) Cut the above by 1/3 because of higher tax in USA
2) Consider US$1.00=S$1.0 (the real exchange rate is about
US$1.00=S$1.50)

I believe my friends in California are earning higher than the above
figure but the housing price offsets pretty much of the higher pay.

Xiaofan (a poor engineer in Singapore)

2007\10\31@091602 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>I believe my friends in California are earning higher than the above
>figure but the housing price offsets pretty much of the higher pay.

Many people here in the US work in a high cost of living area, but
live in a low cost of living area. I did this for about 15 years,
driving 50 miles each way to/from work. I traded off an extra 2 hours
(driving time) each day, for a better living standard the rest of the
time. The 75 minute drive home let me unwind from work. I also found
that the extra distance insulated me from work - people knew better
than to try to call me in for "an hour or two" on the weekends, vs
those who lived ten or fifteen minutes from work.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2007\10\31@092039 by Hazelwood Lyle

flavicon
face
> 0-4 years of experience: $65k/year
> 5-9 years: $85k/year
> 10-14 years: $95k/year
> 15-19 years: $100k/year
> 20-24 years: $130k/year
> 25-29 years: $100k/year
> 30-34 years: $95k/year
> 35-39 years: $95k/year
>
> Question: based on your current salary, would you say that the salary
> figures given are too low, too high, or just right (+/- 5%)?
>

Ouch.
That hurts.

While I am not a degreed engineer, I have considerable training and documentation within my specialty (industrial robotics), and I bring a diverse set of abilities to the table.
The salaries shown are all well above any pay scale that I've ever seen.

Maybe it's time to change careers.

Lyle

2007\10\31@095305 by Joshua Shriver

picon face
Those number seem VERY high, in fact most of the people I know, myself
include make less than half of that, closer to a 1/3 in the US.

2007\10\31@095416 by Joshua Shriver

picon face
In fact the only person I know who makes more than 40-50k is a friend
who works at Microsoft.

-josh

On 10/31/07, Joshua Shriver <EraseMEjshriverspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
> Those number seem VERY high, in fact most of the people I know, myself
> include make less than half of that, closer to a 1/3 in the US.
>

2007\10\31@095438 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 10/31/07, Vitaliy <spamspamspam_OUTmaksimov.org> wrote:
> Summary (rounded off):
>
> 0-4 years of experience: $65k/year
> 5-9 years: $85k/year
> 10-14 years: $95k/year
> 15-19 years: $100k/year
> 20-24 years: $130k/year
> 25-29 years: $100k/year
> 30-34 years: $95k/year
> 35-39 years: $95k/year
>
> Question: based on your current salary, would you say that the salary
> figures given are too low, too high, or just right (+/- 5%)?

I remember that in my last job, they had a rough formula
on the salary (plus overhead) scale. Not so sure if it
still applies now.

1 Germany employee (Mannheim, Berlin, etc)
= 1.2~1.5 US employee (Cleveland area, Ohio)
=2-3 Singapore/Hungary employee
= 4-5 Shanghai China employee
= 10-20 Indonesia employee

Xiaofan

2007\10\31@095659 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 10/31/07, Chris Smolinski <@spam@csmolinskiKILLspamspamblackcatsystems.com> wrote:
> >I believe my friends in California are earning higher than the above
> >figure but the housing price offsets pretty much of the higher pay.
>
> Many people here in the US work in a high cost of living area, but
> live in a low cost of living area. I did this for about 15 years,
> driving 50 miles each way to/from work. I traded off an extra 2 hours
> (driving time) each day, for a better living standard the rest of the
> time. The 75 minute drive home let me unwind from work. I also found
> that the extra distance insulated me from work - people knew better
> than to try to call me in for "an hour or two" on the weekends, vs
> those who lived ten or fifteen minutes from work.
>

The problem is that almost no cheaper and good enough
place in San Jose area according to one of my friend. The
friends in Irvine told me the same story.

Xiaofan

2007\10\31@101153 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>On 10/31/07, Chris Smolinski <KILLspamcsmolinskiKILLspamspamblackcatsystems.com> wrote:
>>  >I believe my friends in California are earning higher than the above
>>  >figure but the housing price offsets pretty much of the higher pay.
>>
>>  Many people here in the US work in a high cost of living area, but
>>  live in a low cost of living area. I did this for about 15 years,
>>  driving 50 miles each way to/from work. I traded off an extra 2 hours
>>  (driving time) each day, for a better living standard the rest of the
>>  time. The 75 minute drive home let me unwind from work. I also found
>>  that the extra distance insulated me from work - people knew better
>>  than to try to call me in for "an hour or two" on the weekends, vs
>>  those who lived ten or fifteen minutes from work.
>>
>
>The problem is that almost no cheaper and good enough
>place in San Jose area according to one of my friend. The
>friends in Irvine told me the same story.

Yes, it doesn't work well in all areas. It did work for me, working
in suburban DC in Maryland, living 50 miles due north at the PA state
line. Your mileage may vary ;-)

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2007\10\31@101620 by Alex Harford

face picon face
On 10/30/07, Vitaliy <RemoveMEspamTakeThisOuTspammaksimov.org> wrote:
>
> Summary (rounded off):
>
> 0-4 years of experience: $65k/year
> 5-9 years: $85k/year
> 10-14 years: $95k/year
> 15-19 years: $100k/year
> 20-24 years: $130k/year
> 25-29 years: $100k/year
> 30-34 years: $95k/year
> 35-39 years: $95k/year
>
> Question: based on your current salary, would you say that the salary
> figures given are too low, too high, or just right (+/- 5%)?

That lines up pretty closely to the APEG (http://www.apeg.bc.ca)
salary survey for electrical engineers.  While they rank it by
responsibilities rather than years of experience, it generally fits.

Although with the exchange rate over the past 7 years, I've been
getting a pretty good raise compared to you guys down south. :P

Alex

2007\10\31@101715 by PAUL James

picon face

All,

I'm not sure what engineering dicipline these figures are for, but I
work in the Electronics Engineering
Arena.  I am a 2 year degree Technician (ASEET) with >30 Years
experience, and I make over 50K per year.
So, a 4 year degree person with a similar amount of experience earning
150K per year doesn't seem that
much of a stretch to me.   I live and work in the Houston, Texas USA
area.


       
Regards,

       
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspamBeGonespammit.edu [TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamspam_OUTmit.edu] On Behalf
Of Joshua Shriver
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 8:53 AM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [EE] Engineering salaries -- survey

Those number seem VERY high, in fact most of the people I know, myself
include make less than half of that, closer to a 1/3 in the US.

2007\10\31@104412 by Christopher Cole

flavicon
face
> On 10/31/07, Vitaliy <RemoveMEspamspamTakeThisOuTmaksimov.org> wrote:
> > Summary (rounded off):
> >
> > 0-4 years of experience: $65k/year
> > 5-9 years: $85k/year
> > 10-14 years: $95k/year
> > 15-19 years: $100k/year
> > 20-24 years: $130k/year
> > 25-29 years: $100k/year
> > 30-34 years: $95k/year
> > 35-39 years: $95k/year
> >
> > Question: based on your current salary, would you say that the salary
> > figures given are too low, too high, or just right (+/- 5%)?

Vitaliy,

I am from North-East Ohio.  From my perspective, these figures seem right on
for a motivated EE with decent negotiation skills.  The folks I know
graduating from Akron University with BSEE degrees are currently starting at
$60-65k.  The 5-9 and 10-14 figures above both seem spot-on for me,
personally.  I graduated 10 years ago from Akron University with a BSEE
degree.  I cannot yet comment on the latter figures in the survey :)

The job market for EE's has been extremely hot in Ohio in the past few years.
There are definitely more jobs than qualified people to fill them.

Take care,
-Chris

--
| Christopher Cole, Cole Design and Development               coleEraseMEspam.....coledd.com |
| Embedded Software Development and Electronic Design       http://coledd.com |
| Akron, Ohio, USA                                               800-518-2154 |

2007\10\31@110300 by alan smith

picon face
Completely depends on the area you live and work in.  Silly Valley...expected to pay more, just for the high cost of housing, taxes, etc.  What would be more representative is an adjusted amount based on those things.
 
 Me? I can't complain.   I know some that make 15K more than me, and know and do less.  Others make less than me....well you get the picture.  Ive got 15+ years experiance, and fall between the (5/9) and the (10/14), so I wont complain too much.  Course what I make in consulting puts me..well...closer to what the table shows.

Alex Harford <EraseMEharfordspamgmail.com> wrote:
 On 10/30/07, Vitaliy wrote:
{Quote hidden}

That lines up pretty closely to the APEG (http://www.apeg.bc.ca)
salary survey for electrical engineers. While they rank it by
responsibilities rather than years of experience, it generally fits.

Although with the exchange rate over the past 7 years, I've been
getting a pretty good raise compared to you guys down south. :P

Alex

2007\10\31@112648 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 07:55 -0700, alan smith wrote:
> Completely depends on the area you live and work in.  Silly Valley...expected to pay more, just for the high cost of housing, taxes, etc.  What would be more representative is an adjusted amount based on those things.

Without question. Personally I believe that if you're happy with what
you make, it's not the best idea to find out what your co-workers are
making. It just creates jealousy and animosity for something that isn't
the person's fault.

I have no idea what my co-workers make or what by boss makes. As long as
my salary keeps me happy I don't see it a good idea to find out.

TTYL

2007\10\31@122136 by Dr Skip

picon face
The $100k mark is a psychological barrier to management and HR I'm told. I've
seen surveys in the past that looked nicely spread out such as this, but every
company I've had the level to be able to look at salary info, they seemed to
asymptotically approach 100k. Some cross, but it seems to not be just another
number... I also don't know many who are employed by larger companies making
these ranges. Self employed probably get this, small company employed close,
and big company, furthest away. The HR rationale is that other benefits and job
security make up the difference. The reality is that it only plays to one's
paranoia as nothing is secure from anywhere these days, but they still play
that hand...

On another angle... long ago when starting out and bright eyed and eager to
fill in my first industry salary survey, an older engineer came over and said
"You know, HR departments use this info to set competitive salary levels.
Imagine what would happen if everyone just checked one box higher on the survey
each time..." then winked and walked off. While I've never seen any organized
effort in this area, but given the analytical ability of engineers, I wonder
how many see this as a closed loop system... ;)

It might explain why most tend to make less than these surveys show they
should, a few are spot-on, and you never see anyone being overpaid as one might
expect in a Gaussian distribution...


Christopher Cole wrote:
> graduating from Akron University with BSEE degrees are currently starting at
> $60-65k.  The 5-9 and 10-14 figures above both seem spot-on for me,
> personally.  I graduated 10 years ago from Akron University with a BSEE
> degree.  I cannot yet comment on the latter figures in the survey :)

2007\10\31@123813 by alan smith

picon face
I know what my boss makes because he is an officer in a public company so its published data.  About 3X mine...and we are the same age.  *sigh*  timing is everything right!

Herbert Graf <RemoveMEmailinglist3EraseMEspamEraseMEfarcite.net> wrote:  On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 07:55 -0700, alan smith wrote:
> Completely depends on the area you live and work in. Silly Valley...expected to pay more, just for the high cost of housing, taxes, etc. What would be more representative is an adjusted amount based on those things.

Without question. Personally I believe that if you're happy with what
you make, it's not the best idea to find out what your co-workers are
making. It just creates jealousy and animosity for something that isn't
the person's fault.

I have no idea what my co-workers make or what by boss makes. As long as
my salary keeps me happy I don't see it a good idea to find out.

TTYL

2007\10\31@141956 by Funny NYPD

picon face
Agree. I don't know much about California, but even in New England (where everything is expensive), an EE engineer with 5-10 years takes about 65-90K/year. There is rare case >100K/year for a engineer if you are not in a management level.

