"We're having trouble finding the numbers that we need with the skills that are required to do these jobs," AT&T Chief Executive Randall Stephenson told a business group in San Antonio"
Having been in management for years, I hear similar statements from colleagues at various gatherings. And, it's nor restricted to high-tech fields, either.
So, what is happening? Is the US workforce base really deteriorating, or are these managers making excuses, so they can ship jobs abroad?
I am not an expert on these issues, but it sure sounds to me that this may be the old "what came first, the chicken or the egg" question. A very simplified ed version is this. Labor base deteriorates, companies ship jobs abroad (or import workers), potential employees become discouraged and stop trying to acquire expertise, job pool becomes even thinner, so employers have to look elsewhere, and so on...
We, need, however, to ask ourselves, what really started this downhill run, and is there anything that can be done to stop it, or better reverse it?
Again not claiming and sort of guru expertise, my observations seem to tell me that the two issues that have driven us to where we are today, are education and feeling of entitlement.
There is question that our education system has been deteriorating. As Betsy Brown Ruzzi presented in her study, "International Education Tests: An Overview 2005", the US did not even rank in the top 12 in either reading, mathematics, or science in testing 8-th graders and above. There is something wrong! We want to claim the title of the most technologically advanced country, yet our students are being outperformed even in basic skills! Guess, what, if that's the case, then the only way to *retain* that title would be by bringing some of those out-performing us, so the can help us. It makes sense. Of course, the better, but tougher, solution would be to fix our educational system, so that our students, who become our eventual workers, once again become competitive, but who wants to hear that, really. Everyone is looking for the *quick fix* - send the jobs abroad, or bring others to this country to help us. Well, if that keeps happening, we are going to run into another problem, we are going to run out of jobs at McDonald's and Wendy's, to absorb all the student graduating with a very limited set of skills. Now, don't get me wrong. There is *nothing* wrong with working at McDonald's and Wendy's. Those employees serve as important a function in our economy and society as anyone else. But, as mentioned earlier, not everyone can work there.
And before feathers get ruffled, let me make sure I state, when I am talking about the "educational system deteriorating", I am *NOT* criticizing the teachers! This is truly a systemic problem. If anything, given today's climate, I admire anyone who decides to become a teacher. May be that's where we should start. Let's start giving teachers the recognition of the important role they play in society. Yes, teachers are the ones that form the character of the next generation, the next CEOs, the next president of the United States. Being a teacher was something to be proud of. Let's get back to that. Let's give them the recognition and authority they deserve. Parents, you can keep an eye on what is going on, but stay out of the way and let teachers do their job!
I kind-of lost my train of thought... Oh, yeah, the second issue, feeling of entitlement. Well, in today's society, there is a feeling that once someone finishes school, and decides to look for a job, they are entitled to it. They don't think that a company is "giving them a chance" to do something with their life, albeit not necessarily for altruistic reasons. No, they are entitled to a job, and benefits, and vacation, and holidays, and... I have seen it with my own eyes, while interviewing candidates for entry-level jobs. Many (not all) came to the interview with the attitude, "well, I'll listen to you, see what you have to offer me, and if I feel like I am getting what I want, I'll take the job". That attitude, coupled with the fact that their education and preparedness for the job is sub-par, results in, you guessed it, "Next candidate, please...". Again, I am not saying that employees should settled for whatever they can get, or be taken advantage of, or anything like that. But, they are *NOT* entitled to a job, just because they finished school! They have to show that they need the job, they want the job! They have to show that they are interested in participating in the growth of the company/business that wants to hire them, which in turn guarantees their own growth. But, they'll argue, what guarantee do they have that company growth will not mean their job being outsourced and their being out to pasture. Which brings me back to "the chicken and the egg" problem.
We've come full circle.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Ultimate Fighting for Kids
Ultimate Fighting has been touted as the fastest growing sport, ever. It has also been dubbed "human cockfighting". Adults, pummeling each other, trying to inflict real harm, while a whole bunch of other adults are cheering them on. Or so it used to be until recently.
According to an AP article, in a recent fighting event in Montana, kids as young as 6 put on the protective gear and got into the fight, both boys and girls. Some parents that were interviewed said that they'd rather have their kids learning how to defend themselves, rather than running out in the streets, getting in trouble.
That sounds to me like they may be trying to convince themselves that what they are doing is the right thing. Let's face it, they are training their kids for dogfights. And, I'm surprised that the law steps in to protect dogs from being abused, i.e., being trained for and participating in dog fights, but will not do the same for these young children!
