[Top] [All Lists]


To: <>
Subject: [AMPS] IMD
From: (Paul Christensen)
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:37:39 -0400
> No, there's plenty of "RF" engineers out there.  However, there are not
> plenty of "competent" RF engineers.  And these days, Peter's correct, those
> of us who were engineers move on to other things where we can make more
> money and don't have to deal with dunderheaded management.

So true Jon.  Ten years ago, I left design work for a management position which 
paid substantially more than I had been making in
design.  However, there's no financially-safe haven in management either.  The 
dilemma as I see it is that the primary focus of a
corporation, any corporation, is to maximize shareholder wealth by continually 
increasing earnings-per-share and the market's P/E

Cutbacks in pay and layoffs are the easiest and fastest way of fitting the 
company's financial objectives into a financial forecast
that stockholders' want to see.  Increasing revenue takes too much effort and a 
time-lag exists between the effort and the results.
The long-term result of this is obvious and differs little than the case 
studies one reads of companies who prefer to sell seemingly
under-utilized assets and inventory.  But this oftentimes occurs unbeknownst to 
the shareholders, particularly with regard to the
long-term financial effect.  Included with the assets are people, the so-called 
"most important" asset to a company.  It's ironic
that the most important asset is the first to be jettisoned.

The corporation is no longer a "going concern."  In essence, it becomes a 
"concern for the moment."  It's a trade-off between a
healthy balance sheet, income statement, and statement of cash flows.  The 
current market trend focuses on these reports in

The corporate climate is changing so quickly, I'm not sure how the majority of 
folks cope with the daily uncertainties.  True
company pension programs are all but gone and the 401(k) investment programs 
that have been touted as a positive, "portable"
benefit, really became a benefit in disguise: For the past twenty years, 
increased corporate instability and employee turn-over has
necessitated this feature since the "real" pension programs were no longer 
applicable in a high turn-over environment.  I suppose it
could be argued that it was the employee who first wanted the portability, 
primarily due to deregulation in several key industries,
coupled with the effect of the technology boon.  I am not against the 401K 
programs, it's a great deal to any employee, especially
if the employer does any matching.  My point is that it is a product of 
instability.   Perhaps the best deal out there is through
federal civil service.  At retirement, a check comes regardless of market 
equity performance and there's little worry of financial

Anyway, I apologize for digressing and for getting so far off topic.   I 
promise that my next post will be amplifier-related!


-Paul, W9AC

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>