Funny



----- Original Message ----
From: PAUL James <RemoveMEJames.Paulspam_OUTspamKILLspamcolibrys.com>
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <RemoveMEpiclistTakeThisOuTspamspammit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:17:10 AM
Subject: RE: [EE] Engineering salaries -- survey


All,

I'm not sure what engineering dicipline these figures are for, but I
work in the Electronics Engineering
Arena.  I am a 2 year degree Technician (ASEET) with >30 Years
experience, and I make over 50K per year.
So, a 4 year degree person with a similar amount of experience earning
150K per year doesn't seem that
much of a stretch to me.  I live and work in the Houston, Texas USA
area.


   
Regards,

   
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspamspamspamBeGonemit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu] On Behalf
Of Joshua Shriver
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 8:53 AM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [EE] Engineering salaries -- survey

Those number seem VERY high, in fact most of the people I know, myself
include make less than half of that, closer to a 1/3 in the US.

2007\10\31@142148 by Martin Klingensmith

face
flavicon
face
Christopher Cole wrote:
> Vitaliy,
>
> I am from North-East Ohio.  From my perspective, these figures seem right on
> for a motivated EE with decent negotiation skills.  The folks I know
> graduating from Akron University with BSEE degrees are currently starting at
> $60-65k.  The 5-9 and 10-14 figures above both seem spot-on for me,
> personally.  I graduated 10 years ago from Akron University with a BSEE
> degree.  I cannot yet comment on the latter figures in the survey :)
>
> The job market for EE's has been extremely hot in Ohio in the past few years.
> There are definitely more jobs than qualified people to fill them.
>
> Take care,
> -Chris
>
>  

When I graduated with BSEE last year, I knew nobody in my class who
started over perhaps $58k - with that being an ideal situation after
having an internship at the same company. Most started at $48 - $54k.

-
MK


'[EE] Engineering salaries -- survey'
2007\11\01@000902 by Vitaliy
flavicon
face
Christopher Cole wrote:
> I am from North-East Ohio.  From my perspective, these figures seem right
> on
> for a motivated EE with decent negotiation skills.  The folks I know
> graduating from Akron University with BSEE degrees are currently starting
> at
> $60-65k.

Is this first hand information (from people who actually got hired at that
salary)? What type of jobs are they landing, and with what companies?
Anything to do with the military?

> The 5-9 and 10-14 figures above both seem spot-on for me,
> personally.  I graduated 10 years ago from Akron University with a BSEE
> degree.  I cannot yet comment on the latter figures in the survey :)

But you're in business for yourself, right?

> | Christopher Cole, Cole Design and Development
> coleSTOPspamspamspam_OUTcoledd.com |
> | Embedded Software Development and Electronic Design
> http://coledd.com |
> | Akron, Ohio, USA
> 800-518-2154 |

2007\11\01@093958 by Christopher Cole

flavicon
face
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 09:07:10PM -0700, Vitaliy wrote:
> Christopher Cole wrote:
> > I am from North-East Ohio.  From my perspective, these figures seem right
> > on for a motivated EE with decent negotiation skills.  The folks I know
> > graduating from Akron University with BSEE degrees are currently starting
> > at $60-65k.
>
> Is this first hand information (from people who actually got hired at that
> salary)? What type of jobs are they landing, and with what companies?
> Anything to do with the military?

First and second hand - a few fresh grads that I know personally work at
smaller engineering firms around here, and they seem to do pretty well
(industrial control and the power industry).  I have lunch with a few of the
university professors a couple times a week, and I was surprised to hear how
much more engineers start out at than we did 10 years ago ($40-45k).

As someone else mentioned on the list earlier, it does appear that smaller
companies generally offer higher salaries to their employees.  Perhaps this is
because of lower overhead and less dead wood?  Or possibly because the smaller
companies are willing to pay top dollar for each employee, as each employee
plays a key role in the overall success of the company?  Or maybe it is
because anyone hired into a very small company needs to have a broad based
expertise across several areas, as these folks often need to wear many hats
in a small organization.  Inquisitive, energetic people (even fresh grads)
with a broad area of interest are perfect for these smaller companies.

I have always worked at extremely small companies mostly because I find that
I learn more about the business as a whole due to greater exposure, and I
gain the benefits of a paid education on running a successful business.

> But you're in business for yourself, right?

I am currently a W2 employee for a wonderful medical implant company.  About
four years ago, I was hired full time for the development of a medical implant
with integrated micro electronics.  We are nearing the end of the testing
phase, and will launch human trials early next year.

I have been doing consulting for medical, industrial, and other fields since
I graduated college.  I continue to do such consulting on the side, and have
plans to launch my own business full time at some point in the future.

(It seems that the piclist is largely comprised of folks who run their own
business / consulting firm, or wish to someday do so...).

Take care,
-Chris

--
| Christopher Cole, Cole Design and Development               spamBeGonecoleSTOPspamspamEraseMEcoledd.com |
| Embedded Software Development and Electronic Design       http://coledd.com |
| Akron, Ohio, USA                                               800-518-2154 |

2007\11\01@101650 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>As someone else mentioned on the list earlier, it does appear that
>smaller companies generally offer higher salaries to their employees.
>Perhaps this is because of lower overhead and less dead wood?  Or
>possibly because the smaller companies are willing to pay top dollar
>for each employee, as each employee plays a key role in the overall
>success of the company?  Or maybe it is because anyone hired into a
>very small company needs to have a broad based expertise across several
>areas, as these folks often need to wear many hats in a small
>organization.  Inquisitive, energetic people (even fresh grads)
>with a broad area of interest are perfect for these smaller companies.

Possibly a bit of all of that, but I think there is also an element of those
making the decision about how much to pay being in a position where they can
assess each individual personally, without having to have a bureaucracy that
moulds all the assessments into a standard government style organisation
wide system which sort of assesses everyone without really recognising their
qualities.

2007\11\01@173349 by James Newton

face picon face
Dang...

"to high" but that just means that I'm apparently not getting paid enough.

It's time for me to start looking for a job and then go bug my boss for a
raise.

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2007\11\02@084225 by Mauricio Giovagnini

flavicon
face
Vitaliy escribió:
{Quote hidden}

Based on my country salaries this is too^^ high (Argentina).
Due to this (and even with our president's policy -> willing not to pay our debts for example) many companies have been located here: Motorola, Eds, Intel, Nokia.  This huge companies do software.  They say that the skills of our people are very good altough we get almost the 1/5 of what you posted there (if not less).  But we are talking about stable jobs.  As an independent we can get much much more.

If we add that there's a world lack of engineers (skilled or not) and that only a few ones do software development (car industry or oil industry pays much better salaries and you don't have to deal with complicated technical subjects all the time) is the main reason why many companies outsource some parts of their projects.  

Although is better to have an engineer inside a company, many times outsourcing is a choice.

:)



------------------------------
Mauricio Giovagnini (Maunix)
http://www.maunix.com.ar
Cordoba, Arg.

2007\11\02@210138 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Haven't had much success with outsourcing, although we may try it again in
the future. Also, especially for a small company, I believe it's vital to
keep the expertise in-house. I know many companies have become very
dependent on consultants, and I believe it is hurting them. It seems to me
that the consultant's primary responsibility should be transferring relevant
knowledge to in-house engineers, rather than doing projects on an on-going
basis.

Concerning the original subject, based on the replies to this survey and
personal experience (and salary), the numbers are indeed significantly
higher than one would expect (there are exceptions of course, but I'm
talking about the median).

IMO, the data is skewed. It comes from "The Ganssle Group" which claims to
be able to "double your team's productivity", "reduce bugs", and "meet
deadlines" -- all you have to do is "take Jack's one day *Better Firmware
Faster* seminar", at a cost of $695/person. I'm guessing that to quadruple
your team's productivity, you just need to have your team attend the seminar
twice.

Anyway, my point is that Ganssle has a direct financial interest in
convincing their target audience that they're not making as much as their
peers. :)

PS Mauricio, can you please turn off "quoted-printable"? You're forcing me
to top-post.


{Original Message removed}

2007\11\03@140133 by Mauricio Giovagnini

flavicon
face
Vitaliy escribió:
> Haven't had much success with outsourcing, although we may try it again in
> the future. Also, especially for a small company, I believe it's vital to
> keep the expertise in-house. I know many companies have become very
> dependent on consultants, and I believe it is hurting them. It seems to me
> that the consultant's primary responsibility should be transferring relevant
> knowledge to in-house engineers, rather than doing projects on an on-going
> basis.
>  
I didn't meant to be off-topic but Its just that in the past 3 years
many huge companies came to my country
and my city (yes, I live in Cordoba) due to the low costs of well
trained engineers.  They say that we are
a 'best shore' than Mexico or India for example.

I think some keys for outsourcing are

- The lower costs on our countries (and our living costs are also lower)
- The world's lack of engineers.
- The new organizations trend to be smaller, they form alliances or
network relationships with many providers.
The old concept of the big company with all the divisions inside has
changed... The companies try to do what
they do best and they outsource (I don't know if outsource is the right
term when talking about a production task)
the rest.

I agree that depending on consultants is hurting some companies but 'it
depends' on how the outsourcing is
being done.  The outsourcing allows a small company to take others jobs
without having a big structure.
They have the structure, the customers, the knowledge but they are not
sure if such amount of jobs will last
for months, days, or years.  Its expensive to hire and then fire an
employee... at least in my country.
I think that outsourcing a job that is technical and in the same field
in which the company is good for is not a bad idea,
if its well done with the necessary trust in the other part.  For
example, if you deal with pics all day long and you
need to do a new job , you don't have time and you want it to be done
with pics, you could outsource the code,
with some information of how the work should be done (var names, code
indentation, etc), with full documentation
on the code and in the 'working philosophy' of it.  An experienced
programmer can understand other's code in such
conditions.  You get what you want (a new job that you couldn't have
done due to lack of time) and you can understand
the project because its well documented in the way you understand and
like it.

Let's give a real example.  I have an application made with a PC-104 ,
its done with Borland's delphi for W2K.  Its
a windows service.  The app is running since a long time.  The hardware
is somehow 'not cheap' and its a little bit
"too much" for the application.  I don't need a Vga interface, Usb, or
IDE.  There's a chance to sell dozens of this
devices.  The app can be done with an ARM7 microprocessor with an
embedded linux (debian) which is free and
with gcc as the c compiler.

I've done things in linux but not with an ARM processor.  It will take
me some time to do the job, my time worth
money and the fact is that I have some other projects to work on.  Then,
the idea of outsource that part is interesting.
I know a person that can do the job for me, if we get to an agreement on
how the job has to be done, documented
and so on, its a nice change to get a new job done, save some money and
to add a new platform.

{Quote hidden}

Yes, seems to be that way.  I agree. I've read many articles of Jack's
at embedded.com
> PS Mauricio, can you please turn off "quoted-printable"? You're forcing me
> to top-post.
>  
I think I did...  If I didn't please just let me know.

--
Mauricio Giovagnini (Maunix)
Sitio Web: http://www.maunix.com.ar

2007\11\04@212828 by Martin Klingensmith

face
flavicon
face
I keep seeing references to this "global lack of engineers" but I'm not
buying it. I suspect it's more like "experienced engineers cost money
and the managers don't want to spend the money.." what do you think?
-
Martin K

Mauricio Giovagnini wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\11\04@224413 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/5/07, Martin Klingensmith <KILLspammartinspamBeGonespamnnytech.net> wrote:
> I keep seeing references to this "global lack of engineers" but I'm not
> buying it. I suspect it's more like "experienced engineers cost money
> and the managers don't want to spend the money.." what do you think?
> -

I agree with you. There are so many engineers out there doing
non-engineer's work (real estate agent and insurance agent, or
food stall owner) here in Singapore.

