New York Recruiting Agencies

[Mark Herschberg]

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
Mark, I am going to do what is not really nice, but is needed to be done - woop your tail. So bare with me for just a second. :p

Well you just let me know when you've wooped it so I can say, "ow," because I'm just not seeing it. ;-)

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
All these people have to work twice as hard as your typical know-it-all MIT-Stanford-Cornell grad to get what they deserve. Based on that book's "10-to-one" rethorical analysis there's a definite top-school discrimination that is going on.

In a technical instrudy, I disagree. As you know, I am very skeptical of most CS programs. Additionally I posted an article here a while back about a studying showing how there are certain people who will succeed regardless of where they went to school. Fundamentally it said there are poeple who will do well, and people who won't and where they went to school is fairly moot. Now it happens many of them go to ivy schools, but you're revsering the causality--they went there because they are the type of people who will succeed. What this mean is that people who don't go to those schools are not as poorly off as you would portray them.

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
Again, as I mentioned before, I am not a born hacker. But since my resume is definitely overlooked by top companies, I had only worked with a hand full of people worth even discussing programming issues with.

I have no idea what school you went to, but frankly I find your posts more insightful then those of plenty of Ivy+ folk. If the top companies overlook you, it's probably their loss. (Perhaps little consolation when unemployed.)
Look, I generally agree with you. I look at MBA programs and say, "this is 90% BS." These guys have little skills, and get overpaid. Something is wrong. But they are being propped up by an "old boys network." Know what? Thing are just starting to charge. MBAs were the first fired, and MBAs graduating today are having toruble finding jobs.
I'll do you one better. There's an investment company called Bernstein (now part of Alliance Capital). The founder didn't like how Wall St did things, and knew he could do better. They only do research, not underwriting (so there's no conflict of interest). They believed in value investing (so always miss profits in bubbles, like the recent one); it means during the internet bubble they had a lot of unhappy customers ("what? only a 20% returnt his year?!?!"; but they kept saying, "trust us," the math says we're right. We'll they were. They also have a $2M salary cap, believing it's hard to justify some of the outrageous executive salaries (you know, just like the newspapers have begun saying in the last 3-4 years). $2M cap on Wall St? Conventional wisdom says you can't retain the best and brightest!
And yet they are consistently rated as the #1 research investment firm. They are one of the top private client investment firms, overall. They get some of the best returns overall. Of course, the firm was started in the 1940s and not recogized as such until the last decade or so.
I talk about market inefficenties. I talk about how cultures are misaligned. I truely believe this. I also believe it takes at least a generation such inefficencies, in most cases. (Again, maybe not much consultation to those on the wrong side of the paradigm shift.)

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
And since this thread is about recruiting agencies, I have noticed that some of them completely support your point of view. Somehow.

Which view and whcih agencies?

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
Jason, btw, has a very valid point about skilled/unskilled resources. Say, you outsorce textile industry. Comes war, it is very easy to restore it, it doesn't take years of education and millions in investments.

Well, I disagree with the time frames you state. I also think our education system will help keep us strong. Other countires keep sending their students to the US. The market recognizes our "natural resource" of colleges.
--Mark

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
I do not think national infrastucture is as closely coupled to national defense, as you do (I'm not saying it's not, just that we view how closely they are related differently).

We are free of course to hold different views on this, however I should mention that the US government does very closely couple national infrastructure with national defense. The National Infrastructure Protection Center certainly seems to support this point. Their web site states:

Established in February 1998, the NIPC's mission is to serve as the U.S. government's focal point for threat assessment, warning, investigation, and response for threats or attacks against our critical infrastructures. These infrastructures, which include telecommunications, energy, banking and finance, water systems, government operations, and emergency services, are the foundation upon which our industrialized society is based.

You're missing the point. What are you doing about it today, now that you know about the problem? Aren't you worried that in 10-20 years we'll be unable to produce many computers in the US--not enough to meet our needs, anyway? You don't see that as a problem?

I believe that the domestic capabilities we have are enough to meet our needs. I should mention that I don't see a PC in every home as a national need. The industry that we have will be enough to revitalize things if this ever becomes necessary, particularly since we will still have the proper resources.

Au contraire, I think they do hold. The ratio of skilled or unskilled has nothing to do with it. The automotive industry is considered critical to national defense (they make things like tanks when we go to war). It doesn't matter that automotive products are designed by a few "skilled" workers, i.e. automotive engineers, and produced by many "unskilled" ones, i.e. assembly line workers. If it leaves our country and we go to war, we could be in trouble. More to the point, be it automotive or silicon, after 30 years of non-production you lack facilities, appropriately trained labor, the ability to rapidly train new labor. And when it comes to tank production during a war, one year *is* a decade!

