IT Employment

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Future of Network Admin.

0 helpful
25 replies

by m.i.t

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I recently got an AA in Network Admin, but with the economy being so screwed and companies moving IT offshore, I'm really thinking that I need to change careers. According to news, these jobs are not coming back and the government is not doing absolutely anything to stop this and not only companies are realizing that the need to start outsourcing is inevitable but a must to stay in business.
How is this going to affect the future of Network Administrators? Will it still be a need for it?
Any advice is appreciated.
Thank you

25 replies

by oldefar

Leaving politics aside, there are a couple of aspects to consider.

First is the technical advance. Hardware and software continues to evolve so that less human intervention and less in depth expertise is required. This places a downward pressure on the need for IT support fields.

Second is the historical movement to lower cost areas for material and labor. In the case of IT, labor cost is the driving factor. This is placing pressure on all IT areas. Unique to this era is the speed at which this now occurs. Moving a manufacturing plant and its associated supply chain takes several years. Moving an IT operation now takes a few months or less.

There is a third factor that cannot be ignored. All business requires a consumer base, and that consumer base requires income. Foreign auto manufacturers had to move labor back to the US in order to have a consumer base for their increased market share. Henry Ford had to pay his labor enough to generate a market for his cars to begin with. At some point, the labor market has to realign with the consumer market or there is no business.

Now what does this mean for the starting network administrator? If you are in one of the western nations, you are starting at a time when business is following labor costs. At some point, this will reverse to some degree and labor will return to maintain the consumer base. For the auto industry, this was about a 15 year cycle. However, the labor base never has returned to its historical high in either job volume or salary.

This brings about the fourth factor that so many miss. You have heard that a rising tide raises all ships. What you have not heard is that the amount of water is finite. When the ice ages locked up water at the poles, the sea levels dropped. As the poles melt, the sea levels rise. Wealth has been locked up in the western nations for the past 500 years. The global economy, like global warming, is releasing that wealth. A new level will be found, but those who were at the poles may find that level significantly lower than before while the rest of the world sees a significant increase. Time to reset expectations of personal wealth for those in the western nations.

by maxwell edison

Very good advice indeed, and said quite well. I certainly can't disagree with much of what you said in your first three "factors". However, I see things a bit differently than what (and how) you articulated in your "fourth factor" explanation.

I, too, believe that "a rising tide lifts all boats", but I do not think that the figurative water is finite. I believe that there is an unlimited amount of figurative water. If it's limited at all, it's limited only by the number of people participating, and the degree of their participation. (I've also heard, and disagreed with, the pie analogy. Something like a limited number of pieces of pie to go around. The figurative pie is not finite.)

I first read the phrase, "A rising tide lifts all boats" in Jack Kemp's book, An American Renaissance, back in the 1970s.(I'm not sure he coined the phrase, but if not, I don't know who did.) In your very own explanation you mentioned that before the "global economy" growth, that wealth had been locked up in western nations, and I suppose that I agree. But since the free market economy became the global free market economy, the additional nations that have prospered have not done so by taking the figurative water of the tide away from the Western nations, and the figurative water was not redistributed, per se, but rather it grew in volume. And it didn't need any figurative ice melting someplace else.

I also believe that "global warming" is one of the biggest hoaxes in history. It's right up there with the Y2K bug.

by maxwell edison

...who first used the phrase, "a rising tide lifts all boats", at least from what I can find.

First in August, 1962, in Pueblo, Colorado at the dedication of the Fryingpan-Arkansas water project. (Water - tide - I wonder if the connection was intentional.)

Again, he used it in Frankfurt, West Germany in June, 1963 when he said the following in an address in the Assembly Hall at the Paulskirche:

"As they say on my own Cape Cod, a rising tide lifts all the boats. And a partnership, by definition, serves both partners, without domination or unfair advantage. Together we have been partners in adversity?let us also be partners in prosperity."

If there's an earlier reference, I'd love to see it. Does anyone else know for sure?

by oldefar

To clear up the rising tide comment, Kennedy correctly identified it as a common expression around nautical communities.

But more importantly, the point you raise is one of wealth being finite or infinite. Since the earth is finite, any value derivded from it will be finite as well. Measure it any form you can think of, and I suspect you will be able to approximate an upper limit. In fact, it is the finite nature that gives value. If gold were available in infinite quantities, how much would it be valued? If your access to air were metered, how much more value would you apply to each breath?

