Tom,
I couldn't agree with you more. For example I have several serious discussions
going on with people on this and another list but the "roof started to leak" and
so they have been put on hold.
Meanwhile, a few people have changed their clocks and their e-mail ends up in
my IN BOX as a new letter for 1948 or worse 1998 in the middle of a system where
they don't belong. I can imagine what chaos this will do to all we individual
(PC) entrepreneurs who depend upon a split second use of time. It will pretty
well close down our ability to talk, because talking will be out of order, and
will take too much time to figure out.
So this will basically shut down the Internet list groups except for the idiot
or adolescent chatters who talk in Sound Bites. Something that is to real
conversation as those mass produced velvet wall hangings are to Art.
A common maxim that I have heard again and again is " you don't exist until you
have the numbers and they are published." That is the main reason for the
existence of many government bureaus who just create a numerical history so
their professions don't continue to re-invent the wheel. An "Order of the
Domain" and the "Creative Acts that effect that Domain."
When that order is chaotic, Time literally stands still, and all we "paper
trail" folk's worst nightmare comes true in the real world. Not unlike when
the plague killed so many of the keepers of Oral Knowledge not entrusted or able
to be put on the written page. Gutenberg was almost immediately after that
calamity and the "public" library was invented. At the same time there was a
demonizing (witches) of those who would not cooperate and kept their knowledge
as private capital. (Note this is not the public myth but it is what
happened!)
Today such an intrusion into our work life, makes a very good case for a Central
Government Agency controlling and standardizing all virtual reality programs
just to avoid the chaos created by the Free Market individual non connected
companies.
Although there are counter arguments about the vulnerability to terrorism of
such a system, the total use of one Internet makes that argument obsolete. We
ARE vulnerable and that is just the way it is. That very same vulnerability
makes the inefficiency of an institution such as the Free Market intolerable.
In fact the market encourages diversification for speculative/competitive
reasons that have nothing to do with efficiency. It is also said that
governments cannot be trusted with such power but would you rather it be in the
hands of a non democratic power whose self-interest does not coinside with the
self-interest of the majority of the globe? Those non-democratic governments
will take this power anyway, just as if they were a private corporation. See
Malaysia and Singapore not to mention China.
One can make the case for this Y2K situation being created just to stir the
competitive juices and profits of such companies, and the public be damned.
(Planned Obsolesence? Shades of Ford and General Motors?) Consider that
Bill Gates possesses as much wealth as 140 million Americans combined. He,
in his own way, has been trying to monopolize and standardize the market to his
own benefit. The government has been against monopoly because of its Free
Market theology. So they go against the very efficiency that is needed because
it would place too much of the Nation's fiscal resources in one private place.
Of course the telephone companies are re-monopolizing after finding that the
mini-companies don't work for them or their customers.
But the Market claims the reason for destroying monopolies not to be, income
re-distribution (horrors), but the "stifling of innovation and competition."
BUT! the market depends upon productivity and productivity depends upon
"economies of scale" and "economies of scale" cannot afford innovation. It
seems to me that everything has been turned upside down and the economist's
reliance on a pre virtual theology is more than a little of the problem. Adam
Smith and John Locke would not say the same things today as they said it then.
It is a different world. Neither would the obsessive Marx* have said the same
thing in today's world. Studying the past is an important activity but one
should always live in the current world.
Knowing the context in which Art, Philosophy, Science, Law etc. was originally
used is crucial. One need look no further than the battle between the two "out
of Time" groups in the U.S. trying to do an impeachment. With the so-called
"pundits" saying ignorant things on a daily basis, they only prove that idiocy
is contagious.
Computers almost destroyed the Stock Market a few years back. As a remedy the
Market put a speed limit on the computers to give their decrepit institutions
time to catch their breath rather than having what we from the prairie call a
"Firestorm."
Heaven forbid! The Market decided to put a "governor" on its own actions while
decrying regulation of such things as "Firearms" as a limitation of commerce and
the right of individuals to defend themselves against "Krazies" and
"Kriminals." That daily brushing of their hair in the mirror must be a terrible
experience. Better not to have mirrors lest you see the real Krazy Kriminal and
shoot yourself in self defense. Why does it feel like I'm caught in the
Loony Tune world?