Again, not really an appropriate analogy. The engineers who design our weapons systems are not the same people who design our civillian aircraft and automobiles. Proper facilities can always be built relatively quickly, unskilled labor is always in sufficient supply and requires little training. Remember "Rosie the Rivetter" during WW2? WW2 was a perfect example of taking a fairly limited peacetime industry and augmenting it and pushing it into overdrive to meet the war effort. That being said, the weapon systems we use today mean that the scale of output we required during WW2 will not be needed to fight future conflicts. One bomber today can destroy a target more effectively than a division of bombers during WW2.

And yet, this is what happened in the last 30 years! Despite such imports, the automotive industry has survived. We saw an increase in Asian cars, and Ford, GM, and Chryster are still in business. But don't take my word for it, go read about proposed economic policies of the 80's wrt to automotive industry and look at the state of the industry today after such imports flooded our shores.

A couple of problems here. For one thing, import restrictions, duties, and tariffs certainly helped the US auto industry along. For another, the playing field is relatively level. Automobiles that are competitive on the world market are not produced by third-world countries currently. In addition, the costs of resources required by the auto industry is pretty much the same around the world, including labor.

The only key differences between software and these other fields is free natural resources (i.e. you only need brains) and zero cost in shipping and deployment. Of course software doesn't magically pop into your computer, but it can be replicated and transported at near zero cost, unlike physical goods. This makes it an even more ideal candidate to be freed from national boundaries.

I don't think we can exactly look at the people resource as a free one. There are a relatively limited number of people who have the desire and talent to complete your average BS in Computer Science. Not saying that a BS in Computer Science is the toughest thing in the world, only that a relatively small percentage of the population that chooses to seek higher education will either choose this degree or have the academic aptitude/skills necessary.
You are correct about the cost of transporting software though. This is yeat another reason why it is unsuitable on a world market. Transportation costs are often a huge factor in determining whether to go overseas for a product or stay domestic. The zero transportation cost coupled with the near zero labor cost of the foreign workers involved places it beyond competition.
[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Shura Balaganov]

I smell interesting insider information, especially Jason's DOD references...

Posted by Mark Herschberg:
the top companies overlook you, it's probably their loss. (Perhaps little consolation when unemployed.)

Thanks, I've got the job recently, for .com doing Microsoft development. I still keep my resumes on job boards thought, 'cause my faith is not high in them as well as the region I am working
Which view and which agencies?
Recruiters, the point of view that they need to look for either top of the line school grads or indians/H1Bs/whoever asks very small dollar... Funny, I worked with the guy from Princeton, where he got Business Degree; when our company went bust,he immediately got another job and recommended me (as a top notch tech person). They interviewed me, it went well. I got email later that they found a better qualified candidate (which the guy told me was BS, although positions were open). Go figure, maybe they got too scared
:roll:
Other countires keep sending their students to the US. The market recognizes our "natural resource" of colleges.
Well... Most of the people I knew in Russia sent their kids (or went themselves) to college in US because of only one thing: to stay later in US. Yeah, there were some geniuses who got scolarships from US universities, and went there to study, but basically everyone knew why they were doing it, and noone expected them to come back...If it was based on education alone, they would rather stay, or go to places like Sorbonne, I think
As far as ability to build/create things, I think US is still good. There are still enough research centers around. Though Lucent destroyed ATT Labs, and I'm sure this economy won't help other centers. But IBM will be here, as well as DOD and NASA and Boeing (maybe replaced by other aerospace companies, but so what). I think the focuse is interesting, though. It is, in my opinion, perseived, that future wars will be against terrorists/rouge states, with limited military capabilities, but that might have a nuke or bio-weapon. Hence - focus on high tech, Star Wars, Intelligence etc. Now, this tells me that US is on the right track, and not planning to fight bigger states (Russia or China, for instance); because in the first day of war against those, US military will be blind and deaf, as all their satellites will be shut down.... This gives my paranoid mind some rest
Have to disagree with Mark about automotive industry. I don't think it is right to tell that it survived. I believe it is one and only (ok, maybe jusdt main) reason of US economic progress. Explanation: look around. Roads, police, lawyers, insurance industry, gazillions of private repair shops, oil changes, handyman, etc. Not to mention the fact that almost everyone owns an automobile. Look around on the highway - everyone's alone in their cars. Oh, radiostations and music industry ('cause people have to listen something in cars) Countries that don't realize advantages of autoindustry will be kept in "Third World". So, I don't think industry of that importance was wise to outsorce.
Said all that, best cars on the road are: Toyota/Lexus, Honda/Acura, BMW, Mersedes. Nissan is coming strong too. Chrysler is owned by Dimler, GM mostly pedals trucks now, and Ford insidentally hit a home run with Focus, a car that they produced for European market and never thought of much....
Shura

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
I smell interesting insider information, especially Jason's DOD references...