When wealth is actually broken down into its core value, we find time, food, water, air, health, safety, security, and shelter. Of these, food, water, air, and shelter are finite with even casual observation. Time, health, safety, and security are more personal and so are also finite to one's lifespan. The first world countries (a better choice than western nations) have controlled and consumed a greater share of food and water and have had a greater impact on the quality of air, and if we include personal space with shelter have consumed a higher amount of personal space than have the other nations.

As for global warming, I use the term as it relates to geology. We have had ice ages and warm periods between them. The warm periods, or periods of global warming, have reduced the amount of water locked up at the poles as ice and caused the water to be redistributed. The discussion regarding human caused global warming was not relevent to my analogy.

by generalist

If you think that the Y2K 'bug' was a hoax, you obviously weren't with a company that had to virtually drop new development for a year and a half so that it could fix programs that would have failed come Y2K.

On the other hand, I would agree with the opinion that potential Y2K disasters were overhyped by fast buck hustlers who got a lot of media attention because bad news sells more than good news. Those are the ones you should be complaining about.

by maxwell edison

Wealth, as defined by the combined value of resources, wasn't really where I was going. Our dollar isn't even based on any finite element as it once was. The gold standard was abolished decades ago. Theoretically, if all the gold and diamonds on earth were to disappear, nations' economies wouldn't necessarily have to suffer. (Except certain sectors, such as jewelers and such, but only because their "product" would be disrupted. But other "products" would surely take their place.)

Our new economic standard is really "production" based - the production of goods and services. The economic "rising tide that lifts all boats" is a direct result of people being productive. It's the combined output of goods and services that produces "wealth". Is productivity really finite? You and I produce a certain amount, but we could surely decide to produce just a bit more, then a bit more, and then the next guy, and so on.

I don't know for sure (but I might try the exercise myself), but I'd bet a nickel that if you compared the growth in U.S. population to the growth in the GDP (gross domestic product), which is the combined total of the output of goods and services, you'd discover that the GDP has increased at a higher rate of growth than our population. Thus, one could surmise that our collective output is not necessarily finite, but limited only by the demand on those goods and services. Economic manipulation, whether it be intentional or unintentional, can turn things around, one way or the other.

The more "givers" to the system, the more prosperous the system, as a whole, will be. The more "takers", and you can watch prosperity go down the drain.

My global warming comment I guess will have to wait for another thread.

by oldefar

I used to buy into the production based concept. On first blush, it seems to make sense. The problem is that it doesn't scale.

The goods part of the equation requires resources. On a local or even national level the economy pulls from outside its borders for additional resources to sustain growth. On a global level, we have no outside to pull from. Growth hits a finite ceiling of world resources.

The sales of goods is the foundation of services. On a local or national level, these sales grow by moving outside the borders. With a global economy, there is no outside to sell to. A ceiling is reached with services.

The ability to grow wealth hits a natural boundary, and after that the economy is sustained by the movement of wealth only. Per person wealth becomes an equation of wealth/people, and the gap between those above and those below the average is the source of conflict.

To maintain the productivity based approach requires expanded boundaries - perhaps the best justification for space exploration and colonization. Otherwise, we need to find a new approach to the distribution of wealth.

In all cases, wealth still becomes a matter of the necessities of life and then the luxuries of living.

by maxwell edison

And makes a lot of sense. Economics is indeed an interesting field of study (and discussion).

Perhaps we should combine this "finite" versus "infinite" discussion in that other metaphysics thread. If the universe is infinate and/or expanding........???????? Oh no, let's not go there.

Regards

by cactus pete

As mcuh as I agree that a large percentage of this economy is production based, I have to say that the service side of it had been expanding in recent years. When this part of the economy starts being syphoned off to other countries, people started complaining.

Since the service industries were fueling the growth of the economy lately, their hardships noticably affected the lives of many people. Additional circumstances, many of which need not be named specifically, pretty much became the straw on the back of the camel...

by oldefar

Growing up in Detroit I heard plenty of complaints about foreign auto work even in the late 60's. I missed the big hits following the first oil crisis in 1973, but was back in Detroit when the steel industry went under in the early 80's. I heard the rumblings about the movement of garment work offshore as well, and remember the "look for the union label" commercials.

