Hey now, I didn't create the categories, you did. I was just playing by your rules. Like I said, if I was a hiring manager looking for JNCIE's I wouldn't publicly post such a job at all - far better just to find out who they are (all 20 of them), get their phone numbers or email, and contact them each personally. I know that's how it's actually done in the Juniper world. It's not that hard to find out the identities of 20 people, after all, the carrier market is fairly tight-knit. The proof of the pudding is in the eating - believe me, JNCIE's are definitely not hurting for work, unlike some CCIE's I know (even highly experienced ones). But anyway, I used your categories, and I won 2 out of 3 (remember, only one of your categories used the word 'JNCIE', and I don't even really think that I lost that category, but fine I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and say you won it).
Or, I'll give you another example. When my hometown NFL club needs a new starting QB, do they announce try-outs open to the public? No of course not, because, despite my boyhead fantasies of winning the Superbowl, at any given moment, there are at (very) most a handful of available people in the world who can legitimately be a starting NFL quarterback, and every head coach, general manager, or scout pretty much knows who they are and where to find them. There is little need to go hunting for prospective candidates when you already know who the candidates are. This is what happens when the candidate pool is that small. Companies will only publicly post jobs when the pool is large and they cannot easily call every available candidate (I think you would agree that calling 6600 people is definitely a bigger pain than calling 20). But if you were to use your Monster or Dice analogy, then I could probably put in "NFL QB" into Dice or Monster and get no responses. Should I then conclude that Cisco guys make more money than pro football quarterbacks do? Of course not. I'm fairly certain that Brett Favre and Kurt Warner are pretty rich men. Now, don't twist my words around. I did not say that having a JNCIE is like equivalent to playing pro football. What I'm saying is this. Many people believe that demand is the only part of the equation that needs to be looked at. This is untrue. You need to look at both supply and demand. It's Econ 101. Simply saying that demand is higher for a given good does not tell you what the equilibrium price of that good is going to be. Rather, it's the confluence of supply and demand that determines price. High demand may not equal high price if supply is also high. In fact, if supply is too high, then price might be zero. The price of air to breathe, for example, is zero, even though demand for it is huge (if you can't breathe, you die), because supply is near-infinite. On the other hand, low demand for something does not mean that the price will be low, if supply is also low. This is why gold, platinum, and diamonds are expensive. Honestly, how many people really need jewels (as compared to the fact that everybody needs air to breathe)? So the demand is low, but on the other hand, these jewels are rare (low supply). That's why you pay thousands for a diamond and you pay nothing for the air you breathe, even though you must agree that you're not going to die if you don't have a diamond. Therefore, what I'm saying is that while the demand for Juniper skills is definitely lower than the demand for Cisco (for to argue otherwise would be foolish), on the other hand, the supply of Juniper skills relative to Cisco skills is so low that the disparity in demand is far outweighed. Econometric theory dictates that supply-demand curves is the only correct way to really evaluate the worth of anything, and that is the crux of my argument. I believe I have shown strong evidence that it is indeed the case that relative demand for Juniper is higher than relative supply - I have presented the demand curves for Juniper skills vs. Cisco skills in a number of ways (revenue over 1 year, existing revenue base of equipment, etc.), and I have shown the supply curves, and I believe my case is solid. If somebody wants to show me other evidence that this is not true - i.e. you can present to me different supply and demand curves, then I am all ears. I'm a reasonable man, if you want to argue with me on the facts, that's cool. But let's stick to the facts, and not engage in some petty emotional argument. No ad-hominem personal attacks, because they don't prove anything (and just serve to tick me off). Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=24345&t=24336 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