Xiaofan

2007\11\04@224823 by Dr Skip

picon face
That's about it. I think there's far too little PR on behalf of the profession.
 It isn't in an engineer's nature most of the time. We're a fixed cost to the
product most of the time. We take little devices and make things that don't
cost a lot (in the grand scheme of things) and are often small, and there is a
continual focus on cost. The importance is lost.

I remember someone here talking about management's decision on some product
issue, and the engineer involved might point it out, but for the most part, was
going to just let it move forward anyway as he did his part... (paraphrased).
It's that them/us approach that keeps our value from being recognized or being
part of the 'team' in a lot of management minds.

I also think that culturally, engineers (US at least) are in a space between
blue-collar and white-collar workers. More 'maker' of things than 'thinker' of
things. Unionized in some places (I think). Us/them attitudes... It all makes
us misunderstood.

There are also a lot of inexperienced or partially experienced folks out there
selling what they have or haven't got. Without more PR on the value of good
engineering and it being a profession, it always runs the risk of being treated
as a commodity, and hence, higher prices mean supply isn't keeping up with
demand ie, a shortage. If more were available, they wouldn't cost so much...

There are examples in specialty areas to note - producing custom hardware or
software or even setup when PCs first came out. Lucrative at first, until
everyone had a nephew or such that was a "computer nerd" and the value of
professional work plummeted. Another is the value of web site designers/coders
over the last 10 years. At the beginning of web popularization, it paid well.
As more 'amateurs' ;-) entered, as well as professionals, and the available
supply grew rapidly, prices fell fast.

Productization of specialties is another predator. Look at cars (US perspective
again). As computer control came forward, it was untouchable and only
understood by engineers. Of course, out of millions of options and variables,
and the theory and such that goes along with it, systems were designed. The
repair techs were at a premium too. As systems became standardized, not only
are engineering degrees not needed to understand them, but backyard hobbyists
can mod their systems at will (with legal constraints at least).

The same with software engineers and modularized products such as VB, Delphi,
etc. I know of several companies that used to have all sorts of custom software
projects they would farm out. When several employees learned VB on their own,
they ended up using them to write the internal software. Their code wasn't
pretty, it took a lot more time, but they were already on the payroll, and
under another 'cost'. To management, the outside software engineers were too
expensive (these internal 'hobbyists' can do it, so ti can't be that tough) and
they virtually cut out their development costs...

I could keep gong for a long while.... :-( so, if there aren't enough engineers
around, and hungry enough that they'll undercut each other all day long to the
level of hobbyist, there must be shortage and we're paying too much...



Martin Klingensmith wrote:
> I keep seeing references to this "global lack of engineers" but I'm not
> buying it. I suspect it's more like "experienced engineers cost money
> and the managers don't want to spend the money.." what do you think?
> -
> Martin K
>
> Mauricio Giovagnini wrote:
>

2007\11\04@233916 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Nov 4, 2007, at 6:28 PM, Martin Klingensmith wrote:

> I suspect it's more like "experienced engineers cost money
> and the managers don't want to spend the money.." what do you think?

Sure, there's some of that.  Combine with "experience in engineering
doesn't pay that well" ("experienced" engineers tend to go into
management, eh?  Or sales, marketing, ... anything but engineering.)

That said, there probably aren't enough "cheap, unexperienced
engineers", either.  You look at the things that companies want
to do, and a lot of them don't take a lot of "experience."  And
yet they can't find people capable of doing it...

BillW

2007\11\04@235834 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/5/07, William Chops Westfield <EraseMEwestfwspamEraseMEmac.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 4, 2007, at 6:28 PM, Martin Klingensmith wrote:
>
> > I suspect it's more like "experienced engineers cost money
> > and the managers don't want to spend the money.." what do you think?
>
> Sure, there's some of that.  Combine with "experience in engineering
> doesn't pay that well" ("experienced" engineers tend to go into
> management, eh?  Or sales, marketing, ... anything but engineering.)

I find this very true here in Singapore. Less true in US and Europe.
At least many of my counterparts in Cleveland worked for 15+, 25+
or even 30 years as engineers for the same company. In my
previous job, it is the same for engineers in Germany.

> That said, there probably aren't enough "cheap, unexperienced
> engineers", either.  You look at the things that companies want
> to do, and a lot of them don't take a lot of "experience."  And
> yet they can't find people capable of doing it...
>

Sometime I feel the US public listed companies are too eager to
maximize shareholder value and less willing to train the engineers.
A fresh engineering graduate needs to be employed
as an engineer in the first place to gain some experiences.

My experience may not really count since I only worked for
a privately held Gemmany company and now a US public listed
company. However I've heard similar comments from other
friends working for US public listed companies. They are
quite agressive and often pushing the schedule (time to
market) too much. Often the US companies produce
good product with very good features but I think the reliability
and robustness of the design are in general not good compared
to those from Germany (or other parts of EU) and Japan.

Xiaofan

2007\11\05@042201 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> I keep seeing references to this "global lack of engineers" but I'm not
>> buying it. I suspect it's more like "experienced engineers cost money
>> and the managers don't want to spend the money.." what do you think?
>> -
>
>I agree with you. There are so many engineers out there doing
>non-engineer's work (real estate agent and insurance agent, or
>food stall owner) here in Singapore.

I'll add a 'me too' to this thinking ...

2007\11\05@131016 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Nov 4, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Martin Klingensmith wrote:

> I keep seeing references to this "global lack of engineers" but I'm  
> not
> buying it. I suspect it's more like "experienced engineers cost money
> and the managers don't want to spend the money.." what do you think?

Agreed.  And pure R&D is virtually gone from U.S. tech companies, so  
many of those companies have no chance in hell of ever developing  
anything that their engineers could polish up and make into a real  
winner of a product.

Thus, their revenues are low, and they wonder why they can't afford to  
hire the expensive (good) engineering staff.

It goes around full-circle.  Neglect one portion of the technology  
development cycle, reap the negative "rewards" on the balance sheet  
later.

*Note: Companies that still seriously invest in R&D are still  
outperforming their counterparts in the industry.

--
Nate Duehr
@spam@nate@spam@spamspam_OUTnatetech.com



2007\11\05@142003 by Funny NYPD

picon face
If all R&D are gone/out-sourced, how could we keep this country competitive? Weak dollar? For a while, maybe?

Recruiting more army and invade more countries like Iraq doesn't sounds right to me.

My high-school classmates are losing eyes and legs over there in Iraq. This is sad. What about their future when the war is over? The US army might take care of the wounded ones for the rest of their life, what about the other? How will they survive in this real world? Go to college? Well, I don't know.

Fortunately, on New England area, we have thousands of small companies (<500 employees) on medical device industry, Communication industry, Industry automation, EDA tools, etc. I Hope this is our future.

Funny N.
New Bedford, MA
http://www.auelectronics.selfip.com/


{Original Message removed}

2007\11\05@143037 by Mauricio Giovagnini

flavicon
face
William "Chops" Westfield escribió:
> On Nov 4, 2007, at 6:28 PM, Martin Klingensmith wrote:
>
>  
>> I suspect it's more like "experienced engineers cost money
>> and the managers don't want to spend the money.." what do you think?
>>    
>
> Sure, there's some of that.  Combine with "experience in engineering
> doesn't pay that well" ("experienced" engineers tend to go into
> management, eh?  Or sales, marketing, ... anything but engineering.)
>
> That said, there probably aren't enough "cheap, unexperienced
> engineers", either.  You look at the things that companies want
> to do, and a lot of them don't take a lot of "experience."  And
> yet they can't find people capable of doing it...
>
> BillW
>  
Nice thoughts... where I live its true about the engineers that do other
tasks like management
because our "problem solving" way of thinking is useful...  its common,
very common and the
heavy industry (cars, oil, food) pay much more.

But on the other hand is also true that youngs prefer to study laws or
'arts' rather than to study
a much more difficult carrer as engineering (in argentina electronic
engineer demands 5 years + a final work).
Youth think.. ¿why would I study if I can become famous & millonaire
singing?
<sarcasm>They think that they can...only a few reach that level the
others end as a delivery boy... </sarcasm>

The ammount of engineers per year is lesser each year... and that's a
fact.

--
------------------------------
Mauricio Giovagnini (Maunix)
http://www.maunix.com.ar
Cordoba, Arg.

2007\11\05@144502 by Joshua Shriver

picon face
Since a lot of people seem interested in this thread, I thought I'd
add this tidbit.

While I dont know the strength behind this survery, one place I do
trust to be accurate (at least for the USA) is the Department of
Labors,  Bureau of Statistics.

When I was about to do salary negotiations I used that as an anchor
point. For System Administrators and Network DBA's for my region the
mean average is $57,530 to $61,190 based on 40 hours a week.

Checkout http://www.bls.gov/ to lookup your individual profession/region/city.

-Josh

2007\11\05@152249 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Nov 5, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Joshua Shriver wrote:

> While I dont know the strength behind this survery, one place I do
> trust to be accurate (at least for the USA) is the Department of
> Labors,  Bureau of Statistics.

I believe these numbers are gathered from tax data, so they should be  
fairly accurate.  Probably as accurate as something like this is going  
to get...

> When I was about to do salary negotiations I used that as an anchor
> point. For System Administrators and Network DBA's for my region the
> mean average is $57,530 to $61,190 based on 40 hours a week.
>
> Checkout http://www.bls.gov/ to lookup your individual profession/
> region/city.

I find the site useful also.  I forgot to mention it.

It also demonstrates one of the core problems in various industries,  
but I'll use my own as an example:

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_517100.htm

Telecommunications.  Look at the salaries of Management vs. everything  
else.

When the Management staff are living "high on the hog" so to speak,  
especially the Marketing/Sales Management(?) and the people making the  
products and maintaining/servicing them are at least $20,000/year  
below them... something's deeply wrong.

No wonder kids wouldn't want to be engineers.  Better to stay in  
school a little longer, get an MBA, work for a few years in middle  
management, and then find themselves making $40K/year more than the  
person doing the hard work of design and implementation.

--
Nate Duehr
spamBeGonenatespamKILLspamnatetech.com



2007\11\05@154904 by Funny NYPD

picon face
As a rule of thumb, bigger cities got higher salaries. California gets higher salaries. The Midwest probably is getting the lowest.

Funny



{Original Message removed}

2007\11\05@212925 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Nov 5, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Nate Duehr wrote:

> Better to stay in school a little longer, get an MBA, work
> for a few years in middle   management, and then find themselves
> making $40K/year more than the person doing the hard work of
> design and implementation.

You won't make any friends claiming that the non-engineering
parts of a company aren't "hard work", and it's probably not
even true.  I've seen the job that people in my salary range
and above (perhaps not including all the bonus and commision
packages) in management, marketing, sales, etc DO, and they
really aren't jobs that I'd want to do.  They're probably not
jobs that I COULD do, without ... "sanity issues."  I've also
seen what happens to companies that are "engineering heavy"
in their pool of talent, and that's not so lovely either.

Societies always exploit those people who love their jobs and
believe in what they are doing.  Sometimes they get paid pretty
well anyway...

BillW

2007\11\05@222351 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Joshua Shriver wrote:
> Since a lot of people seem interested in this thread, I thought I'd
> add this tidbit.
>
> While I dont know the strength behind this survery, one place I do
> trust to be accurate (at least for the USA) is the Department of
> Labors,  Bureau of Statistics.
>
> When I was about to do salary negotiations I used that as an anchor
> point. For System Administrators and Network DBA's for my region the
> mean average is $57,530 to $61,190 based on 40 hours a week.
>
> Checkout http://www.bls.gov/ to lookup your individual
> profession/region/city.

Thanks, Josh.

According to BLS, in Phoenix "electrical and electronics engineers" make
more than "computer software engineers" -- contrary to what Ganssle says.
However, I was surprised to see that the former make $86k/year (mean)
according to the report:

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncbl0916.pdf

You said earlier:
> Those number seem VERY high, in fact most of the people I know, myself
> include make less than half of that, closer to a 1/3 in the US.
...
> In fact the only person I know who makes more than 40-50k is a friend
> who works at Microsoft.

