One reason IT employment hasn't picked up steam is that, since the end of the 1990s, there haven't been significant technology advances spurring industry acquisitions of new systems, hardware or software. Make no mistake about it, those technology advances will occur, and industry will invest. It's just a matter of time -- a short time. U.S. demand will go up, and offshore outsourcing won't satisfy that demand.

From the last sentence first. First world programmers are the programmers of last resort because of their costs. This will continue to play a huge role in IT unemployment. To the extent that cost is the deciding factor, first world programmers will have to wait until the supply of available developing country programmers is dried up. Given the population numbers and the ease and frequency that academic fraud happens in India, the supply of "qualified" programmers is very high indeed.

It is possible that some advance in technology will result in a greater demand for programmers. As long as the intervention of a human being in the programming chain can result in greater profits, then humans will continue to find employment in IT. But that is true now, also. Where's the jobs?

Essentially your argument is something like this- there's going to be so many gosh darn things to be programmed that the world is going to have 100% IT employment levels. The fact of the matter is that this will never come to pass because the wages at that level of employment would deter future development efforts. We will not see 100% employment because then the price of labor would cut too far into the MNCs profits. MNCs are out not to just make a profit and stay in business, they are out to maximize profits and drive other companies out of business. So, this they will continue to artifically game the employment picture, because at the end of the day, it's "better" for them to do so. That means choosing to not develop a product because it would lower their profit margins, despite the fact that more, and more equitably distributed, wealth would be introduced to the world. That is what was going on in 1999. A large number of people were getting wealthier and wealthier and the economy was still experiencing very low inflation. If you recall, Newsweek could run a cover that asked "Are you a millionaire yet?". All of this was related to and because of IT salaries and spending. You have to realize that that type of world, while a winner to the vast majority of people, is a loser to a tiny minority who see that money as money they were losing- as THEIR money. To this tiny minority, a wealthy middle class is a middle class with choices and opportunities, and that's bad - for them. They will always work to dimish the standard of living for their employees ad compromise them in terms of their demands for time and "loyalty" in order to force the labor market to more closely approximate their ideal situation- slavery- which is unfortunately not available to them at this time. A friend of mine is a sociology professor of some repute, and he pointed out to me that one technique that the MNCs use that has been studied is the constant moving of key personnel around the country every two or five years. The game here is that they don't want that person to devleop any loyalties to anything but the MNC- not to theri church or their community or their neighbors or anything. This typifies their tactics and goals. The perfect world is slavery and absolute dependence upon the MNC. The closer they can approximate that, the better.

Security is another important factor. Many systems, both those of corporations and government, won't be outsourced offshore because of security concerns. Companies and government alike will be keenly aware of the need to protect and keep safe critical software data as well as hardware and chip advances.

You have only to read of the short sightedness of Enron and Global Crossing et. al. to see how laughable the idea that companies wouldn't short change security for quarterly profits and the life-changing bonuses that go to whoever makes those quarterly profits. If that doesn't satisfy you, then you only have to look at the joke security around Microsoft's products or the theft of Bank of America's credit card numbers en masse a few months ago or the fact that the DoD is perfectly happy to have absolutely mission critical hard technologies and software written and made in China or teh security on airplanes prior to 9-11 or indeed even now, or the "security measures" taken by the Indian companies with respect to the IRS returns they are processing to disabuse yourself of the notion that security is something corporations will worry about a-priori.

In the latter case their argument is something like "there's no way to do anything but view data at our data centers". Even if that were true, please consider that casinos regularly bar people who use legal but "unfair" techniques to to "cheat" at card games all of which rely on the what seems to be the extraordinary memory of the person in order to be effective.

I can tell you that there is lots and lots of research in Cognitive Science (my major) which proves beyond a doubt that ordinary humans suffciently motivated and practiced can remember very very very large amounts of numbers, codes, addresses etc. This is not a trick, it just comes down to motivation. What's you're personal data worth to the poorly screen al-Queda member that Indian company just hired? It I guess it depends on how creatively they can put it to use and how badly they want it.  Bet me enough money so that I never have to work again that I can train myself to remember the SSN , name and address of 50 people upon first sight. Please.

Then there are demographics. In 2004, the youngest of the baby boomers turns 40, the oldest 58. There are 76 million baby boomers. Generation Xers, born between 1965 and 1978, number about 46 million, so there's a population shortfall of 30 million in the coming generational transition. Clearly, as baby boomers continue to age, the supply-and-demand situation will turn more dramatically in favor of the American worker

You need to offset these demographics with the financial fact that the vast majority of these people will have to work well into their 70s, because they have so little savings, in order to simply survive and the sociological fact that people are NOT retiring at 65 anymore. It's not like in 20 years all these people are going to suddenly be disinterested in productive work, which is what your argument implies. The dirty little secret regarding age is something you, I and every reader of your column knows all about, so why not talk about it?  It's the elephant in the room right over there, sir. It's the underfunded pensions and that little spreadsheet every MNC has, that has, in one column, how much money the company will make as a result of their continued employment of a person and in another column, the cost of keeping that person employed. When column B exceeds column A, the employee is fired. That's what drives the importation of workers, as provided for in the Singapore-Chile free trade agreement or the H1B program; it's the opportunity for companies to extract some productive years from people then wash their hands of any responsibility towards them.

There also are growing new areas requiring IT skills like bioinformatics and nanotechnology.

A game the MNCs play in order to keep the age of its employees down is the "old dog can't learn new tricks" game. Of course, it's a lie, just as the IT shortage was a lie. I am sure once nanotechnology and bioinformatics becomes widespread, they'll trot out this argument. Anyone in IT will tell you they spend at least 10-20 hours a week learning the latest technologies. In fact, the most valuable and fastest learners are the older workers simply because most technologies are not completely new or different, but rather the next evolutionary step, which for them represents a creative variant of something they have seen before rather than something sui generis.

The problem isn't anything but the cynical, exploitative and sociopathic behavior of the MNCs, and no change in technology or demographics is going to change that. What we need is a worldwide labor movement and the force of law, courts and jails to back it up. As long as Ken Lay can "contribute" his way out of all culpability and the jail cell that he deserves to spend his remaining years in, then there will be no change in the distribution of wealth, the employment picture or anything else. The system is gamed by people with a lot of money- that's it. That's what happened to the economy, to our employment and to our future.

 

-C