The bigger question in my mind is whether an essentially service economy can remain viable. I also question the ability of any area to sustain a standard of living without some production base of food, raw material, or product.

by maxwell edison

The economy is "screwed" only if you play along with the doom and gloomers. There are plenty of needs out there if you just look for them. Find a need and fill it. It's been said that a person almost always finds what he's looking for. If you look to get "screwed", guess what you'll find? If you don't want to get "screwed", just look elsewhere.

You said, "according to the news.....". That's a big mistake. Don't listen to the news. Listen to your heart.

You said, "the government's not doing anything about it". Why are you expecting the government to do anything for you? Take the power. Take the control. Take charge of your own destiny.

I.T. outsourcing - I've read that the percentage of I.T. jobs being outsourced are only a very small percentage of all I.T. jobs available. (As small as 1% - 2%. Does anyone have the exact number?) Nonetheless, with a whopping 98% of all I.T. jobs being filled domestically, and an employment rate approaching a whopping 95% (97% is considered full employment), don't you think that you're in the top 95% - 98% of your class? Why do you want to think that you're in the bottom 2%?

Will there still be a need for network administrators, you ask? Well, as long as there are networks, they'll be a need.

Good luck.

P.S. Sorry about the off-track nature of my discussion with oldefar. It's not uncommon around here to get a bit off-track.

by lordinfidel

Following with what everyone else has said.

I just want to bring this up. If your trying to get into IT to just make money, then yes an career change is in order.

You should never do anything just for a paycheck.

Most of us in IT can't fathom doing anything else. It's not for the money or glory. Hell it's sunday and I've already worked 20 hours this weekend, and I'm salary.

We do it because we love what we do.

Another point, the whole outsourcing thing, that may be true for tech support for OEM's like dell and hp. And maybe even true for programmers. Since they can essentially work anywhere.

But for the Network Admins. We must be able to be on site. There has to be someone physically on the network. Even my smaller sites have junior admins on site in the event of hardware failures.

There is no way a netwk admin in india is going to be able to fly 15 hours to their co-location facility at a US PNAP. Not during a netwk emergency.

There are lot's of netwk jobs out there. But you can't expect to land a Netwk Admin job right out of school. You will need to concentrate your efforts on the junior positions like server support.

by m.i.t

Once again, it never fails to hear some good advice from you guys. Thank you for your comments, they're all appreciated.

by oz_media

As much as I agree with most of the comments given here, I have to harp on Lord Infidel for saying
"There are lot's of netwk jobs out there. But you can't expect to land a Netwk Admin job right out of school. You will need to concentrate your efforts on the junior positions like server support."

As often as that is a reality it is also untrue. I went straight into NetAdmin with NO cert. I got those later. I just showed ability and determination backed by several ideas for the company's growth that got me employed.

It only took me a year and a half and now I work from home and monitor two client networks remotely. I agree that Net Admins will never be outsourced to India but I disagree with the notiion that all employers need junior level admins on site. I handle all hardware and software for two companies (one less than 50 clicks away but the other is over a half day travel from home). People will hire who they feel will best benefit the company, thus outsourcing support desk work, you can build your career ANY way you choose, whether as a consultant, net admin or hardware support tech.

I agree that MOST companies (especially larger ones) will want you i a junior position to start with, but in the same sense, there are tonnes of smaller companies who will hire you for a couple of days a week and you can work for another small company on the off days.
Like I say, it's 100% up to YOU how your career unfolds, NOT THE EMPLOYER! If you fly like an eagle, it's because you got there yourself, if you sink like a rock, there's nobody to blame but yourself.

Just remember to work hard and keep looking for other ways to work harder.

Good luck,
OM

by sbar

Read this article:
http://www.ccianet.org/papers/cyberinsecurity.pdf

Some words from this paper (page 8):
"? society?s infrastructure can no longer function without computers and networks
? The sum of the world?s networked computers is a rapidly increasing force
multiplier
? A monoculture of networked computers is a convenient and susceptible reservoir of platforms from which to launch attacks; these attacks can and do cascade"

Even in my country I can see alot of job for network admins.

Good luck!

by oldefar

Moore states that at a constant cost, the amount of computing capability doubles every 18 months.

Oldefar's corollary states that number of units supported by a given IT support position increases at twice the rate of computing capability.

I will be honest - my corollary is based on observation since 1972, and by an intuitive feel for the ratio rather than scientific study. Maybe I will get ambitious and plug verified numbers in for various support roles.