This has been my experience as well (myself, coworkers, other engineers I've
asked). How do you explain the contradiction?

Vitaliy





2007\11\05@224652 by Bob Blick

face picon face


Vitaliy wrote:
{Quote hidden}

$86k/year seems about average for the Pacific Northwest, maybe that's
where most of them live. Try to live on it though, average house prices
are $700k in Silicon Valley, public transportation is laughable, gas is
$3.15/gal. Parking in San Francisco is $16/day. But the weather is nice
and the people are friendly. Food is pretty good, too.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

2007\11\05@232631 by Marcel Duchamp

picon face
Bob Blick wrote:
> $86k/year seems about average for the Pacific Northwest, maybe that's
> where most of them live. Try to live on it though, average house prices
> are $700k in Silicon Valley, public transportation is laughable, gas is
> $3.15/gal. Parking in San Francisco is $16/day. But the weather is nice
> and the people are friendly. Food is pretty good, too.
>
> Cheerful regards,
>
> Bob

How did that song go?
"No, you can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
And if you try sometime you find
You get what you need"...

2007\11\06@000059 by Russell

face
flavicon
face
>> Parking in San Francisco is $16/day. But the weather is
>> nice

In the daytime :-).
Travelled through the South-Eastern US in the middle of the
then warmest summer ever recorded.
Everywhere was very very very hot.
Even SF.
Until night fell.
Then it was as cold as anywhere we went except, perhaps,
upper Yosemite at about 4am where it almost dropped to
freezing in mid July. But it was windier in SF.

Mark Twain is reputed to have said (though others say that
he didn't) "The coldest winter I ever experienced was a
summer in San Francisco".


       Russell






2007\11\06@032310 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Nov 5, 2007, at 7:29 PM, William Chops Westfield wrote:

>
> On Nov 5, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
>> Better to stay in school a little longer, get an MBA, work
>> for a few years in middle   management, and then find themselves
>> making $40K/year more than the person doing the hard work of
>> design and implementation.
>
> You won't make any friends claiming that the non-engineering
> parts of a company aren't "hard work", and it's probably not
> even true.

Quite a different kind of hard work, then.  One with a lot more perks  
than most engineers get?

(I don't know of too many engineers having expensive business dinners  
and free rounds of golf and calling it "work".  Managing engineers  
maybe, but even the lowliest sales staff participates in the act of  
"taking clients out".)

> I've seen the job that people in my salary range
> and above (perhaps not including all the bonus and commision
> packages) in management, marketing, sales, etc DO, and they
> really aren't jobs that I'd want to do.

That's a given, or we'd all be doing those jobs, and there'd be no  
engineers, eh?

> They're probably not
> jobs that I COULD do, without ... "sanity issues."  I've also
> seen what happens to companies that are "engineering heavy"
> in their pool of talent, and that's not so lovely either.

Neither Sales/Marketing "heavy" nor engineering "heavy" is good.  
Balance is good.

But what I'm saying here really is that the balance also includes  
sharing the fruits of the profit with the engineer.

That mentality went away in the U.S. in the 1960's or early 70's, from  
what I can tell.

No matter what company it is, if it's an IT or telecom company  
especially -- the sales/marketing staff makes at least 20% more than  
the equivalent experience engineer.  Wouldn't you agree?

I haven't seen otherwise yet, and I've been watching this for a few  
years.

> Societies always exploit those people who love their jobs and
> believe in what they are doing.  Sometimes they get paid pretty
> well anyway...

I wouldn't call engineers "exploited" at all.

They usually make a decent wage and a decent living, if they're  
producing things of value.

The concern of mine here is the gap between the engineer and say, the  
same level/experience person in Sales or Marketing... there's a  
widening gap there, which seems somewhat ridiculous.

Just like you wouldn't do their job, they aren't going to be able to  
do yours, nor do they want to, but the gap is fairly large between the  
salaries, according to the data we were discussing.  What accounts for  
this?

Sure I see it for someone with an MBA working in Sales/Marketing, but  
I've seen engineers with Master's degrees still far below their MBA  
counterparts.  I know of at *least* three Engineers who went back to  
school for MBA's and transferred away from engineering to management  
to make the very large pay jump...

Is the gap there justified?  I don't know.  That's what I'm questioning.

--
Nate Duehr
.....natespam_OUTspamnatetech.com



2007\11\06@100510 by Gacrowell

flavicon
face
"Sometimes you get doughnuts."    -dilbert

GC

2007\11\06@112151 by Dr Skip

picon face
Nate Duehr wrote:
> The concern of mine here is the gap between the engineer and say, the  
> same level/experience person in Sales or Marketing... there's a  
> widening gap there, which seems somewhat ridiculous.
>
> Just like you wouldn't do their job, they aren't going to be able to  
> do yours, nor do they want to, but the gap is fairly large between the  
> salaries, according to the data we were discussing.  What accounts for  
> this?

The perception is usually that they are "revenue producers". We are not. The
value to the bottom line is directly visible, not a long term thing.

I disagree about exploiting people who love their job. Anyone who is successful
loves their job. The inverse is also true. You can't get up, say you hate what
you do, then be the top salesman in the company...

I have never met a senior exec or manger that is tied to a technology, unless
they're the founder of the company. They may be tied to the company's party
line, but the idea is to make money within socially acceptable constraints
(most of the time on that one). Investors (and venture capitalists) don't care.
Will it have a high enough rate of return? Is the industry it's in growing?
What are the downside risks? It's said that a good salesman can sell anything,
and that is mostly true too. Sales is about building trust, not technical know-how.

So, the infrastructure an engineer lives in could care less about the neat
technical stuff. What return will it have? Can I raise the money? Can I get
salesmen who can bring in the revenue? Can I manufacture it cheaply? Notice
there are no technology questions... It could be bathtubs or nano-tubes.

I would go so far as to say that there is no love for engineering outside of
engineering... If the investors, management, sales and manufacturing could make
and sell a widget with a greater return on investment and greater revenue than
having engineering develop one, and the widget was handed to them, engineering
would be gone. If you substitute contract engineering (not handed to them, but
at a cost) you get this model... No love.

There are models for contracting out manufacturing too. But, you never see all
of sales contracted out nor do you see 'contract management". Both are too
close to be given to someone not intimately tied to the company. Not
engineering though.

While even a company based on technology innovation may proclaim they are built
around engineering, it's PR. If the same level of results and ability to manage
 were found in China or India for lower cost, there it would go. Same for
manufacturing. However, how many companies do you hear of (US perspective here)
that outsourced their executives or sales force to China or India??? ;)

2007\11\06@155618 by alan smith

picon face
IMHO, sales and marketing guys are worth being paid, because IF they can bring in the sales and then engineering can design new stuff that they sell...and then pay the engineering team to design and develop cool stuff...and then profit share....and everyone is happy.  I mean...in a perfect world, everyone would be paid a great salary, be happy doing what your doing and try to do the best job because you want to.  If the sales guy isnt happy, he isnt going to be motivated that means nothing is purchased and that means the engineer doesnt have cool stuff to develop.  If the engineer isnt happy...they wont want to design cool stuff and so the sales guy cant sell anything...
 
 Such a vicious circle....it really is.

"William \"Chops\" Westfield" <TakeThisOuTwestfw.....spamTakeThisOuTmac.com> wrote:
 
On Nov 5, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Nate Duehr wrote:

> Better to stay in school a little longer, get an MBA, work
> for a few years in middle management, and then find themselves
> making $40K/year more than the person doing the hard work of
> design and implementation.

You won't make any friends claiming that the non-engineering
parts of a company aren't "hard work", and it's probably not
even true. I've seen the job that people in my salary range
and above (perhaps not including all the bonus and commision
packages) in management, marketing, sales, etc DO, and they
really aren't jobs that I'd want to do. They're probably not
jobs that I COULD do, without ... "sanity issues." I've also
seen what happens to companies that are "engineering heavy"
in their pool of talent, and that's not so lovely either.

Societies always exploit those people who love their jobs and
believe in what they are doing. Sometimes they get paid pretty
well anyway...

BillW

2007\11\06@161100 by alan smith

picon face
...just back from a lunch....paid for by a vendor.   Donuts delivered this morning.  Bagels yesterday.
 
 ahhhhh....the life of an engineer.....*pats his ever growing tummy*

TakeThisOuTgacrowellKILLspamspamspammicron.com wrote:
 "Sometimes you get doughnuts." -dilbert

GC

2007\11\07@014300 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Nate Duehr wrote:
> I wouldn't call engineers "exploited" at all.
>
> They usually make a decent wage and a decent living, if they're
> producing things of value.
>
> The concern of mine here is the gap between the engineer and say, the
> same level/experience person in Sales or Marketing... there's a
> widening gap there, which seems somewhat ridiculous.
>
> Just like you wouldn't do their job, they aren't going to be able to
> do yours, nor do they want to, but the gap is fairly large between the
> salaries, according to the data we were discussing.  What accounts for
> this?

This is a fundamental question that is discussed in most good beginner's
books on economics.

Is Tom Cruise's contribution to Mission: Impossible II really worth $75M
(over half the movie's total budget)? Is it fair that he made more money
than everyone else who worked on the movie, combined? Or that the guy whose
job was to hold a big mirror made 1000 times less?

Most individuals would say "no", but the free market (all of us as
consumers) says "yes". Personally, I would take the free market with all of
its shortcomings over forced equality, any day. You see, I've had the
misfortune of having to live in a socialist state -- "to each based on his
needs, from each based on his abilities". The free market is much better at
determining the worth of a person't work, than bureaucrats.

Or look at it this way: you think the guy who works on the roof in July in
100F heat makes $15/hr, because his job is easier than an engineer's? If pay
was proportional to how hard a job is, dishwashers would not be at the
bottom of the payscale.

You say "no wonder kids wouldn't want to be engineers." I say, great! There
will be fewer engineers, which means they will be in demand, which in turn
means higher salaries for those kids who enjoy playing with gadgets.
Thankfully, the free market is self-correcting.

The bottom line is, everyone makes their own choice. You feel that the sales
people are getting paid too much for the work they do? -- Become a salesman.
Think the CEO of your company is a greedy jerk? -- Start your own company
and be a kind, generous boss to your employees.



2007\11\07@040909 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>The bottom line is, everyone makes their own choice. You feel
>that the sales people are getting paid too much for the work
>they do? -- Become a salesman.

Why should I need to become a salesman to make their sort of money? They are
just as reliant on engineers as engineers are reliant on salesman. Why can
an engineer not float to the same income level (assuming he is just as good
at his work) without becoming a salesman?


2007\11\07@052746 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/7/07, alan smith <.....micro_eng2spamRemoveMEyahoo.com> wrote:
> ...just back from a lunch....paid for by a vendor.   Donuts
> delivered this morning.  Bagels yesterday.
>
>  ahhhhh....the life of an engineer.....*pats his ever growing tummy*

This is very interesting and I have similar experiences during
my 3.5 months of training last year. They call it lunch and
learning session.

You do not normally have this here in Singapore.

Xiaofan

2007\11\07@053206 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/7/07, Dr Skip <RemoveMEdrskipspamspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote:
> While even a company based on technology innovation may proclaim they are built
> around engineering, it's PR. If the same level of results and ability to manage
>  were found in China or India for lower cost, there it would go. Same for
> manufacturing. However, how many companies do you hear of (US perspective here)
> that outsourced their executives or sales force to China or India??? ;)

Interesting perspective. I believe the core R&D will never contracted out
to China/India. As for the sales force, it will go where the market goes.
And US will still be the main market for many US companies even though
part of the manufacturing and engineering are now outsourced.