Oh, the parents' response, "... you can't tell me what to do with my children..." Give me a break. Children are not a piece of property that you own and can do whatever you want with them. When you dress 9-yr olds in fighting gear and send them to the mat, you are abusing them, regardless of how much they tell you they enjoy it. They are just kids, but *you* should know better!
I hope the law steps in and puts an end to this abuse.
According to an AP article, in a recent fighting event in Montana, kids as young as 6 put on the protective gear and got into the fight, both boys and girls. Some parents that were interviewed said that they'd rather have their kids learning how to defend themselves, rather than running out in the streets, getting in trouble.
That sounds to me like they may be trying to convince themselves that what they are doing is the right thing. Let's face it, they are training their kids for dogfights. And, I'm surprised that the law steps in to protect dogs from being abused, i.e., being trained for and participating in dog fights, but will not do the same for these young children!
Oh, the parents' response, "... you can't tell me what to do with my children..." Give me a break. Children are not a piece of property that you own and can do whatever you want with them. When you dress 9-yr olds in fighting gear and send them to the mat, you are abusing them, regardless of how much they tell you they enjoy it. They are just kids, but *you* should know better!
I hope the law steps in and puts an end to this abuse.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Olympic Flame and Protests
The lighting of the Olympic torch took place in Olympia, Greece today. The lighting is a process that takes place before the start of each Summer Olympic games and the torch carries the light from there to the host country, for the opening ceremonies.
Today, the event was marred by a few protesters from "Reporters without Borders" that held black flags with the Olympic rings pictures as handcuffs, protesting China's treatment of Tibet.
It got me thinking about the whole concept of the Olympics, and whether this was a good venue for such demonstrations.
I'm torn. Part of me thinks that if one believes that some human rights are being violated (as these protesters claims is done by China towards Tibet), then they have a social responsibility to voice that concern in any forum they can access.
Another part, however, thinks that the Olympic events should be immune from all that. Even during the ancient Olympics, all political fighting and wars, were paused for the events. Olympics were were supposed to be void of any politics. One of the reasons they were started was indeed to pause ALL hostilities!
The more I think about it, the more I think that the Olympics should only be about athletes getting together and competing. All other issues should be kept out of them. There are many venues that can be used by protesters. to try and make their statements. Let's have at least one that doesn't become the soapbox for everyone with an ax to grind.
And, I am not passing judgment as to whether the protesters are right or wrong. They may be very right in chastising China for their human rights abuse record. All I'm saying leave their plight ot of the Olympics. It's about the only institution that remains!
Today, the event was marred by a few protesters from "Reporters without Borders" that held black flags with the Olympic rings pictures as handcuffs, protesting China's treatment of Tibet.
It got me thinking about the whole concept of the Olympics, and whether this was a good venue for such demonstrations.
I'm torn. Part of me thinks that if one believes that some human rights are being violated (as these protesters claims is done by China towards Tibet), then they have a social responsibility to voice that concern in any forum they can access.
Another part, however, thinks that the Olympic events should be immune from all that. Even during the ancient Olympics, all political fighting and wars, were paused for the events. Olympics were were supposed to be void of any politics. One of the reasons they were started was indeed to pause ALL hostilities!
The more I think about it, the more I think that the Olympics should only be about athletes getting together and competing. All other issues should be kept out of them. There are many venues that can be used by protesters. to try and make their statements. Let's have at least one that doesn't become the soapbox for everyone with an ax to grind.
And, I am not passing judgment as to whether the protesters are right or wrong. They may be very right in chastising China for their human rights abuse record. All I'm saying leave their plight ot of the Olympics. It's about the only institution that remains!
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
William F. Buckley
Critics were abound, when it came to chastising Buckley for using words that were not in daily use, or understood by many Americans. However, he didn't let that dissuade him, because he really believed that people need to be challenged, in order to better themselves, even if that was only simply mastering their own language.
As he once noted, restricting a writer from using certain words, simply because they are not often spoken every day, is like telling a composer that they could not use diminished cords in their their next composition.
Although I found myself looking up words that he used in his writings, I agree with his way of thinking. If we do not use certain words, because they are not often used, we are simply ensuring that our vocabulary, and the English language, in general, will slowly become "limited". Not enough words would be available or known that would allow one to express a whole spectrum of feelings, emotions, conditions, etc. it'd be just black-or-white.
I may not have agreed with many of his views, but we need more writers like him, to preserve the language.
As he once noted, restricting a writer from using certain words, simply because they are not often spoken every day, is like telling a composer that they could not use diminished cords in their their next composition.