In 1972, computing was mainframe, communications was primarily analog on either dedicated lines or using accustical couplers over dialup. Hardware was often a mix of tubes and discreet solid state devices with a rare IC in some applications. Backplanes were hardwired, either soldered or wire wrap. Since that time I have seen a variety of highly prized skills become nearly obsolete - high value soldering and micro-circuitry repair, oscope data analysis, machine language fault isolation, RF alignment, cable bundle splicing, RF cabling, fiber optic field repair, analog circuit balancing, telephone istrument refurbishment and repair, cable engineer. Among support roles that have been or are being absorbed into the common user role include typist, word processor, presentation specialist, CAD-CAM specialist, Web developer. All these roles still exist, but they have not expanded with the growth in connections. A typical office admin handles the presentations and Web support. Users do their own typing, word processing, and CAD-CAM.

In 1984 and 1985 I led a 20 man communications team responsible for the installation, maintenance, and repair of about 300 data and voice T1 circuits, a couple of private DS3 systems, and the associated channel extensions and tail circuits, a host of dialup connections, and several satellite links. An additional 10 technicians supported the controllers and terminals. Our coverage area was a corporate campus and several sites in the surrounding area. An additional 12 people provided operational support - initial alarm notification and problem assignment. Order processing, circuit and network engineering, cable engineering, and project management employed an additional 1,000 individuals nationwide.

By 1994, that 12 man team had grown to 30, but the scope had expanded from a portion of a state to world wide. The number of circuits supported had increased over 100 fold. The number of operators per shift had dropped to 8. Support expanded to all data, voice, and video systems for what was then one of the largest private networks in the world. Field or onsite support worldwide had dropped from a high of 2400 to about 200.

In 2003, my son supports a 7 state region with an additional 100 fold increase in capacity as measured by bps and end points. He also has PM and engineering responsibility for the area. The shared support team is about 100. The operations team nationwide is 7 per shift.

My point is that despite a doubling of connections every 10 months, the growth in IT penetration is being exceeded by the inherent capabilities of the hardware and software. The result is that the growth in devices is not generating a growth in support positions any longer. The trend will eventually level off to some support level that will remain constant as IT systems expand. At that point, the remaining positions will be filled to handle attrition primarily. While at any given time there will be a short demand spike in a given area, the spikes will be transitory and not growth.

by cactus pete

We have a large production economy. I'm not saying we don't. But, relative to an international economy, the US has reached [passed] a point of deminishing returns. We've made too much, and have been too good at it. Well, in many industries, anyway. In other industries, other nations have gotten there.

Some production within various industries will always remain, but a bulk of it will move to places which are better suited for it. Consider a husband and wife team, cleaning the house before guests come over. Let's assume the husband is taller, and the wife relatively short. Sure, she could reach the top of the fridge to clean it, but she'd have to pull the chair over and stand on it. Let alone this is more work, but it's less safe, too. She'd be better off cleaning the top of the stove instead, and leave the top of the fridge for the husband. They'd each clean, but they'd clean what made sense for them to clean.

The US has learned how to produce many things, but there are other jobs it can perform relatively better, and leave much production for elsewhere.

For instance, what other nation researches as much as the US? For this, other nations' people come here to learn from us, and some come here to work for us. We attract the best and brightest from all over the world, and generally keep them here [though I can't recall a study on this point]. Many will return home after schooling here, but look how many are eagerly accepting H!-B visas, or even immigrating.

There are growing pains, of course, but the world has always been going through this. It always will.

by maxwell edison

....there were no bugs related to Y2K issues. I had to replace a couple of non-compatible computers because of it. And, as you had to do, many had to deal with some program issues.

But the widespread calamity predicted by the doom and gloomers passed with hardly a ripple. (And those ARE the ones I'm complaining about - just like the doom and gloom global warming chicken littles.)

by mrbill-

One of the main reasons Y2K did as little damage as it did was WE fixed the problem before it could cause the damage. WE recognised the threat and fixed it, yes somethings slipped through the cracks, but not enough to cause a disaster. If WE had waited until after the crash WE would be singing a differant tune now.

by maxwell edison

....no more, no less.

Absolutely, many people fixed some known issues with their existing systems, and I even fixed some myself. But it was no different than fixing known issues before or after Y2K. It was just another issue to deal with.

