Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 12295
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2017/09/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2004/2/18-24 [Finance/Shopping, Finance/Investment] UID:12295 Activity:nil
2/18    Immediate position open for Sr. Systems Engineer (sysadmin)
        at If you meet the criteria, please e-mail me.
        We've been getting weak resumes from our less-than-technical
        recruiter. /csua/pub/jobs/           -- Marco
         \_ Walmart?  I'd rather be a janitor at MSFT.
            \_ MSFT is far more evil than Walmart.
        \_ awww...all that sysadmin talk's gone???
           \_ maybe people should start a new thread when they think of some
              cool entertaining flame war related to a job post.  That will
              be less likely to be censored and won't provide a disincentive
              for alums to post jobs.
           \_ jealousy.
           \_ all that salary talk probably made it harder to find a
              schmuc^H^H^H^H^H^Hqualified candidate.
        \_ Do you know the general pay range for this?  60-80, 80-100, 100+?
           \_ Our rates are very competitive. Conservatively, I expect a
              qualified candidate would easily clear $80K. -- Marco
              \_ How about employee discounts at Wal-Mart stores?
                 \_ More importantly, how about stock options?
              \_ Is this really considered competitive for a senior person?
                 It looks average, or even a bit below, to me.
                 \_ It's quite low.  Senior Sysadmins should clear 100k at any
                    company.  Mid level people make into the 90s.  80k is
                    certainly not competitive.  A few weeks ago I turned down
                    110k and another company I'm currently talking with will
                    be offering me 110k plus other benefits that will make it
                    worth it to give up my current 120k.  At 80k I wouldn't
                    even consider applying or telling my friends about it if
                    they were senior level.  Then again, so few sysadmins
                    survive more than 3-5 years that anyone who hits the 5 year
                    mark is considered senior even though they're only just
                    becoming useful at that point.  It's a strange world we
                    live in.  I've always wondered what happened to the ones
                    who didn't survive.  I suppose they become developers?
                        --15+ years SA
                    \_ These numbers are too high for anywhere outside of
                       Silicon Valley. Also, 15+ yrs. is a huge amount of
                       experience and would increase your salary over most.
                        \_ If you need five years to become a good sysadmin
                           then you must be pretty dumb. Sysadmin is a support
                           function, if you design your netopology correctly
                           your day-to-day is basically just monitoring and
                           replacing defects. Once a month or so you'll need
                           to add in more storage or add in a couple more
                           machines. Again, if you designed your netop correctly
                           this is a piece of cake. Backups are relatively
                           easy nowadays with the right RAID. I mean seriously,
                           I sysadmin EDA software, which is a bitch, and it
                           didn't take me five years to "become useful."
                           \_ Sorry, you are just wrong. There are some things
                              you can only learn by working on a wide variety
                              of systems. Also, all the senior level jobs
                              include at least some management.
                              require at least some management.
                              -SA with 10 yrs exp
                           \_ I sense a dick-waving contest coming on...
                              \_ "They've got bigger dicks?  BOMB THEM!" --GC
                    \_ Someone has to fix the cash registers.
                 \_ He said "conservatively" and "easily"
        \_ Marco, thank you for posting this.  No one should ever be
           attacked for posting a job on the motd.  I never understood
           the suicidal "I'm too good for your stinking job!" attitude
           so many motd idiots have towards alums posting jobs.  This is
           part of what is called "networking", you clods.  It's *the* best
           way to find a new or better job.
        \_ I'm talking about a very well paying job doing real
           systems work at one of the world's largest ecommerce
           operations. If all of the stuff below disturbs you, by
           all means, do not send me your resume. If you want a
           good job; please let me know. -- Marco
           \_ Some people have ethical problems with Walmart.
              Some are just fucking with you, and some might want
              the job.
        \_ That's because sysadmins charge more than $6.80/hr.
