Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses IT

IT Workers Cushioned From US Economic Downturn 357

DontLickJesus writes "According to the AP, technology has been the least hardest hit by the U.S.'s recent economic downturn. Quote: '"Overall technology employment is up in America and the wages associated with it are up," said John McCarthy, a vice president with Forrester Research.' The article goes on to say that companies realize the worth of their [IT] staff. This paired along with a recent article regarding the value of data centers when selling a company leads one to believe that the business world, while historically not fond of IT workers, is showing its true opinion of the sector."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IT Workers Cushioned From US Economic Downturn

Comments Filter:
  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @04:28PM (#25096269) Journal

    Perhaps because during 2001-2003 they sliced back so much IT staff that they still have not finished catching up? Also many IT people went into other fields or back to school during that time, reducing the supply, meaning there is less chance of oversupply this time around.

  • Cusioned? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eugene ts wong ( 231154 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @04:33PM (#25096323) Homepage Journal

    I don't think that you're cusioned until the government bails you out with $700,000,000,000.

    Sorry, I don't appreciate being forced to work for a living with unpaid overtime, while someone else gets free money.

  • by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @04:37PM (#25096353) Journal

    Perhaps because during 2001-2003 they sliced back so much IT staff that they still have not finished catching up? Also many IT people went into other fields or back to school during that time, reducing the supply, meaning there is less chance of oversupply this time around.

    Most likely because in a downturn*, 'IT' is the cheapeast way to increase productivity, especially if you have to fire people.

    *Because there is increased pressure to create/find efficiencies, not because IT is somehow cheaper during a downturn than during an upturn.

  • by NJRoadfan ( 1254248 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @04:40PM (#25096393)

    Good luck to all still trying to make a living completely unappreciated - worse than plumbers but just as necessary.

    At least the plumbers can't be outsourced.

  • Re:I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by realmolo ( 574068 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @04:41PM (#25096401)

    Well, help desk technicians are worth about $12/hour, honestly.

    "Help Desk" is the low-end of the IT totem pole. It's a job that requires few qualifications beyond "Knows how to install software and update drivers".

    I think the bigger fear that people with IT careers (myself included) is the inevitable deployment of high-speed fiber networks. For MANY businesses, having nothing but "terminals" that run apps on remote servers (which would probably be running under VMs) would be a huge cost savings, and probably more reliable, too.

    It costs a lot of money to have a really reliable network, and the staff to maintain it. Why not pay some other company to do all that, and enjoy the economies of scale that they can offer?

  • Re:I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @04:42PM (#25096413) Journal

    IT professionals have been hit very hard and nowhere is this more evident than in Phoenix, where I live.

    That's a great anecdote.
    Now how about you show us some information which proves your one data point reflects the entire US economy.
    You know, something tangible to refute the Labor Dept and TFA's quote from the VP & Principal Analyst of Forrester Research.

  • by Wansu ( 846 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @04:44PM (#25096423)

    This is just the start of it. It's way too early to crow.

    Our end of the boat may not be taking on water yet but the ship is sinking, the brass band is playing and politicians are fighting over the deck chairs.

  • by vitaflo ( 20507 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @04:46PM (#25096439) Homepage

    Most likely because in a downturn*, 'IT' is the cheapeast way to increase productivity, especially if you have to fire people.

    *Because there is increased pressure to create/find efficiencies, not because IT is somehow cheaper during a downturn than during an upturn.

    I think it's a bit of both. Obviously people are looking for efficiencies when times get tight. Investing in technical solutions is one way to do that.

    But I also think the dot-com bust helped as well. There are far fewer people in tech jobs than there used to be. Those that survived the bust are most likely more qualified as well (at least compared to those who were only in it to make a buck in the late 90's).

    So, it comes down to supply and demand. At least, I've noticed this where I live. Business is very good right now, and doesn't seem to be slowing up.

  • Re:I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)

    by EastCoastSurfer ( 310758 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @04:50PM (#25096477)

    This is the problem with "IT." It encompasses too many positions. IMHO, a help desk tech really isn't IT anymore. That's a common job many teenagers nowadays can do with a little training out of school.

    Now, if you want to talk about 'professionals' like skilled developers or engineers I think for the most part they are doing fine (or at least better than average since the economy is pretty crappy atm). For example, my company has a hiring freeze on right now, except for my team. We're trying to find more mid-level software developers. I'm about ready to give up since it seems like no one can actually do anything they say on their resume. /sigh

  • Bad conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DaveV1.0 ( 203135 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:01PM (#25096583) Journal

    This paired along with a recent article regarding the value of data centers when selling a company leads one to believe that the business world, while historically not fond of IT workers, is showing its true opinion of the sector.

