|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
$30/hr? Cobol programmers get paid more than $30 bucks an hour. Any
programmer gets paid more than $30 bucks an hour. Visual Test programmers
get paid more than $30 bucks/hr. The only way a programmer gets paid less
$30 bucks or less per hour is if they're getting screwed by contracting
firms that pay them $30 and bill out at $80. The real market value is
upwards of $80. 2nd year QA testers with associate degrees in photogrpahy
get paid $25-35 an hour and are billed out at $45-60.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Massey [mailto:bnm03@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 8:43 PM
To: List, Omega
Subject: RE: No rush for Win 2000
today:
Y2K maintenance colbol programmers: around $100/hr
97-99 Y2K Cobol and Fortran Programmers: $150-$250/hr (sometimes even
higher)
Linux will probably take some marketshare away from MS in the long run, but
MS is a marketing machine and they aren't so stupid not to figure out how to
continue to drive up their stock price and maintain marketshare dominance.
Win2K may be slow but it's rock solid with great security. The only thing
that can take down or at least permanently injure the big kid on the block
is the government.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. Simms [mailto:prosys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 10:41 AM
> To: Kent Rollins; OmegaList
> Subject: RE: No rush for Win 2000
>
>
> Good point.....but to confirm the condition,
> ask any mainframe programmer if his value is going up or down in today's
> marketplace.
>
> today:
> Cobol programmers: $30 per hour
> Java Programmers: $120 per hour
> VB programmers: $60 per hour
>
> 5 years ago it was:
>
> Cobol programmers: $60 per hour
> Java Programmers: $0 per hour (didn't EXIST !)
> VB programmers: $40 per hour
>
> My, my....things do change. It all begins with an event or "trend change".
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kent Rollins [mailto:kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 12:30 PM
> > To: OmegaList
> > Subject: Re: No rush for Win 2000
> >
> >
> > Funny, that's what we were saying in the late 80's about IBM and
> > mainframes
> > when Microsoft started coming on strong.
> >
> > Kent
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: M. Simms <prosys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: Chris Cheatham <nchrisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Omega List
> > <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 8:26 AM
> > Subject: RE: No rush for Win 2000
> >
> >
> > This marks the end of an era for Bill Gates and Microsoft......
> > their guns are empty....and the gunslingers have arrived in town fully
> > loaded....
> > Linux, IBM, Java, Sun Micro.
> >
> > "Buh-Bye" as they say in the airline biz....
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chris Cheatham [mailto:nchrisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 6:04 PM
> > > To: Omega List
> > > Subject: No rush for Win 2000
> > >
> > >
> > > For all those who can't wait to get win 2k, you should check out
> > > page 132 of
> > > the current PC Mag...
> > >
> > > "In desktop performance Win 2k was mostly unremarkable compared
> > with NT4"
> > >
> > > To summarize, their tests were Win 2k v. NT v. 98 SE. NT was slightly
> > > faster in most configs than Win 2k. The exception was FAT
> > w/256K (versus
> > > lesser mem in the other tests) and in tests of web site
> > creation apps. 98
> > > lost.
> > >
> > > However the win 2k server performance was much better than NT.
> > >
> > > Also of note to NT users was that the FAT performance was consistently
> > > better than NTFS with either OS.
> > >
> > > CC
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|