here.
<ed.note>I find the discussion of interest for several reasons -- most of them being the discussion's implications for some of my freer market soapboxes:
Forget the PR line "Our people are our greatest assets" - this may apply to members of the C-Suite - but for all the blather about the need to innovate, and the hand wringing over the lack of STEM workers and programs to train them, the folks who provide the IT backbone to both innovation and business as usual are being globally level set to $16 an hour. If you are the stockholder of a publicly traded company meditate and act upon these thoughts:
- Q: How much of your CEO's pay is tied to producing innovation and (let's face it, tech-flavored) business model improvement? Q: How long would that firm last without its techies? Q: Why the disparity in remuneration between the occupations? Hey, it's your portfolio.
- The current US policy is to "bring jobs back to the US" while Indians are beginning to investigate the cost/benefits of the results-only work environment. Q: As the great globally grid replaces the world wide web how much longer can a US geo-lock thinking management mindset be tolerated? Hey, it's still your portfolio.
- I know a lot of techie boosters want to form/expand IT unions (or guilds or associations or similar activity) but personally I think its time for tech stockholders to begin using these nifty web 2.0 ip-based collaboration tools to determine just who is bringing value add to the enterprise (that's profit, not just revenue) and start rewarding accordingly -- in a far more transparent (eg, XBRL) manner. Imagine a world where PE and M&A activity was actually tied to some level of reality? Thoughts?
</ed.note>