No such luck. My only inside source is Google.

[Shura Balaganov]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

No such luck. My only inside source is Google.

Yeah, that and some former Turkish friends
Speaking of which, I've met IBM regional technology manager from Istanbul, we had a delightful dinner in one of many beautiful Italian restaurants in Milano, where while drinking a bottle of local, very strong I should say, specialty drink, he offered me a job.... Maybe it's time to bring up all dusty contacts... :roll:
Shura

[Mark Herschberg]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
We are free of course to hold different views on this, however I should mention that the US government does very closely couple national infrastructure with national defense. The National Infrastructure Protection Center certainly seems to support this point.

I am familiar with this and agree with it. I guess I was thinking you were using a broader sense of infrastructure. I certainly think our domestic software capabilities are sufficent for meeting the needs of what the center covers.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
The engineers who design our weapons systems are not the same people who design our civillian aircraft and automobiles.

Moot. It's still a few top level engineers and more unskilled labor.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Proper facilities can always be built relatively quickly, unskilled labor is always in sufficient supply and requires little training. Remember "Rosie the Rivetter" during WW2?

I disagree on the first point, but quick is a relative term, and so hard to argue. I'll certainly conceed the latter point.
However, how many software engineers entered the market in the last few years having taken anything from 9 weeks to 9 month crash courses? These people built many of our ecommerce websites. Consider consulting firms, the regularly take art history majors and teach them how to do IT work. (I've actualy personally met art history majors who do IT work.) They certainly bring them up to speed in a very breif time.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
That being said, the weapon systems we use today mean that the scale of output we required during WW2 will not be needed to fight future conflicts.

OK, true.

More generally...
You know I subscribe to the view that there is a factor of 10 between the best and worst programmers. And yes, many of the art history majors aren't winding up on the high end of that spectrum, but they can be productive. In this sense, I subscribes to Fred Brook's surgeon modole of software engineering and think it can be applied in "wartime situations."
I also think that during a wartime, we're not going to be looking at much software innovation. The DOE for example, will just need to keep it's systems running. That usually more of a hardware problem then a software problem. Innovations tend to be in weapons systems, and that will require software, but I think the amount needed will be relatively limited.

--Mark

[Mark Herschberg]

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:

Speaking of which, I've met IBM regional technology manager from Istanbul, we had a delightful dinner in one of many beautiful Italian restaurants in Milano, where while drinking a bottle of local, very strong I should say, specialty drink, he offered me a job.... Maybe it's time to bring up all dusty contacts...

Damn straight!!!
To your previous post about the business students, I think networking is one of the few things they do which isn't crap. It's also something people in our industry are terrible at. This is exactly how people should be getting jobs.
Evern if you're not interested in a job today, do your best to stay in touch with him.

--Mark

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
Moot. It's still a few top level engineers and more unskilled labor.

Ok wait a sec. I was responding to where you stated:

Au contraire, I think they do hold. The ratio of skilled or unskilled has nothing to do with it. The automotive industry is considered critical to national defense (they make things like tanks when we go to war). It doesn't matter that automotive products are designed by a few "skilled" workers, i.e. automotive engineers, and produced by many "unskilled" ones, i.e. assembly line workers. If it leaves our country and we go to war, we could be in trouble.

Basically, just trying to point out that our ability to produce tanks does not rely on our ability to produce automobiles. So if all the automobile engineers were sacked tomorrow and sent packing to Japan, it would have little effect on our ability to produce tanks since those are a different set of engineers.

I disagree on the first point, but quick is a relative term,

You are correct of course. I have seen buildings go up extrememly quickly when someone sets their minds to it. You might be amazed at how quickly the US military can go from an empty field to a large fully functioning airbase. Not quite the same thing of course, but I guess the concept applies. I would think with a concerted effort we could probably get a production plant up and running in around 6 months or so if we were lucky (maybe a bit more or a bit less), but I really have nothing other than intuition to base that on.

