On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 22:52:12 GMT, "Bob Crantz"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:23:33 GMT, "Bob Crantz"
wrote:

Bunch snipped

I know many people who have those skills. Most are unemployed. Those
skills
are not advanced math. Those not unemployed are now paralegals or legal
secretaries.

Once again, you demonstrate that those that you know do not make up a
statistically relevant sample. Those skills are in big demand where I
live.

If those I know do not make a statistically significant sample, then why do
the ones you know do?

I'm not trying to define a population with my isolated sample. you
are. I'm only challenging your definition.

Do you live in Ohio?

No. I live down the road from Dickie Scruggs and in a state that used
to have a single county with lawsuits per capita at approximately 1000
times the national average from venue setting based on a particular
product being sold at the local drugstore (even though no one in the
county has been damaged). With dirt poor jurors driving $50,000 cars.
That was before the first, rather feeble, attempt at tort reform. But
it is a start.



. I had to hire against others seeking the same skill level and
we all had a tough time. Those still in the game continue to have
difficulty

If you increase the pay, they will come.

Eventually. However, if the basic skills are not already there you
will be out of business by the time they get there. And increasing
pay past the level that the martket can support will only send work
overseas, eliminating value add entities in this country, a big
problem.

Wealth, as defined by increases in GDP or GNP is only created by those
who take someting that is mined or grown and add value to it. Lawyers
do not do that, generally just facilitate a forced, often invalid,
transfer and skim some as it goes by.

You don't see the Federal Gov't subsidizing the growth of lawyers do you?

Absolutely, the Federal Gov't created the environment that they
thrive in, made up the rules of the game so to speak. From there it
was self fulfilling. And most of those who participated in that
creation were lawyers themselves.

Why must the growth of engineers and scientists be subsidized?

Did I say that? I don't believe they, the farmers, the airlines, the
car companies or anyone else should be subsidized.

Wouldn't outstanding pay make more great people go into engineering?

Is there something wrong with the pay structure?

If there is an engineering shortage, then why isn't pay very high?

The starting pay is relatively high. And then, like any other
profession it becomes variable based on direction. Entreprenuers make
more. Those that leave the realm of individual contributor make more.
The best of the breed make more.

Starting RN's make more than starting engineers. There's a shortage of RN's.
Where is the shortage of engineers?

Depends, once again on market area. I have two sisters who are in or
have been in the nursing profession One used to teach nurses. It
does not seem to be a profession where the stress/satisfaction
relationship is terribly favorable for entry.





Today, by autocad. Back then, a very large framing square.

Not quite right in either time frame. I've worked in both.





Frank