As for the CEO/COO/CTOs, normally they will stay in the headquarter. ;-)

Xiaofan

2007\11\07@053539 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/7/07, Vitaliy <spamBeGonespam@spam@spamspam_OUTmaksimov.org> wrote:
> The bottom line is, everyone makes their own choice. You feel that the sales
> people are getting paid too much for the work they do? -- Become a salesman.
> Think the CEO of your company is a greedy jerk? -- Start your own company
> and be a kind, generous boss to your employees.
>

When one feels exploited as an engineer and then becomes a
boss, he will exploit the new employees even worse than the
previous boss. This seems to be strange but seems to be true.
So a sad engineers would not be a generous boss...

A happy engineer might be a good boss if he becomes a boss.



Xiaofan

2007\11\07@054132 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/7/07, Vitaliy <TakeThisOuTspamspamspammaksimov.org> wrote:
> Most individuals would say "no", but the free market (all of us as
> consumers) says "yes". Personally, I would take the free market with all of
> its shortcomings over forced equality, any day. You see, I've had the
> misfortune of having to live in a socialist state -- "to each based on his
> needs, from each based on his abilities". The free market is much better at
> determining the worth of a person's work, than bureaucrats.
>

I think the idea "to each based on his needs, from each based on his
abilities" is good but not possible right now since the productivities
are not high yet. And I think the problem with socialist states are
not socialism itself but the distorted implementation. The European
implementation of socialism seems to be good.

Xiaofan

2007\11\07@065812 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>Or look at it this way: you think the guy who works on the roof in July in
>100F heat makes $15/hr, because his job is easier than an engineer's? If pay
>was proportional to how hard a job is, dishwashers would not be at the
>bottom of the payscale.

Supply and demand plays a huge role in determining pay. Lots of
people can wash dishes, fewer can do engineering work, fewer still
can throw a ball through a hoop from many yards away.

One issue that has been pointed out in several books is that more and
more, jobs today require specialized skills and (mental) abilities,
vs years ago when most work was physical labor. Not everyone is
capable of learning the skills required for these jobs. Fewer jobs
will exist for the  people left behind. We may already be starting to
see this happening.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2007\11\07@072401 by John Chung

picon face

--- Xiaofan Chen <xiaofancEraseMEspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

 I like the last part. happy engineer :)

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

2007\11\07@094845 by Richard Seriani, Sr.

picon face

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan B. Pearce" <@spam@A.B.PearceRemoveMEspamEraseMErl.ac.uk>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <EraseMEpiclistspam@spam@mit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: [EE] Engineering salaries -- survey


{Quote hidden}

Taking your metric to the extreme, maybe your administrative assistants,
janitorial staffs, and technicians feel as you do. They are all just as good
at their work as you are at yours or the sales force is at theirs. Outside
your industry, this would have the effect of the person slinging the
hamburgers making the same pay as the person who manages the franchise. Not
likely to happen.

But, if it is only equality that you want, go to work for a company that
pays their sales force less than your present company.

Richard


2007\11\07@102314 by Martin Klingensmith

face
flavicon
face
Richard Seriani, Sr. wrote:
>
>
> Taking your metric to the extreme, maybe your administrative assistants,
> janitorial staffs, and technicians feel as you do. They are all just as good
> at their work as you are at yours or the sales force is at theirs. Outside
> your industry, this would have the effect of the person slinging the
> hamburgers making the same pay as the person who manages the franchise. Not
> likely to happen.
>
> But, if it is only equality that you want, go to work for a company that
> pays their sales force less than your present company.
>
> Richard
>
>
>  

I don't believe that is a good analogy. As others have mentioned, anyone
can sling burgers and roll out roofing material. Management/sales and
engineers typically have post-baccalaureate degrees.
-
MK

2007\11\07@111538 by Dr Skip

picon face
As I said, salesmen bring in revenue, year after year. If you design something,
and they sell it for 5 years, would you set your equal salary at one of his/her
years? Perhaps a combined 5 years worth would be the "equal"? Not to mention
that most salesmen are paid commission, with a base salary that is lower than
engineering salaries in every place I've found (for roughly the same years of
experience). It's commissions that bring it up higher. Perhaps salaries should
be 'equal' from a pre-commission point of view (that would be a pay cut for
engineering), then whoever brings in revenue gets a 'cut' of it as commission?

But you might say "he couldn't sell it if I didn't design it first", and this
is true, but from an economics point of view, you are offering a service, or
even a 'product design'. If you are too expensive, they would find another
design or product to sell, perhaps even adding value to an existing product.
Then they make revenue and you are out in the cold.

There is the possible view that you are paid the same, but your salary that is
above the base of the salesman's is a 'royalty' for the value of the designs to
the company. You get a royalty, he gets a commission, and both are paid on top
of a theoretical (economic) equal base....

There has also been no discussion on the headcount in each area. Perhaps the
equation should be 'engineering department' vs 'sales department' and their
contributions compared, divided by the number of people, to set equality...

It is not easy to even decide on the meaning of 'equal', is it? ;)


Alan B. Pearce wrote:
>
> Why should I need to become a salesman to make their sort of money? They are
> just as reliant on engineers as engineers are reliant on salesman. Why can
> an engineer not float to the same income level (assuming he is just as good
> at his work) without becoming a salesman?
>
>

2007\11\07@130421 by Mauricio Giovagnini

flavicon
face
Chris Smolinski escribió:
> Supply and demand plays a huge role in determining pay. Lots of
> people can wash dishes, fewer can do engineering work, fewer still
> can throw a ball through a hoop from many yards away.
>
> One issue that has been pointed out in several books is that more and
> more, jobs today require specialized skills and (mental) abilities,
> vs years ago when most work was physical labor. Not everyone is
> capable of learning the skills required for these jobs. Fewer jobs
> will exist for the  people left behind. We may already be starting to
> see this happening.

This is something in what I think a lot... we (engineers or similar)
have to continue studying in order
to keep our engineer status and specialization status.
What will other people do when they don't get a job due to their lack of
experience? will the be
hired anyway and then trained? this could take months or even years... I
doubt it.
Then , if they don't find a job, who or what will give them food,
shelter, comfort... ? This happened
with industrialization , many people lost their jobs because they were
replaced by a machine.
Which will be, as humans, our next step? try to avoid this? try to
minimize collateral damage of
an inevitable matter?

Another thought is that if we, as humans, don't find a way to learn more
in lesser time what will be
our future? a person would have to study 40 years in order to understand
their current worlds tech in
order to use it, improve it, modify it?  Sounds like a topic for a
horror movie, isn't it?


------------------------------
Mauricio Giovagnini (Maunix)
http://www.maunix.com.ar
Cordoba, Arg.

2007\11\07@131615 by Mauricio Giovagnini

flavicon
face
Dr Skip escribió:
> As I said, salesmen bring in revenue, year after year. If you design
something,
> and they sell it for 5 years, would you set your equal salary at one
of his/her
> years? Perhaps a combined 5 years worth would be the "equal"? Not to
mention
> that most salesmen are paid commission, with a base salary that is
lower than
> engineering salaries in every place I've found (for roughly the same
years of
> experience). It's commissions that bring it up higher. Perhaps
salaries should
> be 'equal' from a pre-commission point of view (that would be a pay
cut for
> engineering), then whoever brings in revenue gets a 'cut' of it as
commission?
>
> But you might say "he couldn't sell it if I didn't design it first",
and this
> is true, but from an economics point of view, you are offering a
service, or
> even a 'product design'. If you are too expensive, they would find
another
> design or product to sell, perhaps even adding value to an existing
product.
> Then they make revenue and you are out in the cold.
>
> There is the possible view that you are paid the same, but your
salary that is
> above the base of the salesman's is a 'royalty' for the value of the
designs to
> the company. You get a royalty, he gets a commission, and both are
paid on top
> of a theoretical (economic) equal base....
>
> There has also been no discussion on the headcount in each area.
Perhaps the
> equation should be 'engineering department' vs 'sales department' and
their
> contributions compared, divided by the number of people, to set
equality...
>
> It is not easy to even decide on the meaning of 'equal', is it? ;)
>
>
> Alan B. Pearce wrote:
> >
> > Why should I need to become a salesman to make their sort of money?
They are
> > just as reliant on engineers as engineers are reliant on salesman.
Why can
> > an engineer not float to the same income level (assuming he is just
as good
> > at his work) without becoming a salesman?
> >
> >

I totally agree with you Dr Skip... its true.  We, engineers, we lost
focus sometimes.
We can design the best and cheaper device that human kind can see but...
that is not
a ticket to success....

There many examples of excellent products that lost their fight against
others of poor quality,
due to marketing mistakes (or sucesses of the other part of the story,
of course) or due to poor
selling skills.

In my opinion, Wordperfect is much better than word, also that OS/2 warp
was better than windows 95!
Netscape was better than Internet Explorer... and so on .  Even though
microsoft products succeded...
The sony mp3 player is better than the ipod ( i read this on an
articule) but the second was sold by thousands!

A good sales man is a person I wan't to have in my company... they make
the production machine move.

A good sales man is the one that is able to sell ice to an inuit (or
eskimo but some inuit people consider
the word eskimo to be offensive) or to a siberian inhabitant.

Its true that many are not 'hard workers'... but they have "special
skills"... they can sleep for two days and then
sell a hundred thousand devices in a morning due to their special carisma :)



--
------------------------------
Mauricio Giovagnini (Maunix)
http://www.maunix.com.ar
Cordoba, Arg.

2007\11\07@173949 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Nov 7, 2007, at 3:27 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> On 11/7/07, alan smith <@spam@micro_eng2spam_OUTspam.....yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ...just back from a lunch....paid for by a vendor.   Donuts
>> delivered this morning.  Bagels yesterday.
>>
>> ahhhhh....the life of an engineer.....*pats his ever growing tummy*
>
> This is very interesting and I have similar experiences during
> my 3.5 months of training last year. They call it lunch and
> learning session.

Ahh "Lunch and Learn"... we used to do that a decade ago, but it  
disappeared at some point.   Someone, somewhere, didn't like paying  
for lunch for 10-20 people... once every two weeks, I guess.

Used to enjoy presenting at those... it was always a competition to  
see who could present material that was (like many technical topics)  
dry/boring while still being entertaining.

Good training to become a salesman, perhaps...?  :-)  Ha!

--
Nate Duehr
spamBeGonenateEraseMEspamnatetech.com



2007\11\07@174430 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Nov 7, 2007, at 3:32 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> Interesting perspective. I believe the core R&D will never  
> contracted out
> to China/India.

How about Japan?  The "big news" in the RF biz this week is that  
Motorola purchased an 80% stake in Yaesu/Vertex, and reading their  
press releases as to why both companies did it, neither side seems to  
have any good reasons (that they can publish anyway) for doing so.  
The Japanese think they'll "leverage" Motorola's size and engineers,  
and Motorola thinks -- well, their press release doesn't make any sense.

Mostly it just looks like a very disorganized way to have a conduit  
for easier "outsourcing" of certain things to Japan, and Vertex  
Standard gets a sales force.

Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, but it's one of those "I have no  
idea how that's going to work" mergers, in my opinion, that you see  
sometimes...

> As for the sales force, it will go where the market goes.

In the case of the above example, if you can't afford to pay a sales  
force, merge with someone who has one.  Vice-versa, if you don't have  
a market, convince your largest competitor bigger than you to buy you  
and then you can sell into theirs?!  Very strange.

> As for the CEO/COO/CTOs, normally they will stay in the  
> headquarter. ;-)

"It's good to be the King."  :-)  (Mel Brooks - History of the World  
Part I)

--
Nate Duehr
natespamBeGonespamnatetech.com



2007\11\08@220933 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Nov 7, 2007 1:07 PM, Mauricio Giovagnini <RemoveMEmaugiovagnini@spam@spamspamBeGoneyahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> Another thought is that if we, as humans, don't find a way to learn more
> in lesser time what will be
> our future? a person would have to study 40 years in order to understand
> their current worlds tech in
> order to use it, improve it, modify it?  Sounds like a topic for a
> horror movie, isn't it?