Although I found myself looking up words that he used in his writings, I agree with his way of thinking. If we do not use certain words, because they are not often used, we are simply ensuring that our vocabulary, and the English language, in general, will slowly become "limited". Not enough words would be available or known that would allow one to express a whole spectrum of feelings, emotions, conditions, etc. it'd be just black-or-white.
I may not have agreed with many of his views, but we need more writers like him, to preserve the language.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Technical Support
Just like most users of technology out there, I have spent my share of time on the phone talking to some tech support person that either didn't know what they were talking about, or talked to me like *I* didn't. It's very frustrating indeed. That, when coupled with being put on hold every two minutes, so the tech support representative can consult with their supervisor, or look up something, etc. can drive you up the wall.
However, after each such experience, when I have a chance to calm down and think about the whole "tech support" concept, I remember a stint I did as a tech support person, and I start feeling compassion for the person at the other end of the line. I can really feel for them having to put up with disgruntled users that just don't take the time to look at the documentation, or the help file, or others who quite simply should not be allowed to use computers.
It could be that I feel this way because of the time I spent a few years ago as a tech support person for a software product. Now, I have to also admit that this was a while ago when not many of the users calling had grown totally immersed in the computer "era", like most youngsters today. On the other hand, I don't want to make excuses for them. It's one thing not be intimately familiar with computers and their use, and another not to have any common sense. The best way that I could demonstrate what I'm saying may be by a couple of "real" life examples of what I'm talking about. A typical real tech support call I received at the time, presented here as it took place (with may be some additional dispersed commentary from me).
[Providing Technical Support for a Spreadsheet program]
** Answering the Phone... **
Me: XYZ Corporation, can I help you?
Caller: Yeah, I got this program from you and it doesn't work.
Me: I'll be more than happy to try and help sir, which program are we talking about? (the company I worked for made over a dozen different products)
Caller: I don't know, the one you make, I mean I got it *from you*.
Me:Yes sir. Our company makes a lot of different products. Could you tell me which one you are using?
Caller:I don't know, where would I find that information?
Me:Well, that's usually displayed in the Caption of the program's window, at the vry top.
Caller:There is nothing there. Is there another way to find out?
Me: Yes sir. If you could select Help, About, the name of the program should also be displayed there.
Caller: O.K., I checked on Help About and all I get is some information About the Windows Version.
Me: Sir, is the program running?
Caller:No, I told you it doesn't work.
Me:I see, sorry about that sir. You mean when you double-click on the program's shortcut, nothing happens?
Caller: I don't have any shortcuts.
Me:(scratching my head). So, how do you normally try to start the program?
Caller: I click on it.
Me:Click on what?
Caller: Click on the program.
Me:(Again, scratching my head). So, you start it by clicking on "Start" and then "All Programs" and you find the program that way?
Caller:No, it's right there, and I just click it.
Me:Right there, where, sir?
Caller:On my screen. I see it every time I start my computer.
Me:I see. Well that icon that you see on your screen (desktop) is the shortcut I was referring to earlier. So, you click on that and the program doesn't run?
Caller:Don't treat me like I'm ignorant, OK! I click on the little icon, and the program opens up, but then nothing happens, it just doesn't work.
Me: Well, did you try to enter some data and it didn't work? Or, did you try to open a spreadsheet file and it didn't open? Did you enter a formula and it didn't work as expected? I don't understand.
Caller:Look, I've been in high tech for many years, don't talk to me like I'm an idiot. I click the icon, the program opens and all I see is a bunch of rows and columns. The program just sits there and doesn't do anything.
Me: What did you expect the program to do sir?
Caller: I bought it because I wanted to use it to track my inventory. But how how can I do that if the program just sits there and doesn't do anything?
Me:Well, sir. This is just a spreadsheet program, and it doesn't do anything by itself. You'd have to enter your inventory and any other information and formulas you may need.
Caller:If I have to do all that, I don't want this program. Just tell me what I have to do to return it.
Me:(I really wanted to tell him he needed to return his computer - he shouldn't be allowed to use a computer, but I would have gotten fired) O.K., sir, here is the telephone number you need to call to get a Return Merchandise Authorization # (RMA). Thank you for trying our product.
This reminds me of a joke I saw on-line a couple of years ago...
General Motors doesn't have a 'help line' for people who don't know how to drive, because people don't buy cars like they buy computers -- but imagine if they did . . .
HELPLINE: 'General Motors Help Line, how can I help you?'
CUSTOMER: 'Hi! I just bought my first car, and I chose your car because it has automatic transmission, cruise control power steering, power brakes, and power door locks.'
