Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
pjwal
Participant[quote=kev374]
Requirements:
6+ years experience in Java, 10years total
Core Java, XML, Agile, Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) is a must, Hibernate, Oracle, JSF, Flex,
JBoss Richfaces, Expert knowledge in Web services and standards – SOAP, WSDL, XML, XSD, Tools – RAD/WAS/WMP, OO design patternsRate is $35/hr W2
I am just stunned, $35/hr? For those skills? WTF? I know it’s not April so this must not be an April fool’s joke.[/quote]
This doesn’t surprise me at all. Any company trying to hire for these skills is running deprecated software and they know they can’t afford the rates of those more current. JBoss Richfaces? Cmon! They are attempting to contract an older out of work programmer that still actually lists this stuff on his resume and hoping to get some hits. This is legacy enterprise market and you cannot expect a high pay rate to maintain legacy systems.
Expert knowledge in Web Services and standard and they start with SOAP? How about answering the recruiter with SOAP failed because of it didn’t follow existing web standards!
Once you’re skilled enough on the software side of the industry, you should not list specific technologies on your resume. Nor should you search for specific technologies when trying to find work. UNLESS you’re looking for contract work and relegating yourself to a specific tech. And, if you are, I encourage you to read:
http://www.pragprog.com/titles/cfcar2/the-passionate-programmerDo NOT go tech specific…focus and provide solutions, which means having the ability to pick up any of the technologies above during the first couple of weeks while you determine the problem.
Participant[quote=kev374]
Requirements:
6+ years experience in Java, 10years total
Core Java, XML, Agile, Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) is a must, Hibernate, Oracle, JSF, Flex,
JBoss Richfaces, Expert knowledge in Web services and standards – SOAP, WSDL, XML, XSD, Tools – RAD/WAS/WMP, OO design patternsRate is $35/hr W2
I am just stunned, $35/hr? For those skills? WTF? I know it’s not April so this must not be an April fool’s joke.[/quote]
This doesn’t surprise me at all. Any company trying to hire for these skills is running deprecated software and they know they can’t afford the rates of those more current. JBoss Richfaces? Cmon! They are attempting to contract an older out of work programmer that still actually lists this stuff on his resume and hoping to get some hits. This is legacy enterprise market and you cannot expect a high pay rate to maintain legacy systems.
Expert knowledge in Web Services and standard and they start with SOAP? How about answering the recruiter with SOAP failed because of it didn’t follow existing web standards!
Once you’re skilled enough on the software side of the industry, you should not list specific technologies on your resume. Nor should you search for specific technologies when trying to find work. UNLESS you’re looking for contract work and relegating yourself to a specific tech. And, if you are, I encourage you to read:
http://www.pragprog.com/titles/cfcar2/the-passionate-programmerDo NOT go tech specific…focus and provide solutions, which means having the ability to pick up any of the technologies above during the first couple of weeks while you determine the problem.
ParticipantAre there not comparable web sites regarding the Berkeley/Nor Cal housing market in which you could post this on?
ParticipantAre there not comparable web sites regarding the Berkeley/Nor Cal housing market in which you could post this on?
ParticipantAre there not comparable web sites regarding the Berkeley/Nor Cal housing market in which you could post this on?
ParticipantAre there not comparable web sites regarding the Berkeley/Nor Cal housing market in which you could post this on?
ParticipantAre there not comparable web sites regarding the Berkeley/Nor Cal housing market in which you could post this on?
Participant[quote=drboom][quote=jeeman]The only reason we had a surplus in 1998-2000 was because of massive capital gains tax revenues from the stock market bubble. When this went away, the deficits returned. Bush cut tax *rates*, but if you look at tax *revenue* charts, the revenues climbed after the rate cuts.[/quote]
This is a widely-held belief (that a surplus existed), but it’s not true.
A change in accounting lumped Social Security contributions into the government’s “income” category. It was a dishonest change and was done for obvious political reasons. There was in fact a substantial (though laughably low by 2010 standards) deficit throughout that period.[/quote]
Not too mention, what so many conveniently forget, we were IN A RECESSION at the end of the Clinton administration.
Participant[quote=drboom][quote=jeeman]The only reason we had a surplus in 1998-2000 was because of massive capital gains tax revenues from the stock market bubble. When this went away, the deficits returned. Bush cut tax *rates*, but if you look at tax *revenue* charts, the revenues climbed after the rate cuts.[/quote]
This is a widely-held belief (that a surplus existed), but it’s not true.
A change in accounting lumped Social Security contributions into the government’s “income” category. It was a dishonest change and was done for obvious political reasons. There was in fact a substantial (though laughably low by 2010 standards) deficit throughout that period.[/quote]
Not too mention, what so many conveniently forget, we were IN A RECESSION at the end of the Clinton administration.
Participant[quote=drboom][quote=jeeman]The only reason we had a surplus in 1998-2000 was because of massive capital gains tax revenues from the stock market bubble. When this went away, the deficits returned. Bush cut tax *rates*, but if you look at tax *revenue* charts, the revenues climbed after the rate cuts.[/quote]
This is a widely-held belief (that a surplus existed), but it’s not true.
