cr> Telecommunications job cuts


Sender: •••@••.••• (Glen Raphael)

>"...telecommunications leads all other industries in job cuts....the major
>phone companies have shed 200,000 jobs since 1992."
>The conventional
>response is that whole new industries will arise from the new
>technological possibilities and re-employ all these people--does
>anybody see evidence of those jobs coming into being.

Companies crash and burn in huge, headline-grabbing mass layoffs, but they
grow in a continuous and invisibly distributed swell, so even within a
single industry (not just the entire economy) we can have the general
impression of jobs being lost when they are being gained. This is what is
happening in telecom today; despite a few big layoffs the industry is not
losing jobs overall.

Regarding the laid-off workers, a lot of the people AT&T let go either got
very nice buyout packages or were simply moved to other AT&T jobs, either
of which could be something to be satisfied with.

If telecom were declining (it isn't, but suppose it were), then free-
marketeers would indeed see it as evidence that jobs were moving to other
areas of the economy, but these other areas probably wouldn't re-employ the
SAME people, they would employ DIFFERENT people. It may be impossible for
the economy as a whole to permanently lose jobs, but it is unfortunately
quite possible for people in one sector to lose jobs and be terribly hurt
by it. The automobile industry didn't hire everybody who left the
buggy-whip industry. Change can be brutally painful, and not everyone will
benefit. This is why we need private charities and private insurance to aid
those in transition, and it is also why we need to reduce the regulatory
burden so that new job creation is as easy as it can be. An open and
flexible job market will help workers more than protectionist barriers. No
matter how much the government tried to prop up the buggy whip industry it
was still going to collapse, and the longer you put off the inevitable in
such a situation the worse the eventual crash will be for all concerned.

Glen Raphael

Glen Raphael, •••@••.•••  NewtPaint - the Newton paint program!
President, Stanford/Palo Alto Macintosh User's Group (SMUG)
<A HREF="">Glen's World</A><BR>


Sender: "Simeon ben Nevel" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cr> alternative delivery systems

> Sender: Arun Mehta <•••@••.•••>


> Are you suggesting that large numbers of US Congressmen and
> President Clinton were "bought", and that is why they voted for
> telecom deregulation?
> Don't you think there might be a less sinister explanation? That
> they thought deregulation would lead to greater competition which
> might be better for the users on account of lower prices?

This is my first post to cyber-rights and while an interested
bystander in most of these debates and by no mean very knowledgable
about telcom policy issues, I *had* to say something here.


There *might* be a less sinister explanation.... I realize that you
are coming from a *very* different regulatory regime than here in the
US.  I am willing to grant the good intentions of those legislators who bothered
to read the entire TeleCom Deform Act

If it was intended to promote increased competition, it has failed
miserably.  The ink is not yet dry, and the Baby Bells are *already*
beginning to start merger talks.

If there is increased competition, I'd be very obliged if someone
would point out some examples of same.


 Posted by Andrew Oram  - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR)
   CyberJournal:  (WWW or FTP) -->
 Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.