However, how many software engineers entered the market in the last few years having taken anything from 9 weeks to 9 month crash courses? These people built many of our ecommerce websites. Consider consulting firms, the regularly take art history majors and teach them how to do IT work. (I've actualy personally met art history majors who do IT work.) They certainly bring them up to speed in a very breif time.

I don't disagree with you a bit. These weren't the "software professionals" that I was really talking about though. I think it is a fair assumption that they can somewhat easily be replaced, however the type of work that they did (such as ecommerce sites) is not the type of work that we are really talking about here. I also think it is a fair assumption that many of them couldn't function very well if they were dropped into a project building the kind of critical software applications that we are talking about, and in any event, they aren't what we are referring to when we talk about software professionals as resources for the most part.

In this sense, I subscribes to Fred Brook's surgeon modole of software engineering and think it can be applied in "wartime situations."
I also think that during a wartime, we're not going to be looking at much software innovation. The DOE for example, will just need to keep it's systems running. That usually more of a hardware problem then a software problem. Innovations tend to be in weapons systems, and that will require software, but I think the amount needed will be relatively limited.

I think with this hypotetical talk about wartime I have not adequately conveyed my original sentiments. That is that software vital to our national infrastructure and national defense should only be produced domestically, peace time or war time. So we're not just talking about software maintenance.
The idea is that you want trusted code for these critical applications, and you want to have the expertise domestically to be able to maintain these applications (naturally the best people to maintain code are the ones that produced it). It is not as simple to achieve these goals with software produced outside this country. Bsically, we cannot and should not rely on other countries to produce this critical software no our behalf, it's just too potentially dangerous.
We have little control over software that is produced outside our borders. The facilities they are produced in are not accredited by our security people, the people who work there are not subject to background investigations by us. Their interests are not our own. There is a much greater chance of illicit code being inserted, or the software otherwise sabotaged by a hostile entity in software produced overseas than domestically where the workers were subject to background checks.
In addition, what is to stop the foreign software producer from turning around and selling the same software to a hostile government? Let's say for the sake of argument that we outsource some air traffic control software to China or India. Both of those countries have some level of trade relations with Iran. They turn around and sell the same software to Iran. Is it really in our best interests that Iran knows exactly how our air traffic control software works and what the vulnerabilities are? Not really, and this is why we should want to keep such projects domestic.
Getting back to my original point, if we forge ahead outsourcing every software project in sight, we will erode our capability to produce and maintain software that is vital to the infrastructure and security of this country. And when that happens, aside from having little domestic capability should we really need it due to world event, we will have no choice but to outsource critical software, which as I have tried to show is potentially damaging to our security.
[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Mark Herschberg]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Basically, just trying to point out that our ability to produce tanks does not rely on our ability to produce automobiles. So if all the automobile engineers were sacked tomorrow and sent packing to Japan, it would have little effect on our ability to produce tanks since those are a different set of engineers.

Oh, I see what you're saying; I misunderstood before. I disagree. There are automotive engineers who deisgn much of the tank; maybe not the weapons systems, but certainly the engine chasis, etc. But the reason I said it was moot is because I was talking more about production capabilities. *That* is why the automtive industry is key to national defense. That is why COngress protected it in the 80's.

Taken from GM's web site
1942. GM converts 100% of its production to the war effort. During World War II, GM delivers more than $12,300,000,000 worth of war material to lead the Allied war effort, including airplane engines, airplanes and parts, trucks, tanks, marine diesels, guns, shells and miscellaneous products.
Among those products manufactured for the war effort were the 6X6 army truck (a two-and-a-half ton vehicle that carried both troops and supplies) and the DUKW (nicknamed "the duck"), designed to carry up to 50 men on either land or water.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I don't disagree with you a bit. These weren't the "software professionals" that I was really talking about though. I think it is a fair assumption that they can somewhat easily be replaced, however the type of work that they did (such as ecommerce sites) is not the type of work that we are really talking about here.

Well, again I disagree somewhat.
I've never claimed all software should be outsourced. I completely agree that software for national security should be kept domestic. But that's it. (I guess I said that in a different thread, and not here.)
Now, I think there's enough software of that nature to support at least a small industry (it depends how protective we choose to be). Personally, I think they would do more then just national security type work, because the top engineers, supported by a strong educational system, would continue to lead the world-wide industry for years to come.
I think if wartime broke out, they would be sufficent to all focus on critical new development. The weaker software engineers who could be trained rapidly, would be used for maintainance. (This is just one possiblity, there could be other approaches.)

--Mark