Nah, we humans are remarkably adept at repetitively simplifying things
so we can stand on other's shoulders without having the go through the
same process.

Calculus is being taught in high schools, where decades ago it was a
college-only topic.

Of course, we augment this with technology - no one thinks about all
the work that goes into a simple cell phone call when making a call,
nor does the hardware engineer think about the VLSI design when
building the whole handset.  A lot of this comes from mass production
as well - one person can do the work, and everyone can benefit.  Then
without fully understanding everything about the original work another
person can add on, improve, or change the work into a new product.  Of
course, then it has to be debugged and one gets to learnt the stuff
they skipped, but still...

-Adam

2007\11\08@234054 by Dr Skip

picon face
M. Adam Davis wrote:

> Of course, we augment this with technology - no one thinks about all
> the work that goes into a simple cell phone call when making a call,
> nor does the hardware engineer think about the VLSI design when
> building the whole handset.  A lot of this comes from mass production
> as well - one person can do the work, and everyone can benefit.  Then
> without fully understanding everything about the original work another
> person can add on, improve, or change the work into a new product.  Of
> course, then it has to be debugged and one gets to learnt the stuff
> they skipped, but still...

Consider the relationship between human and his technology though. If one
person designs and builds it, then distributes it to everyone, who are then not
able to understand its workings, it might as well have been given to society by
aliens or gods...

Up until now, man has been able to understand the technology he uses. Now very
few understand how the technology they use and depend on works. It's also
compounded by the complexity of the systems they both are and interact with in
a lot of cases. It's even tough to get students to understand electronics at
first, because instead of spending time on the basics, it has gotten squeezed
by having to also cover material through VLSI, DSP, and more. In fact, with so
much being done digitally, many activities that required or imbued an intimate
knowledge of the physics or process involved are now just coding (and canned
routines at that in some cases).

Think of the processes of 50 or 60 years ago or more vs today. Old timers will
tell of stories when they were clerks or such and the power went out and how
they all had to pick up their pads and add up customer bills. Ever been in a
store today when the register freezes? The resulting paralysis is usually a
combination of humans not knowing how to do basic math, with the business'
total reliance on computing systems (inventory, accounting, etc) such that
there is no 'human' way to conduct business anymore. Instead of technology
'helping' us as a car might help us over a horse a buggy, we've become
dependent on it. It seems to me that we're building our 'tower' on rickety
scaffolding. It does take more and more specialized knowledge that fewer have
to keep everything working...

This imbalance can offer some interesting, yet ugly, possibilities:

- As technology gets more complex, it generally costs more to understand or
make it. This causes its control to be concentrated in fewer hands
(specialization). This gives an edge to organizations that are able to afford
it, can allow them to more effectively use it, or inhibit others from using it.
Politically, if you're a dictator in power, this is good. If you're a
dissident, it's bad. Up until now, political balance depended on equal access
to tools, such as guns, written communication, even radio, etc.

- IP laws and ridiculous patents put financial advantage in the hands of a few
today, with patent trolls providing no benefit to the equation, but profiting
well and controlling usage. It isn't an anti-patent statement, it's an
anti-software patent statement and pro- require a working model for a patent
statement... It's dangerous when the controlled technology then moves from
'helper' to 'necessary'.

- It's easy to understand a saw or hammer, not so a multi-tasking operating
system (not even talking hardware yet) that is interconnected with other
systems. The complexity allows for unforeseen results, responses, and
exploitable risks. Thus, we have viruses, malware, spyware, etc. We have power
outages in the NE US. I saw GM dealers in the 80s wrapping customer engines in
foil on instructions from Detroit in order to diagnose behavior in the new
computer controlled engines that weren't understandable...

- I think it also causes a disconnect between user and his/her world. Not only
do interests then go elsewhere, but without understanding, meaningful dialogue
 can't take place about it's ownership, usage, control, dependence, etc.,
further exacerbating the situation.

I tell people it's like the OSI networking model. The top layers (like the
application layer) are where you get a lot of interesting stuff, people will
pat you in the back for your work there, it can be used by many, etc. It's the
'latest' greatest technology if you will. No need to understand layer 1 or 2 -
it's boring, built by someone else, you just use it. You lose track of it,
don't understand it's workings in detail, and yet depend on it. Then one day,
it all stops working. You check your app, it seems fine, but it won't talk and
everything grinds to a halt. You're then dependent on calling in the
specialist... to plug the network cable back in! ;)

It may not make a lot of sense to the folks here - everyone grasps the
technology, but to 'regular folks' who at least use technology, that story
usually gets them thinking. <G>


2007\11\09@014332 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> When one feels exploited as an engineer and then becomes a
> boss, he will exploit the new employees even worse than the
> previous boss. This seems to be strange but seems to be true.
> So a sad engineers would not be a generous boss...
>
> A happy engineer might be a good boss if he becomes a boss.

I don't know... maybe if the engineer remains in that state for too long.

I know that I learned a lot about management, from watching bad managers.
When I saw them abusing their employees, or do other stupid things, I
thought to myself "I need to remember NOT to do that when I become a
manager."

They're simple things, really. Employees like to be respected. They want to
be trusted. They want an environment conducive to productive work, and good
tools. The manager's role is to help create such environment, and stay out
of the employee's way.

2007\11\09@015939 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> I think the idea "to each based on his needs, from each based on his
> abilities" is good but not possible right now since the productivities
> are not high yet.

Who would *you* let decide what your needs are? Who can best judge your
abilities?

And what does productivity have to do with it?

> And I think the problem with socialist states are
> not socialism itself but the distorted implementation. The European
> implementation of socialism seems to be good.

Xiaofan, do you know what it's like -- to hand over 60% of your earnings to
the government, while watching your neighbor cheat the public welfare
system? A business acquaintance from Denmark told me about it, and I sure
hope I never get to experience it firsthand.

Sweden is considered to be the poster child for socialism (even Kruschev was
impressed). One Swedish lady wrote a bestselling book on knitting. She
received 1% of the proceeds -- the Swedish government got the rest. The lady
was a grandmother of my professor of economics.

Communism, too, is a great system. In theory.

2007\11\09@022919 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Mauricio wrote:
"This is something in what I think a lot... we (engineers or similar)
have to continue studying in order
to keep our engineer status and specialization status.
What will other people do when they don't get a job due to their lack of
experience? will the be
hired anyway and then trained? this could take months or even years... I
doubt it.
Then , if they don't find a job, who or what will give them food,
shelter, comfort... ? This happened
with industrialization , many people lost their jobs because they were
replaced by a machine.
Which will be, as humans, our next step? try to avoid this? try to
minimize collateral damage of
an inevitable matter?"

:-)

I've read the same argument in a late '80s Soviet article bashing
capitalism. It was about workers who face unemployment, taking out their
frustration on the machines that replaced them. "We should note that this
problem does not exist under communism. Under a communist system, everyone
is employed".

Chris said:
"Fewer jobs
will exist for the  people left behind. We may already be starting to
see this happening."

Chris, you have to be joking. Have you checked the US unemployment figures
lately? There AREN'T ENOUGH workers, there is a severe labor shortage --  
that's why people are crossing the southern border by the millions. When I
stayed in a small town in Colorado two months ago, most of the employees at
the hotel were from somewhere else. I read "Japan" and "Jamaica" on the
receptionists' name tags, the maids spoke Spanish, and the restaraunt
manager was from the Netherlands (moved to the US 3 years ago).

Wealth is a direct result of high productivity, and technology plays a key
role. In a country where productivity is high, everybody is rich.

2007\11\09@034559 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Vitaliy wrote:

> Xiaofan, do you know what it's like -- to hand over 60% of your earnings to
> the government, while watching your neighbor cheat the public welfare
> system? A business acquaintance from Denmark told me about it, and I sure
> hope I never get to experience it firsthand.

Well, this is a *distortion* technically speaking :)
and should be removed, for the system to work correctly!

--
Ciao, Dario

2007\11\09@055222 by SME

face
flavicon
face
>> Xiaofan, do you know what it's like -- to hand over 60%
>> of your earnings to
>> the government, while watching your neighbor cheat the
>> public welfare
>> system? A business acquaintance from Denmark told me
>> about it, and I sure
>> hope I never get to experience it firsthand.

> Well, this is a *distortion* technically speaking :)
> and should be removed, for the system to work correctly!

The problem gets terminally hard when the distortions get
embedded in the system and accepted as part of the everyday
way of life.

This is most commonly in the form of "corruption" where you
are expected to pay 'under the table' for services,
protection and everyday activities. International experts
(who I will not try to cite here as it's 24 hours out to
takeoff to China) say that this is the hardest and greatest
obstacle to helping a '3rd world' country up the prosperity
ladder. Once corruption is endemic and everyone accepts it
as a way of life the country seems doomed to exist at a
financial level well below what otherwise would be
achievable in equal circumstances. I'm sure that will
produce some interesting rejoinders.

ALL countries have some degree of corruption in the system,
and people will be quick to lump in their own government and
all taxation systems as well. I'll stay out of that one :-).



       R



2007\11\09@114604 by Dr Skip

picon face
Vitaliy wrote:

> Xiaofan, do you know what it's like -- to hand over 60% of your earnings to
> the government, while watching your neighbor cheat the public welfare
> system? A business acquaintance from Denmark told me about it, and I sure
> hope I never get to experience it firsthand.
>
> Sweden is considered to be the poster child for socialism (even Kruschev was
> impressed). One Swedish lady wrote a bestselling book on knitting. She
> received 1% of the proceeds -- the Swedish government got the rest. The lady
> was a grandmother of my professor of economics.
>
> Communism, too, is a great system. In theory.

None of the systems take into account greed - whether it's individual greed by
staying on welfare unnecessarily (taking without giving back) or group greed,
as in a democracy when groups find they can vote themselves a piece of the
country's wealth.

I think everyone needs something to throw themselves into completely. It could
be a national threat (lots of individuals together), your own business with
opportunity to grow (with limited regulation and restraint), some charity or
cause, whatever. Then the individual is motivated to make decisions for the
good of the effort, and to make sacrifices if necessary to get to the goal.
Other than that, humans are like unguided goal-seeking missiles, and their
efforts end up targeting things like welfare scams, crime, or just plain
scamming others.

Communism and socialism don't address that.

There are probably 3 basic human attributes that any structure needs to address
- greed, cause, and creativity. A free market with minimal constraints can keep
greed occupied, but communism never addresses or assumes this.

A national cause makes a great nation, and a personal cause makes a great
person. Without a cause, or with conflicting causes, neurosis or an existential
questioning ensues (either blatant or subtle). Both probably need to exist.
Sorta like individual magnetic domains in a lump of iron. If there are none,
there is no force. If there are many and they are randomly oriented, they work
against each other and there's no net effect. If they are strong, and oriented
the same way, you get a good magnet.

Creativity shows up in execution of the first two, or, when there is a lot of
regulation and constraint (socialism for instance), it shows in ways to work
the system and its loopholes. Then, regulations become a patchwork upon
patchwork to address creativity. Just look at the US IRS code.... ;)

Every person or nation has different levels of need (but they exist in all),
and the extent of how the institutions and environment around them satisfy each
area determines how it is applied. If you feel like you're being paid well
enough to get by and that's OK, greed is satisfied. If you're skilled and have
autonomy in your job, your creativity may be satisfied, and if you think your
work has purpose (helps others, helps the cause, makes the world go 'round,
brings support to the family, whatever), then cause is satisfied. Think about
when there was dissatisfaction in your work and see if it doesn't boil down to
one of these three in some way.

I would be interested in comments on this, as I'm doing research in this area
currently. It seemed to be fitting as a reply here... Thanks.