    The reason IT is being the least hit is because it has been the primary target for so long. IT has been viewed as fat, as so trimmed, for so long that there is precious little left.

    The "true opinion" is that all the expendable IT jobs are now outside the company.

    After outsourcing and offshoring as many jobs as possible, there are few expendable positions left in companies. Many of the positions that are being cut are jobs waiting for backfill and contract jobs.

  • Re:Cusioned? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Glonoinha ( 587375 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:11PM (#25096693) Journal

    It's not that other people are getting 'free money' that's on his nerves. It's where this 'free money' is coming from - guess what, it's coming out of his ass in the form of an extra $5,000 worth of income taxes next April 15th. Mine too. Yours too.

    If the government gives me $100 in 'free money' - as you say that really doesn't concern you personally. Unless they dip right into your checking account and take it right out of your pocket to give it to me. Then it's something for you to get pissed about.

    Make sense now?

  • Bailout (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuoteMstr ( 55051 ) <dan.colascione@gmail.com> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:14PM (#25096737)

    We must not allow the Treasure Secretary to receive $700 billion to spend with no oversight whatsoever. The current plan creates a gigantic moral hazard, is inflationary, rewards reckless risk-taking by CEOs, and still results in common people being foreclosed upon. We need to re-institute the Glass-Steagall act, allow highly leveraged firms to fail, insulate common people from the effects of these failing institutions, and regulate the market to prevent this catastrophe from happening again.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:17PM (#25096771)
    Manual labor manufacturing jobs are going away. I think schools should be teaching people to use technology. Instead people should be getting trained to operate the manufacturing tasked computers and robots that American tech companies will be leaders in. We need more smart people, stat!
  • by Skapare ( 16644 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:25PM (#25096833) Homepage

    Just because technology companies are not hit as hard by this economic downturn, that does not mean technology workers (programmers, engineers, network admins, system admins) are equivalently immune. One problem here is the Labor department is classifying things badly. When the payroll of a technology company goes up, they interpret it as benefiting technology workers. It could be they are just hiring more sales people (I've seen it done). And a huge amount of IT is done in non-technology companies, including financial companies. And even if these companies consider their data centers to be of value, the IT workers own none of it, and few of them would be considered vital employees.

  • by billcopc ( 196330 ) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:26PM (#25096847) Homepage

    The reason we're "cushioned" from the financial nonsense is because there isn't much room to go lower. Wages are crap, yet the nation is inextricably dependent on IT services. They can't pay us any less, and they can't fire us - they've already outsourced all the jobs they could.

    The title may as well be "Wage slaves cushioned from US economy downturn". The only reason an IT guy gets a raise is because his supervisor's been getting too many phone calls checking references.

  • Re:Cusioned? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by eugene ts wong ( 231154 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:45PM (#25096993) Homepage Journal

    Thank you for clarifying.

    Here's a disclaimer, though. I'm Canadian. However, I know for a fact that this impacts me indirectly.

    Also, in the classic debate about the free market, and whether or not it's okay, this just stinks of hypocrisy. How can we honestly tell somebody who has nothing to get off the dole, while we dish out billions to big business?

    That being said, if this is actually just a loan, then it's bad, but not as bad as a free hand out.

    Thanks again for clarifying. I really do appreciate it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:46PM (#25097019)

    > Smarter companies would sock some cash away so that they could get new technology while techies are cheaper.

    Companies rely on cashflow, not socks of cash.

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:52PM (#25097077)

    CRA is being trotted out in a last ditch attempt by Republicans to salvage this fucking disaster of 8 years and blame this on Democrats.

    Excuse me, but who has been in control of the house and senate for the past four years?

    Beyond that bit of obvious fact that has eluded you, note that I blamed both feckless Democrats AND Republicans who could have both acted long ago (or more like, never acted to start with). There were some Democrats with similar concerns as well, but since they were in power they bear more culpability in my mind for doing nothing as the crisis grew more and more obvious. One year ago Fannie Mae was a burning tower of fire for those who cared to look. Even Obama saw it.

  • by phillymjs ( 234426 ) <slashdot AT stango DOT org> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:57PM (#25097121) Homepage Journal

    The politicians aren't fighting over the deck chairs, they're lined up calmly at the lifeboats and telling us to all go back down to steerage, because there's nothing to worry about.

  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:58PM (#25097133) Journal

    Oh, IT workers will be OK through this downturn.

    Just not American IT workers.

    Didn't I just see that HP laid off 26,000 workers last week? And now Carly Fiorina is one of John McCain's advisors. He knows how to pick 'em, no?