For example, a company may have to update their ACME Software because it's not compatible with the new operating system they plan to buy. They may also have to upgrade some hardware to accommodate some new software their installing. It happens all the time, and the Y2K issue was just another one of those times.

My point was that the media hyped the problem way out of proportion when, in fact, it was just another day at the office. (Maybe a little busier than the average day, but how many of those busier days do we have from time to time?)

What I was referring to was the widespread predictions of worldwide failure of computer systems - which just didn't happen. And in spite of the fact that many companies went through yet another system upgrade to deal with the issue, the doom an gloom hype persisted.

Go back and read some of the articles. There are all too many that say that "even though" many have prepared, not enough have prepared and the sky will come crashing down.

One thing you can count on is this. The media will take an ounce of fact and come up with a ton of sensationalism - all with a basis of implanting fear in the guy on the street. (Just like doom and gloom of the global warming hype - all fear based, and blown way out of proportion.)

by oz_media

I think that the loss of work seems to be only in the US. Other countries outsource too but it seems to have impacted and effected mroe people in the US than here in Canada, (which doesn't really make sense but hey, what can you do right?).

I know that quite a lot of companies are outsourcing to India, but I just finished dealing with a local BC company that is outsourcing it's net admin to the US, I have no idea why.

I think people may be reading too much into this and creating a form of self paranoia or something, I only hear this is a problem from US admins yet outsourcing to India seems to be everywhere.

I haven't heard a single tech here even mention that jobs are going overseas. In fact, I hadn't even heard of it until reading the TR discussion and research showed me this is common to many countries, including Canada and England.

Maybe your making a mountain out of a mole hill, kinda like the paranoia surrounding Saddam that still has amounted to nothing.

by oldefar

Looking primarily at TR, one would think that the job market is a US only issue.

I network with IT folks in Europe and Asia as well. I hear the same issues from the Europeans. In Asia, the issue exists for places like Singapore, and is now beginning to show in India. My network is no where near big enough to be considered a conclusive study, but it does seem to be a global economy issue.

As for Canada, you appear to be an outsource resource yourself from previous comments. The network administration you do for a couple of firms would indicate that at least 2 full time jobs at those firms no longer exist.

by oz_media

Interesting that your network has seen similar. I have friends and family that are in England, my cousin is a Novell net admin. He said also that the smaller help desk and support jobs are being farmed out to India, these types of work have been for a long time though. I've run quite a few call centers for Canadian and American companies, in addition to North American staff, they mainly hired workers in other countries to accomodate time zone differences.

As for American jobs coming to Canada, I've seen companies outsourcing from Canada to the US so I guess it all balances between us.

The remote admin I do DID remove two full time jobs, I quit one and then was offered another, as a resolution for both companies I agreed to split my salary between both and work from my home instead of being onsite each day. What they don't know is that I gained a 30% salary hike as a result.

I think gettnig down to a few jobs here and there isn't a cause for others to be concerned though. There are just too many MCSE's out there. As I've said many times before, the NCSE bandwagon is breaking down, everybody has the cert and are wondering why they can't find work.

If there was the boom for people getting thier chauffers licence, they'd complain that there were no taxi driver jobs or limo companies hiring.

The industry is inundated with new certified techs. Once people realize that the MCSE is a Cracker Jack cert then perhaps people will start taking more relevant courses and training in something unique. A friend of mine writes code, when C++ was being inundated, he learned Python just to be unique, as a result he makes easily three times the money of most programmers now.

Supply and demand.

by cactus pete

Ah... How much more news could I actually get to hear/see during a normal show if so mcuh of the time wasn't spent hyping the stories yet to come? Then there's the embellishing when you finally get to the story. And before the clip is through, they've told the whole story [as far as they know it] at least twice.

Maybe, if there was less hype, I would be blessed with a little GOOD news during the programming.

by mrbill-

Yes it was a ?known issue? but it still had to be corrected before it could happen. Would it have caused the world to end, I doubt it. It would have caused some problems but we would have servived.

You are correct about the over-hype of IT related topics. Some examples come to mind, Y2K, Michelangelo, Melissa, Raw Sockets, MSBlaster, plus many others, the list is long. But the reason all those Hyped up threats did not happen is the IT professionals around the world did a Herculean job of prevention them before they happened. If the preventive steps were not taken the outcome could have been as predicted by the doom and gloomers.

This discussion is closed to new replies.