HELPLINE: 'Thanks for buying our car. How can I help you?'
CUSTOMER: 'How do I work it?'
HELPLINE: 'Do you know how to drive?'
CUSTOMER: 'Do I know how to what?'
HELPLINE: 'Do you know how to drive?'
CUSTOMER: 'I'm not a technical person! I just want to go places in my car!'
However, after each such experience, when I have a chance to calm down and think about the whole "tech support" concept, I remember a stint I did as a tech support person, and I start feeling compassion for the person at the other end of the line. I can really feel for them having to put up with disgruntled users that just don't take the time to look at the documentation, or the help file, or others who quite simply should not be allowed to use computers.
It could be that I feel this way because of the time I spent a few years ago as a tech support person for a software product. Now, I have to also admit that this was a while ago when not many of the users calling had grown totally immersed in the computer "era", like most youngsters today. On the other hand, I don't want to make excuses for them. It's one thing not be intimately familiar with computers and their use, and another not to have any common sense. The best way that I could demonstrate what I'm saying may be by a couple of "real" life examples of what I'm talking about. A typical real tech support call I received at the time, presented here as it took place (with may be some additional dispersed commentary from me).
[Providing Technical Support for a Spreadsheet program]
** Answering the Phone... **
Me: XYZ Corporation, can I help you?
Caller: Yeah, I got this program from you and it doesn't work.
Me: I'll be more than happy to try and help sir, which program are we talking about? (the company I worked for made over a dozen different products)
Caller: I don't know, the one you make, I mean I got it *from you*.
Me:Yes sir. Our company makes a lot of different products. Could you tell me which one you are using?
Caller:I don't know, where would I find that information?
Me:Well, that's usually displayed in the Caption of the program's window, at the vry top.
Caller:There is nothing there. Is there another way to find out?
Me: Yes sir. If you could select Help, About, the name of the program should also be displayed there.
Caller: O.K., I checked on Help About and all I get is some information About the Windows Version.
Me: Sir, is the program running?
Caller:No, I told you it doesn't work.
Me:I see, sorry about that sir. You mean when you double-click on the program's shortcut, nothing happens?
Caller: I don't have any shortcuts.
Me:
Caller: I click on it.
Me:Click on what?
Caller: Click on the program.
Me:
Caller:No, it's right there, and I just click it.
Me:Right there, where, sir?
Caller:On my screen. I see it every time I start my computer.
Me:I see. Well that icon that you see on your screen (desktop) is the shortcut I was referring to earlier. So, you click on that and the program doesn't run?
Caller:Don't treat me like I'm ignorant, OK! I click on the little icon, and the program opens up, but then nothing happens, it just doesn't work.
Me: Well, did you try to enter some data and it didn't work? Or, did you try to open a spreadsheet file and it didn't open? Did you enter a formula and it didn't work as expected? I don't understand.
Caller:Look, I've been in high tech for many years, don't talk to me like I'm an idiot. I click the icon, the program opens and all I see is a bunch of rows and columns. The program just sits there and doesn't do anything.
Me: What did you expect the program to do sir?
Caller: I bought it because I wanted to use it to track my inventory. But how how can I do that if the program just sits there and doesn't do anything?
Me:Well, sir. This is just a spreadsheet program, and it doesn't do anything by itself. You'd have to enter your inventory and any other information and formulas you may need.
Caller:If I have to do all that, I don't want this program. Just tell me what I have to do to return it.
Me:(I really wanted to tell him he needed to return his computer - he shouldn't be allowed to use a computer, but I would have gotten fired) O.K., sir, here is the telephone number you need to call to get a Return Merchandise Authorization # (RMA). Thank you for trying our product.
This reminds me of a joke I saw on-line a couple of years ago...
General Motors doesn't have a 'help line' for people who don't know how to drive, because people don't buy cars like they buy computers -- but imagine if they did . . .
HELPLINE: 'General Motors Help Line, how can I help you?'
CUSTOMER: 'Hi! I just bought my first car, and I chose your car because it has automatic transmission, cruise control power steering, power brakes, and power door locks.'
HELPLINE: 'Thanks for buying our car. How can I help you?'
CUSTOMER: 'How do I work it?'
HELPLINE: 'Do you know how to drive?'
CUSTOMER: 'Do I know how to what?'
HELPLINE: 'Do you know how to drive?'
CUSTOMER: 'I'm not a technical person! I just want to go places in my car!'
Monday, March 10, 2008
Chemicals in Drinking Water...