        \_ in the grand scheme of things when you consider which
           companies stand to totally destroy the lower middle class
           and lower class income brackets, Walmart is completely satanic
           and threatens to lower the quality of life of millions
           Americans directly and indirectly.  You can say that that's
           just the effect of the free market, and I would happen
           to agree with you, but it does not make it suck less.
           This brings up the question of if I were completely down
           on my luck and I was offered a job with something that
           I consider Evil(tm), such as Walmart/Microsoft/Halliburton/
           Archer Daniels Richland or whatever that ethanol leech
           behomoth corporation is named, if I would take it.  I'm not
           \_ If you are talking about Walmart squeezing out smaller
              companies and offering the newly unemployed low-wage,
              non-unionized jobs with few/no health benefits -- you have
              a point, but please be more specific next time.
        \_ Not that we don't appreciate the job posting, but which is more evil
           Walmart or Microsoft?
           \_ Is that a joke? I'd say that Microsoft is Evil, they way I might
              say an American politician is evil, even though even the worst
              American politician is better than Kim Jung Il, and even the
              worst software company is better than Walmart.
              \_ They're evil for different reasons.  Plus as a sysadmin you'd
                 be more directly helping MS be evil.
           \_ There are people who will argue whether the flames are blue or
              green, when the point is that their arse is on fire.
           \_ Walmart isn't Evil. They can't be evil. They sell Linux
              and Linux isn't Evil is it?
              \_ They sell Windows too.
        \_ Walmart significantly increased the standard of living of the
           (under)employed.  According to
           the "poor" enjoys a lot of amenities in life.  In fact they
           would be considered middle class or even upper class in coutries
           that you are so worried about taking our jobs away.  What makes
           this possible is the low prices introduced by stores like Walmart.
           I don't have any love for walmart, but during the time I was
           employed, I got everything from walmart and it kept my expense
           down and finance afloat.  Most of the people who trashes walmart
           are those too rich to know the need of the low income Americans.
           \_ that is interesting and i value your opinion, but could
              you find more evidence of this not coming from an incredibly
              right wing think tank like the Heritage Foundation?  I happen
              to be from one of those little towns that Wal-Mart has
              indirectly completely devestated.  You can probably
              say "that's because of cheap labor available from China,
              quit whining." and once again I agree but it still sucks.
              I think there is a direct temporary short term benefit,
              like as you said when you're poor it's pretty awesome and
              convenient to be able to go to walmart and clothe yourself
              almost completely for under $30, but in the long term
              the presence of a walmart directly depresses or destroys
              the possibility of any local retail jobs that have any
              chance of offering a liveable wage.  Maybe everyone in
              America needs to retrain immediately for jobs in the
              New Economy.  I have not read of any evidence that
              the current or even past presidential administrations
              actively care or are offering any leadership in this area.
                \_ Bush's job training program is "be a Halliburton
                   contractor in the front lines in Iraq so when you
                   get shot and killed we can NOT REPORT it because
                   you were a civilian non existent contractor but
                   since you don't go in the 'troops killed' column,
                   we don't have to tell anyone and the american
                   public doesn't and won't care.
                   [reformatted - formatd]
                   \_ Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, etc weren't exactly great job
                      creation plans.  People die in war zones, shit happens.
                      They get hazard pay.
              Also to endlessly argue that the very poor in this country
              are much better off than say arsenic poisoned homeless
              dudes in Bangladesh or entire generations of people who
              live in garbage dumps in Manila and never see solid land
              is a circular argument, it's not going to win me over.
              \_ Whatever you think of its source and author, you should
                 consider its facts and arguments in their own rights.
                 The data that article cites comes from US govt reports.
                 See the article and its references.  And let me just quote
                 "The average poor American has more living space than the
                  average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens,
                  and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are
                  to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those
                  classified as poor.)"
                  \_ Living space != standard of living.  If it did, we'd be
                     sending food and blankets to the Japanese.
                     \_ It's part of the whole picture.  And the average
                        japanese are miserable in that regard.
                \_ does living space automatically equate to a higher
                   standard of living?  Mongolian steppe herders
                   probably have spaces the size of Delaware all to
                   \_ see above, and your comparison is not valid.  You know
                      how much tent space per person they have?