  • Re:I disagree (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GaryOlson ( 737642 ) <.gro.nosloyrag. .ta. .todhsals.> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @06:00PM (#25097141) Journal
    Software licenses aren't ready for thin clients either in a lot of software. In a computing environment where most of the software is expensive non-office type applications, thin clients will never be deployed widely or effectively.

    As more large financial firms and non-technology companies fail for financial reasons, the small and medium companies will dominate what type of computer systems are required. Most of these companies cannot afford the infrastructure requirements of thin clients.
  • by glitch23 ( 557124 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @06:01PM (#25097153)

    Wait, Palin is a libertarian now? I know that she and McCain are constantly changing their positions on issues, but that's just crazy. How does one go from being a Bush Republican to a libertarian in just a month?

    No more changing than any other politican including Obama (e.g. to drill or not to drill). The question is, how do you determine whether they changed their opinion on issues to get votes or whether they legimiately received new information which changes their view on an issue and then telling the public about it? People do change their minds. The question is whether they really changed them or they just said they do.

  • Re:Cusioned? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by lazy_playboy ( 236084 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @06:03PM (#25097177)

    Agreeing to print more money is nothing more than, 'yup, we fucked the economy big time'. It's not an answer, it's just fucking things up even more for longer.

    Still, I hear Zimbabwe has some good experience with money printing. Maybe we can learn some economics from them?

  • Re:Bailout (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @06:43PM (#25097461)

    and still results in common people being foreclosed upon.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one put a gun to anyone's head and made them sign a mortgage they couldn't afford. I'm sick of paying for the mistakes of the stupid / greedy, whether they're Wall Street execs or "common people" who can't / won't pay their mortgage. The "common people" you refer to are just as guilty as the Wall Streeters, and that it's even being considered to *reset* their mortgage principals is blatantly shocking. Where's the handout for those of us who follow the rules and live within our means?

  • Re:Cusioned? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jbengt ( 874751 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @07:00PM (#25097603)
    It's not a loan. I haven't seen the details, but the idea I get is that it'll be a blank check from Congress to the Secretary of the Treasury to buy up to $700,000,000,000 of securities that no one trusts. This means that the US government would own those assets, and might make or lose money on them. (Ironic how the "free-market" republicans are advocating socialism in this case)
    The government backing is supposed to alleviate the fears of the investors/speculators and stabilize the markets, allowing companies to continue borrowing and lending. If this works better than expected, they might not have to spend all of the money, but if it works as I expect, there'll be more outstretched hands in a couple of months asking for even more, and the economy will tank anyway, just not as bad as it would've.
  • by tjstork ( 137384 ) <todd DOT bandrowsky AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @07:31PM (#25097827) Homepage Journal

    . Wages are crap,

    Actually, wages are not crap. We're just frigging greedy. WE're in a field that expects to pay us the same coming out of "Chumb MCSE school" the same rate that a frigging doctor makes coming out of medical school. I guarantee you that, on average, IT workers make more money on average than just about every other position, every field, in every other country on the planet earth. If you want more money, you need to own a business, rather than be an indentured servant for someone elses.

  • Re:Cusioned? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:10PM (#25098109)

    Unless of course the government buys bad debtr at $0.99 on the $1.00 and it ends up being absolutely worthless, in which case it's a $693 billion dollar bail out, for a $7 billion return (700-693). Assuming they don't spend a penny on monitoring it, procuring it, dividing it or collecting the taxes to pay for it in the first place. And assuming a real interest rate of 0% and a real inflation rate of 0%.

    For a car analogy, they government is buying an old Dodge Pinto for $700,000,000,000.00 in hopes that someday it will be worth more money, even though no one else in the world, anywhere, is willing to pay $500B for it today.

  • Re:no freeloaders (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:14PM (#25098139)

    I have not seen an equivalent increase in pay that comes close to the increase in productivity.

    This is not unique to IT. It's been a real structural problem in the US economy for the past decade or so.

  • Re:I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)

    by EastCoastSurfer ( 310758 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:26PM (#25098227)

    What's a bit different than anything I've gone through is that I had to go through every position on my department and explain what they do and why we need that person.

    Well this is just good business and something you should be doing every so often anyways. I find that companies hiring in excess during boom times which makes the cut backs that much harder when times get lean again.

  • by EastCoastSurfer ( 310758 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:36PM (#25098301)

    anyone who thought whopping wages of 90s to write html pages would continue, were naive.

    Fixed that for you.

  • Re:Bailout (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:45PM (#25098385)

    I'm sick of paying for the mistakes of the stupid / greedy, whether they're Wall Street execs or "common people" who can't / won't pay their mortgage.