As an Artist I suspect that the coming "Firestorm" just in dates alone will
create a world that will make the current theories of Economics and jobs seem
like the "Stone Age." Rather than the "Stone" world of the Industrial Age,
it will be the instantaneous Age of Fire and Movement that the Aztec
Mathematicians predicted in 1515. What they got wrong was the "Age of
Stone's" (Obsidian Glass Winds) length. It was three sevens longer than the
9 cycles of 52 that they called the 9 hells. They didn't count on the
Judeo-Christian love of Millenniums.
Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
The Magic Circle Chamber Opera of New York, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Eva, you forced me to reread Marx. You are mistaken. Just read the opening to
the Manifesto for the Messianic traits I mentioned. I think you are too close
to it, like the fundamentalist Christians and the Bible. The rest I would
call time/bound and although Marx hated the idea, he was through and through a
romantic. Between Wagner and Richard Strauss (make that Nietsche and Freud)
of the Romantic era. Have you read the Barzun book from the 1950s "Darwin, Marx
& Wagner"? Marx should have studied more of the art of his day, it would have
given him perspective and maybe humility. .
(Of course it is not only philosopher/economists who are wrong about history and
their place in it, Brahms considered himself to be Neo-classical rather than
Romantic and he too was wrong.)
It seems that the only people able to understand "Historical Eras" these days
are the Artists and their theorists, the various "ologists".
Herbert Read, I.A. Richards, Heinrich Schenker, Felix Saltzer and today's
wonderful pianist/psychologist Howard Gardner as examples. (If you want I
will send you yesterday's Interview with him from the NYTimes Arts section.)
As an educational scientist he has finally put the garbage about art and
"subjectivity" into the hole where it should have been all along. Being a
scientist he can speak in "scientifieeze" about creative realities.
To the scientist there is just right and wrong these days, (not so in the
past). With this coming "Y2K glitsch" It is the scientist and their economic
version that is "out of time" in both meanings of the phrase.
One good thing from my four day review of Marx, Russell, Heilbroner and others
is whoever on the list called Marx a philosopher instead of an economist was
also "full of it" or hadn't read him lately.
That is all the time I have for such doctrinaire mutterings. I have to go
back to work rather than to table tennis. "Only those who work will eat!"
Sorry, but all of that Romantic reading has made me very kitschy and
passionate. I apologize, its too dangerous to be a Messianic educator, you have
to "die in order to live." Not for me thank you.
REH.
Thomas Lunde wrote:
> Dear Dennis:
>
> I find myself in the position - analogous to asking a lawyer for advice.
> Your answer is the advice and it has been thoughtful and complete. I thank
> you. I have followed most of the sites your recommended and yes there are a
> considerable number of Y2K jobs posted and your explanations are certainly
> rational and possibly true. Why then do I still feel the unease with the
> answer? A metaphor comes to mind.
>
> Assume you own your house. Your budget is tight but you are making all your
> payments. The roof starts leaking. Estimates indicate that you need to
> spend $5000 to get it repaired. You do. In one week, your roof does not
> leak. However your finances now have to carry a $300 a month payment for
> two years with strains your budget and causes you to defer trading in your
> old car and taking a vacation. This week you had a good roof, next week you
> have a good roof - however, in the meantime, your lifestyle has been
> inadvertently challenged for no noticeable gain. Roofers have gained some
> income and automobile manufacturers, airlines, hotels and a foreign country
> have lost revenue.
>
> Y2K is similar. One year, we had a perfectly good computer system. Year
> 2000 comes and we have spent a trillion dollars and hopefully, we have a
> perfectly good computer system. However, someone - the taxpayer, the
> shareholder, the Company, the Utility, the airline is now carrying a debt
> that inhibits there options over the future.
>
> So, not only am I not satisfied with the estimates of shortages of roofer's,
> I am very concerned about all the cost and it's effects on the economy -
> even if everything is made Y2K complaint. However, what if the roof
> continues leaking and the roofer says, it is not his fault, it is the big
> windstorm that happened a week later that is the cause of the new leak.
> Now, you are out $300 per month and you still have a leaking roof, caused by
> external factors outside your contract. Do you take your Contractor to
> Court? Do you spend another $5000? Do you put a bucket on the floor for
> the next two years?