A change in accounting lumped Social Security contributions into the government’s “income” category. It was a dishonest change and was done for obvious political reasons. There was in fact a substantial (though laughably low by 2010 standards) deficit throughout that period.[/quote]
Not too mention, what so many conveniently forget, we were IN A RECESSION at the end of the Clinton administration.
Participant[quote=drboom][quote=jeeman]The only reason we had a surplus in 1998-2000 was because of massive capital gains tax revenues from the stock market bubble. When this went away, the deficits returned. Bush cut tax *rates*, but if you look at tax *revenue* charts, the revenues climbed after the rate cuts.[/quote]
This is a widely-held belief (that a surplus existed), but it’s not true.
A change in accounting lumped Social Security contributions into the government’s “income” category. It was a dishonest change and was done for obvious political reasons. There was in fact a substantial (though laughably low by 2010 standards) deficit throughout that period.[/quote]
Not too mention, what so many conveniently forget, we were IN A RECESSION at the end of the Clinton administration.
Participant[quote=drboom][quote=jeeman]The only reason we had a surplus in 1998-2000 was because of massive capital gains tax revenues from the stock market bubble. When this went away, the deficits returned. Bush cut tax *rates*, but if you look at tax *revenue* charts, the revenues climbed after the rate cuts.[/quote]
This is a widely-held belief (that a surplus existed), but it’s not true.
A change in accounting lumped Social Security contributions into the government’s “income” category. It was a dishonest change and was done for obvious political reasons. There was in fact a substantial (though laughably low by 2010 standards) deficit throughout that period.[/quote]
Not too mention, what so many conveniently forget, we were IN A RECESSION at the end of the Clinton administration.
ParticipantKrugman, Obama and other Keynesians suffer from a misguided principal toward dividing the existing economic pie rather than growing the pie for everyone.
Too many people equate tax cuts with loss of federal revenue when history has always shown the opposite to be true. The current administration could provide an immediate boost to the economy simply by saying they would support another year of the tax cuts that are set to expire, but instead they are focusing on some Utopian fallacy of ending homelessness, paying people not to work and taxing financial institutions. Dividend taxes are set to quadruple, the death tax is going to go up to 53% and include assets that it has never before (homes and life insurance benefits), and income taxes on those that can afford to invest. Corporations are in a stand still with the looming tax increases and a fear of the not knowing what industry this current administration is going to target next.
The Fed never “prints” money, the US government sells bonds and that is only cheap in the context of the present. It is borrowing against our future and if it is always an economically beneficial policy, than why shouldn’t we do it all the time? We have never spent our way out of a recession.
We don’t need a collapse to bring back us back to prosperity, but we don’t need a quadrupling of our deficit as a percentage of GDP (the measurement that counts) to avoid a collapse. Both can be true as the historical data show Keynesian spending policies delay recovery, not initiate it. We have a 13 trillion dollar GDP and, while our federal spending has increased to a staggering 13% of it, what have we shown for it? The latest estimation of the upcoming bailout cost for Fannie and Freddie? 1 Trillion! It’s not enough for you to save 20% for your house, make your payments…now you have to produce enough goods and services and wealth to effectively subsidize the cost of a house for someone else and as far as anyone can tell, this is the “new reality” that this administration wants.
Federal spending (with borrowed money or not) can only serve to divert resources and capital in an economy, it does not add to them. Europe and the other economies of this world have begun to learn this and I’d never thought I’d actually be wanting our country to follow their lead.
ParticipantKrugman, Obama and other Keynesians suffer from a misguided principal toward dividing the existing economic pie rather than growing the pie for everyone.
Too many people equate tax cuts with loss of federal revenue when history has always shown the opposite to be true. The current administration could provide an immediate boost to the economy simply by saying they would support another year of the tax cuts that are set to expire, but instead they are focusing on some Utopian fallacy of ending homelessness, paying people not to work and taxing financial institutions. Dividend taxes are set to quadruple, the death tax is going to go up to 53% and include assets that it has never before (homes and life insurance benefits), and income taxes on those that can afford to invest. Corporations are in a stand still with the looming tax increases and a fear of the not knowing what industry this current administration is going to target next.
The Fed never “prints” money, the US government sells bonds and that is only cheap in the context of the present. It is borrowing against our future and if it is always an economically beneficial policy, than why shouldn’t we do it all the time? We have never spent our way out of a recession.
We don’t need a collapse to bring back us back to prosperity, but we don’t need a quadrupling of our deficit as a percentage of GDP (the measurement that counts) to avoid a collapse. Both can be true as the historical data show Keynesian spending policies delay recovery, not initiate it. We have a 13 trillion dollar GDP and, while our federal spending has increased to a staggering 13% of it, what have we shown for it? The latest estimation of the upcoming bailout cost for Fannie and Freddie? 1 Trillion! It’s not enough for you to save 20% for your house, make your payments…now you have to produce enough goods and services and wealth to effectively subsidize the cost of a house for someone else and as far as anyone can tell, this is the “new reality” that this administration wants.
Federal spending (with borrowed money or not) can only serve to divert resources and capital in an economy, it does not add to them. Europe and the other economies of this world have begun to learn this and I’d never thought I’d actually be wanting our country to follow their lead.
-
AuthorPosts