I read yesterday that a new study was just released that shows dozens of unwanted chemicals present in the drinking water of about 41 million Americans. Very alarming, indeed. Then, towards the end of the report I saw that these elements were found in concentrations of one part per billion or even trillion. Well, that starts to put things in perspective, I think.
Now, I am not one to want *bad* chemicals in my drinking water, but it would be nice if someone really explained what "one-part-per-trillion" concentration of some chemical water would do to me, before I start freaking out and stop drinking water.
I recall, about 20 years ago, when there was a report that some major brand muffin mix (don;t want to mention names) was found to contain a bad toxin. Front page news in most newspapers for a week, or so. Panic stricken consumers started calling supermarkets, which in turn proceeded to promptly remove all muffin mixes of that brand from their shelves. People were worried about muffin mix they had already consumed. Parents were distraught about having unknowingly fed their young children such muffins.
I happened to be in a position to secure a copy of the actual results of the study done by a lab in Washington, sanctioned by the EPA. I gave it to some co-workers that had expertise in those types of analyses, and asked him to spend some time carefully reviewing it. It turned out that all the experiments were done on mice, and then extrapolated to humans. No problem so far, that's done all the time (after all you don't want to run experiments with humans, possibly risking human life!). Looking at the numbers closer, it turned out that laboratory mice were fed 1/1000-th of their body weight of the toxin every day for 3 months, and their chance of cancer was increased by 22 % over that of the control group. It also turned out that the toxin concentration in the offending muffin mix was about 1 in 10o,000 parts. Doing the math quickly, it turned out that a person of average weight of 150 lbs, would have to consume 0.15 lbs of toxin, i.e., 15,000 lbs of muffin mix, i.e. 120,000 muffins a day (conservatively assuming 2 oz of muffing mix per muffin), every day for three months, i.e. a total of 3,600,000 muffins in order to possibly increase their risk of cancer by 22%. Looking at the further extrapolation calculations in the report (for long term exposure), it turned out that the same 150 lb consumer would have to eat 329 muffins a day, seven days a week, for 30 years to increase their chance of cancer by 22%. Give me a break!!!
So now I wonder. Is this "chemicals in drinking water" the same type of "alarmist" report? Don't get me wrong, as I said before I don't want any bad chemicals in my drinking water, but please, someone tell us what the AP report findings really means. Do we have to drink 100 gallons of water a day, every day for 50 years to increase our chance of cancer two-fold, or something?
I wonder...
Now, I am not one to want *bad* chemicals in my drinking water, but it would be nice if someone really explained what "one-part-per-trillion" concentration of some chemical water would do to me, before I start freaking out and stop drinking water.
I recall, about 20 years ago, when there was a report that some major brand muffin mix (don;t want to mention names) was found to contain a bad toxin. Front page news in most newspapers for a week, or so. Panic stricken consumers started calling supermarkets, which in turn proceeded to promptly remove all muffin mixes of that brand from their shelves. People were worried about muffin mix they had already consumed. Parents were distraught about having unknowingly fed their young children such muffins.
I happened to be in a position to secure a copy of the actual results of the study done by a lab in Washington, sanctioned by the EPA. I gave it to some co-workers that had expertise in those types of analyses, and asked him to spend some time carefully reviewing it. It turned out that all the experiments were done on mice, and then extrapolated to humans. No problem so far, that's done all the time (after all you don't want to run experiments with humans, possibly risking human life!). Looking at the numbers closer, it turned out that laboratory mice were fed 1/1000-th of their body weight of the toxin every day for 3 months, and their chance of cancer was increased by 22 % over that of the control group. It also turned out that the toxin concentration in the offending muffin mix was about 1 in 10o,000 parts. Doing the math quickly, it turned out that a person of average weight of 150 lbs, would have to consume 0.15 lbs of toxin, i.e., 15,000 lbs of muffin mix, i.e. 120,000 muffins a day (conservatively assuming 2 oz of muffing mix per muffin), every day for three months, i.e. a total of 3,600,000 muffins in order to possibly increase their risk of cancer by 22%. Looking at the further extrapolation calculations in the report (for long term exposure), it turned out that the same 150 lb consumer would have to eat 329 muffins a day, seven days a week, for 30 years to increase their chance of cancer by 22%. Give me a break!!!
So now I wonder. Is this "chemicals in drinking water" the same type of "alarmist" report? Don't get me wrong, as I said before I don't want any bad chemicals in my drinking water, but please, someone tell us what the AP report findings really means. Do we have to drink 100 gallons of water a day, every day for 50 years to increase our chance of cancer two-fold, or something?
I wonder...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)