>
> These are the kinds of questions that Y2K is going to force us to answer,
> for even those who have spent the money are susceptible to external
> problems. How resilient is business, utilities, transportation and
> government in regards to financing this problem and what if all the money
> poured in only provides a partial solution - is there more money in the
> kitty?
>
> A number of writers have made the point that we can expect problems to
> continue for a number of years after the crisis point - how resilient is our
> economy going to be in this time of turmoil?
>
> I would appreciate a second opinion re labour and costs both before and
> after the Y2K date.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Thomas Lunde
>
> >Hi Thomas,
> >
> >
> >>Dear Dennis:
> >>
> >>Thanks for the website. I went over and glanced through a few of the
> >>listing - now note, I am not looking for a job, I am just trying to
> satisfy
> >>my curiosity about the incongruency of the continuing call for massive
> >>amounts of money - up to trillion dollars and the dearth of demand from
> the
> >>labour market. I will take your assessment of 620 jobs, but what I
> >>noticed when I read some of the requirements, was that some were for out
> of
> >>the country and some seemed to be extremely short contract jobs. Anyway,
> >>620 hardly constitute a demand. I did a search for Technical Writers at
> the
> >>same site and came up with 3338 vacancies.
> >>
> >>I appreciate your effort but I'm still not satisfied. To use up a billion
> >>or a trillion dollars, I would expect to see a demand that dwarfed all
> other
> >>job categories and was funneling major groups of students, retired workers
> >>and quickie trained workers into jobs and I am not finding that and I
> don't
> >>know why. Either there is no work being done, or their is no need for the
> >>work to be done, or everyone is so busy planning that no one is doing or
> the
> >>whole damn thing is the biggest hoax ever played on the public.
> >>
> >>Respectfully,
> >>
> >>Thomas Lunde
> >>
> >
> >First, it is pretty late for people to be just starting on solving this
> >problem. I strongly suggest that most such work is in progress and thus
> >doesn't necessarily show up on the job market.
> >
> >Second, the DICE board turns over every few weeks, so the demand is
> >probably continuing.
> >
> >Third, fixing y2k code takes a considerable amount of experience. It is not
> >something that I would want a recent grad or 'quickly trained' programmer
> >to try to fix. It is SO EASY to fix one problem and create a few new ones.
> >The code is written in languages, in many cases, that are not being taught
> >in colleges anymore. Further, there are not many programmers that would
> even
> >want to work on this kind of one-shot problem unless they have nothing
> better
> >to do, as this is not a career building skill.
> >
> >It is ideally suited to older, semi-retired programmers who would like to
> >extend their working years another year or two.
> >
> >Whether this is the group who are filling this need, I don't know. After
> all,
> >there were not so many programmers 10 to 20 years ago as there are now.
> Many
> >of them are in to the newer skills like Java and other web based tasks. So
> >it may be that those willing to take on these tasks are being very well
> paid
> >and are working long and hard.
> >
> >If you qualify for this type of work, I don't think you would have a
> problem
> >finding employment.
> >
> >BTW, I am in my early 60s myself, a recent victim of a Lockheed owned
> company
> >that has closed its doors, and might be able to do work like that, but I
> have
> >no interest in it. I'd much rather try to find work building new things
> >rather than fixing old ones.
> >
> >If you were REALLY curious, it would be interesting to track the DICE job
> >board and see how quickly those Y2K jobs are removed, supposedly because
> >they are filled. You might track just the Canadian ones to make the job a
> >little easier. Don't get in the trap of drawing conclusions from a small
> >data set. Take a few hours and analyse at least a few hundred requests.
> >Where are these jobs? How long? What industries? What size companies?
> >
> >I expect that most large companies are near completion of their analysis
> and
> >fix-it phase and are now in their testing phase, which requires a different
> >skill set. The smaller companies, in many cases will be replacing software
> >rather than trying to fix it and this, too, requires a different skill set
> >and probably does not show up anywhere as a Y2K cost when, in fact, it is.
> >
> >I've heard tell that many less sophisticated counties have yet to make a
> >serious effort and may be in the worst shape.
> >
> >..................... dennis
