At risk of being called insensitive to those currently struggling with issues of this thread, if we want to solve this problem we need to be just a little visionary. At some point we will recognize the flawed economic structure that *predictably* produces this problem -- and always will. When we do .... we can begin to evolve our way out of it -- which actually we've already begun to do (just too damn slowly for me). My apologies in advance to those that I offend (empoyers and employees, both) -- but the basic problem here is a simple economics problem of productivity valuation -- and it's inherently flawed implementation in -- the "employment" labor model. I'll try to be quick about explaining that -- and use fewer fancy words doing it. When we are hired as an employee, we're hired to do something productive, something that has value -- something that in economist's terms has -- utility. Employers expect a certain amount of "utility" for a certain amount of pay -- and well they should -- that's classic economic utility valuation theory. The problem is that the pay of an employee is tied to the time they spend producing something that has "utility" -- so the employer has to concern himself not only with his "bottom line" of getting the amount of "utility" that he is paying for -- but the "rate" at which it is accomplished -- in terms of hours, days, months, etc .... which actually determine the indirect exchange for "utility" (ignoring deadlines, which may or may not apply -- see my equally entertaining project management theories for that stuff) Since the paradigm of the "employment labor model" is also "full time" with benefits, etc .... they, employers, must also encompass overall competency -- as well as rates of productivity -- and accordingly it ain't no surprise that EVERYONE is looking for guru's -- the employment productivity model predicts that, and that's what we see. Everyone is looking for Superman. Which means that a LOT of good, valuable, usable human talent -- productive ability -- is simply left on the sidelines, while ...... simultaneously employers complain bitterly about not finding any good help. Is there an alternative to this disfunctional employment labor model -- yeah, and we're getting there bit by bit, and when we do it will be a substantially better labor model producing higher quality of life for everyone (almost everyone, anyway). It's a labor model that goes straight to "utility" valuation in exchange for pay and eliminates the indirect, obtuse labor rate translation to obtain "utility value". It won't be all that different than what is slowly developing in terms of the labor market for some IT contract work, but it's got a long ways to go before it will work well enough that everyone will be comfortable with it, and we'll abandon the old fashioned employment labor model (which I confess, to someone attidudenally challenged like me looks pretty damn feudal). When the new labor model does develop it should allow appropriate (market determined, not employer fixed) compensation for newbies and gurus alike -- based purely on what they can do that has true utility value and is worth something to someone willing to pay for it. In this labor model -- assuming a healthy overall economy behind it -- ANYONE can get work on a competitive basis with ANY skill level, so long as they can actually do something useful and they will be compensated for it accoding to it's true (market based) value. Later this year I will begin work on a web site (for profit, hopefully) to begin to create a micro-infrastructure to facilitate this type of labor market -- at least on a small level. I would love to hear from anyone who has an interest in this subject, knows what the hell I'm talking about, perhaps shares my views, and might want to collaborate on such a project. Thanks for listening, I feel better now, :) Dru At 00:10 8/23/2000 -0400, Judith Dinowitz wrote: >Here's another idea. How about a CF critiquing group or a "big brother" >program? You could have a group of developers agree to "critique" >eachother's programs. This would be similar to a writer's >group--constructive criticism and code flaws only, no personal bashing. If >there's enough interest, maybe we can twist Michael's arm and set up a list >on House of Fusion for it! > >Definitely build applications -- force yourself to build applications -- >build applications in your sleep and post them on CF-Talk for critiquing! >(Just kidding. People might get annoyed at that, since that's not what the >list is for.) When they're solid, use them as sample code for your job >applications. > >Judith, just throwing some ideas out. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_jobs or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_jobs or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