2007\11\09@122929 by Bob Blick

face picon face

--- Vitaliy <.....spam@spam@spamEraseMEmaksimov.org> wrote:

> Xiaofan, do you know what it's like -- to hand over
> 60% of your earnings to
> the government, while watching your neighbor cheat
> the public welfare
> system? A business acquaintance from Denmark told me
> about it, and I sure
> hope I never get to experience it firsthand.

If you ever do experience it firsthand, perhaps you
could tell me what kind of life it must be where one
has so little self-esteem or chance for a decent job
that welfare is preferable? Since we're dealing with
anecdotal examples that could as easily be a rare
exception or the majority case, I should mention that
most people I have seen who are on public assistance
really need it, and are not thriving. I do not envy
them. The only welfare that looks good is corporate
welfare, that seems to be where the thriving ones are.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

2007\11\09@144232 by Mauricio Giovagnini

flavicon
face
Vitaliy escribió:
>> Mauricio wrote:
>> "This is something in what I think a lot... we (engineers or similar)
>> have to continue studying in order
>> to keep our engineer status and specialization status.
>> What will other people do when they don't get a job due to their lack of
>> experience? will the be
>> hired anyway and then trained? this could take months or even years... I
>> doubt it.
>> Then , if they don't find a job, who or what will give them food,
>> shelter, comfort... ? This happened
>> with industrialization , many people lost their jobs because they were
>> replaced by a machine.
>> Which will be, as humans, our next step? try to avoid this? try to
>> minimize collateral damage of
>> an inevitable matter?"
>>
> :-)
>
> I've read the same argument in a late '80s Soviet article bashing
> capitalism. It was about workers who face unemployment, taking out their
> frustration on the machines that replaced them. "We should note that
this
> problem does not exist under communism. Under a communist system,
everyone
> is employed".


But I'm not communist and I don't live in a communist country .  It's a
thought that I have since a long time
when I see people in the streets with no jobs... One as an engineers has
to study to keep track to where
the tech world goes.  When I see both things I can't understand what
will happen to people like this
within 30, 40 or 50 years.  How will be our's kids world... that's all.
There are no hidden message behind my words.


------------------------------
Mauricio Giovagnini (Maunix)
http://www.maunix.com.ar
Cordoba, Arg.

2007\11\09@153015 by SME

face
flavicon
face
I think you need to put any discussion of this on [OT] if
not [OT][WOT][HUMANIST RELIGION][:-)]  if it is to survive
more than two cycles without self immolating.

However, as I (God willing) fly to China to pursue further
or respond to a number of the goals urges and drives that
you mention below, plus those of my client and his Chinese
contractors to boot, in a bit over 14 hours, I'll limit my
self to one (maybe)(longish) comment, rather than spending
the interesting hours it deserves in response.

> There are probably 3 basic human attributes that any
> structure needs to address
> - greed, cause, and creativity. A free market with minimal
> constraints can keep
> greed occupied, but communism never addresses or assumes
> this.

ALL "cause" is mirage, phantasm, pretence, self delusion
without an absolute reference outside the system. The ONLY
system that makes sense in this context is what we call "the
universe". We can conceive of larger/greater systems than
this and people postulate them (even in populist
entertainment such as MIB2!) BUT the universe is as far as
our senses will thus far and possibly ever let us reach.

One cut-to-the-chase, China is calling, version of this is -
"If your cause is not founded in God then it has no basis in
reality or usefulness that somebody else cannot deny
entirely justifiably". ***OBVIOUSLY*** that statement will
be utterly unsatisfactory to any God deniers and not wholly
satisfactory to most others. This doesn't make it untrue
(and it is true [tm]). It does NOT say that "God exists" -
just that if God is not the basis for one's foundational
references then you have no valid foundational references.
If God does not exist then there are none. So, this is not
an argument for the existence of God, just a comment on the
implications of a system with or without God.

Rutherford said that there was Physics and the rest, and
that the rest was stamp collecting. Even so great a man (and
NZer ;-) 0 as he failed to see that Physics is also stamp
collecting. ALL we can do is observe. We can insists that
things must be as we wish, must have cause, must have
foundation, must have reason, ARE right etc, but without
external reference it's all stamp collecting.

Some get highly incensed by this assertion of the need for
absolute reference and easily prove to their own
satisfaction (but never to mine alas) that they/we can build
valid and meaningful systems on a lesser and relative
foundation. Doesn't work :-(.

While that ramble may seem like a rather irrelevant
digression, if its not addressed in the foundations to one's
studies of the subject then all the rest is stamp
collecting. We may prefer a given stamp, or insist that it
is better or prettier or more valuable or purer or just
plain "right". But until we accept that we cannot ever be a
meaningful arbiter the other guy's dissenting opinion is
every bit as invalid as our own.






                   Russell




2007\11\09@163848 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Mauricio Giovagnini wrote:
"But I'm not communist and I don't live in a communist country .  It's a
thought that I have since a long time
when I see people in the streets with no jobs... One as an engineers has
to study to keep track to where
the tech world goes.  When I see both things I can't understand what
will happen to people like this
within 30, 40 or 50 years.  How will be our's kids world... that's all.
There are no hidden message behind my words."

I never said you were communist, or that you live in a communist country. A
lot of my countrymen (US Americans) have similar ideas, which shocks me. I
think that's only because they don't understand how good they have it.

Having said that, Argentina does rank pretty low on the "Level of Economic
Freedom" list. Take a look here:

<http://www.freetheworld.com/cgi-bin/freetheworld/getinfo.cgi>

The situation may have improved since 2005 (the wall poster I bought for
2006 ranks Argentina at #73), and maybe your new president will bring more
positive changes.

The truth is, in a free market economy, unemployment rarely exceeds 5%. Some
unemployment is inevitable -- there are always people between jobs, but this
type of unemployment is by definition short-lived.

Excessive unemployment, on the other hand (over 10%), is a man-made
occurence, which results from over-regulation by the government. The almost
25% unemployment rate in your country which happened in 2002 is unheard of
in the US. The government must be doing something right, though:

<http://www.latin-focus.com/latinfocus/countries/argentina/argunemp.htm>

2007\11\09@164839 by Dr Skip

picon face
SME wrote:
> One cut-to-the-chase, China is calling, version of this is -
> "If your cause is not founded in God then it has no basis in
> reality or usefulness that somebody else cannot deny
> entirely justifiably".

I'll leave it to further evolution of the topic to spawn an OT tag, and claim
it's marginally relevant so far ;)

On the topic though, while I agree with your statement, my definition of
'cause' was broader perhaps. It could be 'save the whales', 'feed the world',
'take over the world', 'provide internet to every household', whatever gives
you reason to get dressed in the morning. Even on a less aggressive or
motivated level it could just be 'read the paper' (I know some retirees that
have only that for motivation...). It doesn't need to be justifiable or even
moral. Hitler had a cause. So did Mother Theresa. It's a goal (in a broad
sense) or goals that one is willing to work and/or sacrifice for. ie, watching
paint dry all day is not a 'cause'. Also, if one does assembling line work
let's say, and does it only for the money, then that work wouldn't fit 'cause'.
If however they made army boots, let's say, and the country was at war (and
they supported it ideologically), then it would fit 'cause'.

Does that help any? I'm not sure I'm defining it clearly enough perhaps.

Thanks.

2007\11\09@165031 by James Newton

face picon face
As I have pointed out many times in the past, a RELATIVE reference (e.g. one
man to the rest of humanity) is just as good for most purposes. Your
continual insistence that only an ABSOLUTE reference is useful is... not
useful.

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2007\11\09@185813 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Bob Blick wrote:
> If you ever do experience it firsthand, perhaps you
> could tell me what kind of life it must be where one
> has so little self-esteem or chance for a decent job
> that welfare is preferable? Since we're dealing with
> anecdotal examples that could as easily be a rare
> exception or the majority case, I should mention that
> most people I have seen who are on public assistance
> really need it, and are not thriving. I do not envy
> them. The only welfare that looks good is corporate
> welfare, that seems to be where the thriving ones are.

Bob, your responce is skewed by your US perspective on welfare. In the US,
being on welfare carries with it a social stigma (I was on welfare for a
short period). The intent of the system is to pay the bare minimum, to
encourage people to take the first opportunity to get off of it. The system
is not perfect, it does more of providing fish to the people, rather than
teaching them how to fish, but at least the intent and the stigma are there!
:)

Imagine, however, what it would be like if there were many more people on
welfare, and welfare was considered an acceptable form of income. Based on
what I've been told, the only requirement to get the unemployment benefits
in Denmark (about $1200/mo, and this figure is from back in 2005), is to
check in at the unemployment office, and confirm that one is still "in
search of employment." Such persons often work part-time (illegally) and get
paid in cash "under the table", so combined with the unemployment benefits
they're able to make a decent living. If this isn't true, or the scope of
the problem is exaggerated, I hope someone from Denmark will correct me.

Although I haven't experienced this particular situation firsthand (I've
only been told about it by someone who has), I did observe similar attitudes
in the USSR. There were many people for whom happiness was the ability not
to work. And the sense of entitlement (it is my RIGHT!) develops very
quickly.

The problem is not only that dishonest and lazy people put a burden on the
society, but that they also discourage those who would rather be productive.
Why should I work like an idiot, while my neighbor is getting a free ride?

2007\11\09@191143 by SME

face
flavicon
face
> As I have pointed out many times in the past, a RELATIVE
> reference (e.g. one
> man to the rest of humanity) is just as good for most
> purposes. Your
> continual insistence that only an ABSOLUTE reference is
> useful is... not
> useful.

Only while you fail to acknowledge my point :-)
You make, perfectly, as previously, the key point that I was
making.
You say

       " ... just as good for most purposes ..."

but this is only true as long as the people you deal with
agree with you.
As long as you control "most purposes" you may be OK, but in
the general order of things "most purposes" breaks down.

The eg Chinese ruling core (cited as the obvious example due
to point made in the end of this sentence) may be relatively
few, but they will very significantly disagree with you on
key points of the philosophies that you would wish to see as
"right" and, as they are for practical purposes are
supported by the economic might and therefore for practical
purposes every other sort of might of about 1.3 billion
people, that makes them right and you wrong, for the
purposes of your argument.

My point, distilled (?) from my last post, was:

> ALL "cause" is mirage, phantasm, pretence, self delusion
> without an absolute reference outside the system.
...
> "If your cause is not founded in God then it has no basis
> in
> reality or usefulness that somebody else cannot deny
> entirely justifiably".
...
> But until we accept that we cannot ever be a
> meaningful arbiter the other guy's dissenting opinion is
> every bit as invalid as our own.

SO:    Starting from your premises, I MUST [[IMHO] [tm]] be
"wrong" whether I agree or disagree with you, and you must
be too ;-) :-) :-)

10 hours 40, to takeoff ...

Back to work.



       Russell

2007\11\09@212309 by Bob Blick

face picon face


Vitaliy wrote:

> Why should I work like an idiot, while my neighbor is getting a free ride?

Work smarter, not harder?

:)

Cheerful regards,

Bob


2007\11\10@012811 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
www.piclist.com/techref/piclist/index.htm#quickfaq
"The only thing we don't (ever) want to see are religious, hate, or
political messages"

Can this rule be enforced, please.

If not then at least restrict it to OT and change the above off topic
channel rule to accommodate the snipped content.

Paul Hutch

<snipped enormous amount of religious content>

2007\11\10@213152 by James Newton

face picon face
Yeah, I agree. I'll start trying to do a better job of enforcing that.

--
James Newton


-----Original Message-----
From: .....piclist-bouncesRemoveMEspammit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesSTOPspamspam@spam@mit.edu] On Behalf Of
Paul Hutchinson
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 22:28
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: RE: [EE] Engineering salaries -- survey

www.piclist.com/techref/piclist/index.htm#quickfaq
"The only thing we don't (ever) want to see are religious, hate, or
political messages"

Can this rule be enforced, please.