    It's not necessarily their fault, the Government at the time artificially kept interest rates low rather than allow them to reflect the true state of the market. This is why interest rates in the US rose sharply and why they did not follow the same trend as the rest of the world for the previous 5 or 6 years. All of this to prevent having a recession during a war, well to paraphrase, "recessions cannot be avoided, only postponed to the advantage of others" it seem

    It's easy for someone to afford a 1% PA loan when they could not afford a 5% PA loan. In Australia interest rates raised from 5% PA to 7% PA, this means that there is a greater than usual number of foreclosures but nothing significant as people can still afford their repayments (fewer Australians live on the edge of what they can afford though). There is a lot of refinancing as the "common people" (I prefer to call them average people, the everyman or mundanes) consolidate their debts and there is a decrease in new debt being created. Admittedly the financial situation is a lot better for us over here, mainly due to competent management at the highest levels and despite the fact that the major Australian banks are taking huge losses from investments the US housing market the banking industry is still strong.

    Where's the handout for those of us who follow the rules and live within our means?

    I'm with you there, but we don't need a handout what we (people who live within their means) need is a stable and well run economy. I have to ask though, with the US govt buying out the private banks debt why aren't the executives that allowed this to happen being punished (jail, fines, seizure of assets)? If you expect to be bailed out you shouldn't expect to keep all your wealth.

  • by Eil ( 82413 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @09:09PM (#25098545) Homepage Journal

    Let's just call it what it is: a recession.

    Whenever I listen to international news, they refer to the U.S. economy as in recession. The U.S. media, however, always call it an "economic downturn" or "slow economy" or some other silly thing that basically means recession.

  • Re:What debacle? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tjstork ( 137384 ) <todd DOT bandrowsky AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @09:35PM (#25098743) Homepage Journal

    It makes a lot of sense to have energy as the universal currency

    It is. The dollar plummets as US oil consumption increases and US's share of world oil production falters. Americans drive less and Bush makes noises about opening up for drilling, puts corn on the market as ethanol, and what happens, but, the dollar slightly recovers and oil prices fall. Energy IS wealth, and conservation is really at best a mechanism to save your wealth for export... but it certainly doesn't create it. To do that, you need to have more energy, not less. If you want the USA to get really rich again, build a load of nuclear power plants and then use the electricity to drive the creation of alternative fuels. Anything else is just making the country poorer.

  • re: human nature (Score:3, Insightful)

    by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @09:47PM (#25098829) Journal

    I'm paying attention, but you're not really making sense.

    Are you proposing that all political systems are "shit" unless they're designed to be foolproof?

    I think by the very definition of "government", you're talking about building some sort of system of rules and regulations that's automatically subject to people agreeing to try to follow them.

    Put it this way. Is chess a "crappy game" because it doesn't have provisions built into it to prevent someone from cheating by taking more than one turn while the other person isn't watching? Is the game of Blackjack "shit" because it wasn't designed to account for the possibility of somebody keeping an extra ace up their sleeve while playing?

    Yes, you want a political system that's "resilient". A minority of corrupt individuals will hopefully not make the whole thing topple. And I think we HAD that in this country, until people started effectively changing the rules. When your own president treats the Constitution like "outdated papers that are largely meaningless", and the Judicial system is able to "interpret" laws to the point where their original purposes are completely twisted around - you have some big problems looming on the horizon.

  • Re:Bailout (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @09:49PM (#25098853)

    Ahhh, but the government *mandated* that the banks had to make mortgages available to low-income people after the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the country screamed racism years ago, and forced the financial institutions to change the rules to make credit available for these folks. Now, they're screaming racism again when the "homeowners" (they're not really homeowners as they never had any equity in the real estate in the first place) inevitably defaulted. Here in Baltimore, the city is suing Wells Fargo for $5 million for "unfairly" targeting blacks to take these loans. No one wants to talk about why these people were even eligible in the first place, but a lot of the original blame rests on "advocates" like Jackson lobbying for credit for people would couldn't pay. And of course, fucking greedy Wall Street and the stupid and / or greedy borrowers (yes -- the borrowers, like the single mom with four kids running her home daycare center out of "her" $545k house on the front page of the Baltimore Sun [baltimoresun.com] -- fuck her and take her house). What should really happen is that the banks be allowed to fail and the execs be thrown in jail, and people learn some responsibility by going back to living in an apartment for awhile. The reason this shit keeps happening is because the government keeps stepping in and removing the consequences of peoples' decisions, and then sticks us responsible folks with the bill. FUCK THAT. No more.