If not then at least restrict it to OT and change the above off topic
channel rule to accommodate the snipped content.

Paul Hutch

<snipped enormous amount of religious content>

2007\11\11@001548 by Dr Skip

picon face
OK, I missed something. I was one of the last to post, but nothing was
religious in it - only continuing the discussion on why people agree to do what
they do for the pay they get, including engineers...

There was one reply that mentioned religion, but from what I remember, he
misinterpreted a previous note and went on to offer his viewpoint from the
erroneous interpretation.

Am I not getting all the emails??



James Newton wrote:
> Yeah, I agree. I'll start trying to do a better job of enforcing that.
>
> --
> James Newton
>
>
> {Original Message removed}

2007\11\11@053215 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Vitaliy wrote:

> [...]Such persons often work part-time (illegally) and get
> paid in cash "under the table", so combined with the unemployment benefits
> they're able to make a decent living. If this isn't true, or the scope of
> the problem is exaggerated, I hope someone from Denmark will correct me.

If this was such a problem in Denmark, what should be said about Italy,
especially southern?
Denmark is seen as a "highly civilized place" in here. Social security
and such, all those things. And hardly dishonest people robbing on that.

I hope this won't be denied...


(changed TAG as suggested, but I guess it got lost - not important anyway)

--
Ciao, Dario
--
ADPM Synthesis sas - Torino
--
http://www.adpm.tk

2007\11\12@092327 by Mauricio Giovagnini

flavicon
face
Vitaliy escribió:

> I never said you were communist, or that you live in a communist
country. A
> lot of my countrymen (US Americans) have similar ideas, which shocks
me. I
> think that's only because they don't understand how good they have it.
>
I wrote that because you mentioned that you read the same argument that
I posted
in a late'80s Soviet article bashing capitalism.  And I pointing that Im
not a communist
and I think the same.  As world knowledge becomes more complex less
people can
access to it, then what will they do? not that I was guessing, not
stating :)

> Having said that, Argentina does rank pretty low on the "Level of
Economic
> Freedom" list. Take a look here:
>
> <www.freetheworld.com/cgi-bin/freetheworld/getinfo.cgi
> The situation may have improved since 2005 (the wall poster I bought for
> 2006 ranks Argentina at #73), and maybe your new president will bring
more
> positive changes.

Argentina will rank #7000 if we continue this way... there are no
"positive changes" only more taxes and
a willigness to make themselves more rich.  By the way, its a sad topic
to talk about...

> Having said that, Argentina does rank pretty low on the "Level of
Economic
> Freedom" list. Take a look here:
>
> <www.freetheworld.com/cgi-bin/freetheworld/getinfo.cgi
> The situation may have improved since 2005 (the wall poster I bought for
> 2006 ranks Argentina at #73), and maybe your new president will bring
more
> positive changes.

Ar"they say" its below 10% but... who knows!!  There are no trustable
official statistics about that and
other topics.




------------------------------
Mauricio Giovagnini (Maunix)
http://www.maunix.com.ar
Cordoba, Arg.

2007\11\13@003004 by Dr Skip

picon face
I came across this from a news service. It seemed worthy of posting, since the
discussion has tended to compare sales to engineering to janitor. ;) It seems
to pale in comparison with this...

"
A recent example was Robert Reich's opinion article in the Sept. 14 edition of
the Wall Street Journal. [who is] professor of public policy at the University
of California at Berkeley and former U.S. secretary of labor under President
Bill Clinton.

Reich noted that recent data show that the typical CEO of a Fortune 500 company
earns an average of $10.8 million. This is more than 364 times the pay of an
average employee. Forty years ago, Reich added, top CEOs earned 20 to 30 times
what average workers earned.
"

2007\11\13@014211 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Nov 12, 2007, at 10:29 PM, Dr Skip wrote:
> Reich noted that recent data show that the typical CEO of a Fortune  
> 500 company
> earns an average of $10.8 million. This is more than 364 times the  
> pay of an
> average employee. Forty years ago, Reich added, top CEOs earned 20  
> to 30 times
> what average workers earned.

That particular market doesn't seem to be self-correcting much, either.

Not exactly seeing a mass flood of investors refusing (via their  
annual shareholder meetings and their votes, which they usually proxy  
away to other rich CEO's on the Board of Directors) to pay these  
salaries...

If they'd just think about how much it devalues their shareholder  
value as much as missing an EPS estimate by a penny does in a  
particular calendar quarter, maybe they'd drive down the cost of CEO's  
as much as the CEO's have driven down the costs of the company in  
other less productive and perhaps even long-term hurtful ways.

Shareholders don't act much like shareholders anymore, mainly because  
they purchase shares via mutual funds and let other people do the job  
of running the company they rightly own, for them.  Lazy and dumb,  
long-term.

--
Nate Duehr
nateEraseMEspam@spam@natetech.com



2007\11\13@071204 by Bryan Bishop

picon face
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 00:42, Nate Duehr wrote:
> Shareholders don't act much like shareholders anymore, mainly because
>   they purchase shares via mutual funds and let other people do the
> job of running the company they rightly own, for them.  Lazy and
> dumb, long-term.

On a completely off topic note, how does one become an activist for the
stocks that he owns? I'd be willing to take this offlist if it is way
too offtopic.

- Bryan

2007\11\13@130512 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Nov 13, 2007, at 5:12 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote:

> On Tuesday 13 November 2007 00:42, Nate Duehr wrote:
>> Shareholders don't act much like shareholders anymore, mainly because
>>   they purchase shares via mutual funds and let other people do the
>> job of running the company they rightly own, for them.  Lazy and
>> dumb, long-term.
>
> On a completely off topic note, how does one become an activist for  
> the
> stocks that he owns? I'd be willing to take this offlist if it is way
> too offtopic.


Attend shareholder meetings, never sign away your vote for those by  
proxy, ask questions.

--
Nate Duehr
RemoveMEnatespamspamBeGonenatetech.com



2007\11\13@143255 by Dr Skip

picon face


Nate Duehr wrote:
> Attend shareholder meetings, never sign away your vote for those by  
> proxy, ask questions.

It doesn't always work. This from the same release:

"
Dissenting investors complained recently in Australia about high pay packages
for the telecom company Telstra, reported the Australian newspaper on Nov. 7.
Two-thirds of shareholders' votes at the company's annual general meeting just
held in Sydney were against the pay arrangements for chief executive Sol
Trujillo and other senior officials.

In spite of what the article termed "the biggest revolt in the three-year
history of such votes in Australia," the resolution is not binding, and after
the meeting, Telstra chairman Donald McGauchie declared the board would ignore
its shareholders' wishes and would continue to pay executives as previously
arranged.
"

2007\11\13@152553 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Nov 13, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Dr Skip wrote:

>
>
> Nate Duehr wrote:
>> Attend shareholder meetings, never sign away your vote for those by
>> proxy, ask questions.
>
> It doesn't always work. This from the same release:
>
> "
> Dissenting investors complained recently in Australia about high pay  
> packages
> for the telecom company Telstra, reported the Australian newspaper  
> on Nov. 7.
> Two-thirds of shareholders' votes at the company's annual general  
> meeting just
> held in Sydney were against the pay arrangements for chief executive  
> Sol
> Trujillo and other senior officials.

"It's good to be the King.", I guess.   But... if 2/3's of the  
shareholders didn't all immediately sell all of their shares...?

Where's the teeth in their demands if the Board knows they'll all stay  
investors.

Telstra is also an odd-duck, it's a government-propped-up monopoly  
still, isn't it?  Not much in the way of competition.

> In spite of what the article termed "the biggest revolt in the three-
> year
> history of such votes in Australia," the resolution is not binding,  
> and after
> the meeting, Telstra chairman Donald McGauchie declared the board  
> would ignore
> its shareholders' wishes and would continue to pay executives as  
> previously
> arranged."

History would show that tyrrany happens, and then only lasts until the  
next revolution.

Not sure what that's going to be, though.  Seems like the shareholders  
needed to remove their capital en masse after their wishes were  
ignored.  Then there's no money to pay the salaries, anyway.

Problem is, because of the monopoly thing, I think the Aussie  
government would "rescue" a failing Telstra.  No win situation.  
Similar to the Bravo Sierra that happened here with the airlines after  
9/11.

--
Nate Duehr
spamBeGonenateKILLspamspam@spam@natetech.com

2007\11\13@154045 by Peter Todd

picon face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 01:25:50PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
{Quote hidden}

For that matter, what were the exact voting rules in place there? It's
not uncommon for there to be multiple classes of "voting" stock, some
with real power, some without.

Some investors even *like* that, because you can always ultimately vote
by simply selling, and it can help prevent takeovers and make for more
steady management. Depends on the circumstances.

> Telstra is also an odd-duck, it's a government-propped-up monopoly  
> still, isn't it?  Not much in the way of competition.

Yup. I just ordered DSL finally for my apartment, and spent a good 2
hours going through all the different providers out there. I'm glad I
live in Canada!

- --
http://petertodd.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHOgjg3bMhDbI9xWQRAjr4AJ9hNlO5rRH9uwGCWaMY3GCMxMQ0GwCePQR1
qRjXjVPCqHv3V8SyAxn2g44=
=za6+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2007\11\21@070652 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Martin Klingensmith wrote:

> I keep seeing references to this "global lack of engineers" but I'm not
> buying it. I suspect it's more like "experienced engineers cost money
> and the managers don't want to spend the money.." what do you think?

I think a /real/ lack of engineers would rather quickly cause a dramatic
increase in engineer pay. As long as this doesn't happen, it looks more
like a global lack of cheap engineers to me :)

Gerhard

2007\11\21@072523 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Dr Skip wrote:

> Nate Duehr wrote:
>> The concern of mine here is the gap between the engineer and say, the
>> same level/experience person in Sales or Marketing... there's a
>> widening gap there, which seems somewhat ridiculous.
>
> The perception is usually that they are "revenue producers". We are not.
> The value to the bottom line is directly visible, not a long term thing.

This is not only a perception, it is often an attitude. If you want to make
money be a priority, that's what you have to make it. IME most engineers
and programmers don't "sell themselves" well, they don't look at their work
from a "making money" or "creating profit/revenue" perspective. As long as
they don't do that making money will be a (necessary and welcome) side
effect, but not much more than that.

That's probably a good part of the average difference between these groups.
Which -- as an average -- doesn't say much about how an engineer fares who
decides to make making money (instead of "just" working) one of his or her
work priorities.

Gerhard

2007\11\21@093213 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 11/21/07, Gerhard Fiedler <listsspam_OUTspam@spam@connectionbrazil.com> wrote:
> I think a /real/ lack of engineers would rather quickly cause a dramatic
> increase in engineer pay. As long as this doesn't happen, it looks more
> like a global lack of cheap engineers to me :)

This is done artifically in other areas, and could be done in our
field with some work and perhaps 3-60 years of time.  Take the
Actuarial field, for instance.  A 'real' actuary has to take 8-10
tests over at least as many years to become a fully certified and
qualified actuary.

If a critical mass of engineers developed a series of engineering
titles and certifications that could be used industry wide to fully
categorize all engineers then eventually companies would adopt them
mainly due to the fact that cost control, hiring, etc is so much
easier when they are homogenized.

Given that enginneering is becoming more and more a commodity, it may
happen anyway, but with a general lowering of cost and without
certifications.

I don't know if I really want to do that, though.  The computer
industry doesn't have good luck with certifications (except in the
networking area - Cisco, for instance) and so the effect could result
in the opposite.

Plus, too many people would view it as unionization.

-Adam

--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Moving in southeast Michigan? Buy my house: http://ubasics.com/house/

Interested in electronics? Check out the projects at http://ubasics.com

Building your own house? Check out http://ubasics.com/home/

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...