    Seriously, if you sign a mortgage and don't understand what you're signing, you're a fucking idiot, and I have absolutely no sympathy for you. We have a 30 year fixed mortgage and still hired a lawyer to look everything over before doing the deal.

  • Re:I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by E IS mC(Square) ( 721736 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @10:12PM (#25099015) Journal
    I think they are not looking for much, except for:
    10 years of Guru level Java expert experience with AJAX, Java Beans, Hibernate, Spring, SCJP
    With Minimum 10 years of Oracle 10g (yes) experience with DBA skills to match the development skills working on Oracle RAC, Data warehousing and ETL
    with great Linux/Unix skills with 15 years of socket programming, general admin knowledge, backup expertise with strong emphasis on korn, bash and C shell scripting
    at least 8 years of Perl, Python and 5 (yes) years of Ruby on Rails

    Yes, this is a made up requirement, but not too far from what I have seen in last 4 months on job boards when I was looking for a decent mid level development job.
  • Re:Vote Cthulhu (Score:3, Insightful)

    by smittyoneeach ( 243267 ) * on Sunday September 21, 2008 @10:15PM (#25099043) Homepage Journal
    Fret ye not the mods. The whole thing was very arguably offtopic and trollish. And I'd friggin' do it again, too. Mwahahahaha.
  • Re:Bailout (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @10:25PM (#25099117)

    I gave you a solution -- quit bailing out people and companies who make terrible financial decisions, and we'll be much more stable in the long run. Without consequences, where's the incentive for individuals and businesses to play by the rules? Do you really think it's fair for the woman in the link I previously posted to have a judge reset her principal and be allowed to live in a half million dollar house she never paid a dime on? If that shit starts to happen, I know a bunch of people who will be marching on Annapolis and DC with torches and pitchforks. Sorry, but I'm carrying too much dead weight already. And who's next -- the airlines? The Detroit carmakers? That's the problem -- there are no consequences, so it never ends.

    We obviously disagree on several key points, like the percentage of freeloaders versus unfortunate borrowers and even whether not bailing out the banks would "torpedo the whole economy," so I'll just leave it at that.

  • by KlomDark ( 6370 ) on Monday September 22, 2008 @12:20AM (#25099821) Homepage Journal

    Excellent point!

    There were two companies that did layoffs recently where I live that told their outgoing employees the same curious thing: It's not the economy.

    I found that to be a very strange thing to say to people being canned. If it's not the economy, then what??

    Do they really think we're still dumb enough to believe them?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22, 2008 @03:57AM (#25100829)

    Instead of cribbing about your US citizen status, think how you can leverage it.
    For instance most federal agencies and NSA require ONLY US citizens. You have a free hand in their IT job process.
    Similarly, you can get easily security clearance for sensitive IT jobs as a citizen thus enabling you to move to the more lucrative non-competitive positions.
    These Federal, security and sensitive IT positions can NEVER be filled in my H1B visa holders. NEVER. Plus the pay is pretty good.
    Grow up the chain and migrate up. If you lie in the gutter you will become filthy. Stop competing with H1Bs. Move up. There's a lot of IT jobs in these areas where by law H1Bs are prohibited-:)

  • by NotBornYesterday ( 1093817 ) * on Monday September 22, 2008 @09:31AM (#25103045) Journal

    I have heard that privatising social security and strip mining it's assets are really popular focus amongst the rich, greedy and worthless.

    1) Are you an American?
    2) How old are you?

    I ask these questions because 1) you could be from anywhere, although if you are bringing up Soc Security, you are probably from the US, and 2) if you are in the US and around 35, you will see little or nothing from the Soc Security taxes you are now paying.

    The assets have already been strip-mined. Congress and previous administrations have already taken the money. The money going in today goes directly out the door to pay for current benefits, and shortly that won't be sufficient. Assuming the government pays back every penny they owe the trust fund, by the time post-boomers need it, it will be gone, or nearly gone. The thousands that I am paying every year are never going to come back to me, ever.

    I am getting fucked. Hard.

    The privatization measure that was proposed was a great idea. It would have protected those receiving benefits now. It would have allowed people to choose whether to put their assets in the government-controlled program if they felt safer that way, or direct part of the funds they pay into stocks & bonds. Guess what? that approach works elsewhere. Chile has a similar system, and their retirees 1) get a better return on what they've put in, and 2) aren't facing a shortfall. You know what else? Where do you think IRAs, pensions, & 401ks are invested? Mostly in stocks & bonds & similar investments.

    Lots of time and effort has been spent generating FUD against ideas like this. Despite the immediate market conditions today, the long-term outlook for these kinds of investments is good. What is the alternative?

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Working...