                \_ I don't think living density in this country is going to
                   approach japanese or european or southeast asian or
                   chinese levels any time soon unless we suddenly run
                   out of oil, we have pretty hard to overcome urban
                   sprawl problems, that ironically walmart has
                   exploited very successfully.
                   \_ Japan: 127,214,499 ppl in 374,744 sq km.
                      USA:   290,342,554 ppl in 9,158,960 sq km
                      Or roughly half as many people in 1/24th the space.
                      The US will never achieve this level of pop density.
                        \_ does the above include (or exclude?) areas
                           of the US you're not going to live in, like
                           national parks or volcanoes or the sides
                           of mountains or Houston?
                           \_ Of course, as well as huge chunks of Hokkaido
                              and numerous inhospitable rocks in dispute with
                              \_ None may enter the sacred forests of Hokkaido,
                                 reknowned for their countless soap factories.
        \_ So why support a company that makes billions by rapidly
           furthering us towards a great equalization of global poor people
           by lowering the standard of living of poor people in the US to
           India's poor?  Is that how globalization is supposed to work?
           Great!  Actually no one is really saying how much they
           love Walmart, and I bet they just pave over all the poor
           people at Marco's work and he has little concept of it and
           is probably a nice guy.  I know a couple of people who work
           at Chevron-Texaco and they had absolutely NO IDEA why people
           would keep 'blocking the main road to campus' or protesting
           or giving them mean looks when they went to work in San Ramon.
           I mean, come on, they have college degrees from UCB but
           they choose to be really stupid.  I answer their evite
           party invites with NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
           \_ Well, Walmart sells cheap stuff.
           \_ Now you see many of the so called "liberals" are haters.
              \_ what is this "so called" stuff?  I AM a liberal
                 and damn fucking proud of it, ok not proud enough
                 to sign my name today, check back later.  I notice
                 none of today's posters are sufficiently walmart
                 loving or frothing at the mouth, what happened to
                 free market guy?  or free republic guy?  on vacation?
                 \_ And what about Chicom troll?  You'd think cct would have
                    a (painfully incoherent) opinion about all of this.
                    \_  Has it occurred to you that Marco's giving a
                        "conservative estimate," such that he sets an
                        appropriate expectation, and such that he isn't
                        brokering a salary negotiation?  I'm pretty sure
               will pay market for you superstars out
                        there.  --chris
                    \_ I said "average" or "below".
2017/09/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

You may also be interested in these entries...
2013/7/31-9/16 [Reference/RealEstate, Finance/Investment] UID:54720 Activity:nil
7[31    Suppose you have a few hundred thousand dollars in the bank earning
        minimum interest rate and you're not sure whether you're going to
        buy a house in 1-5 years. Should one put that money in a more
        risky place like Vanguard ETFs and index funds, given that the
        horizon is only 1-5 years?
        \_ I have a very similar problem, in that I have a bunch of cash
2013/5/9-7/3 [Finance/Investment] UID:54675 Activity:nil
5/9     I'm stock newbie. Let's say  I made $1000 in Jan 2012 and then
        lost  $1000 in Feb 2012, does that mean I'm not liable to pay
        any tax given that I made $0?
        \_ Yes.
        \_ Are both long term gains/both short term gains? And I assume you
           mean realized gains, i.e. you actually sold the stock in an
2013/1/25-2/19 [Finance/Investment] UID:54588 Activity:nil
1/25    Is there a site that tells you the % of people shorting
        on a particular stock? I'm trying to see if I can gauge
        "confidence level", that sort of thing.
           I'm not sure how to read this, I'm guessing the higher
           "days to cover" the more short activities there are?
2013/1/16-2/17 [Industry/Startup, Finance/Investment] UID:54582 Activity:nil
1/16    Fred Wilson says you should focus on the cash value of your
        options, not the percentages:
        \_ Or at least, so says a VC trying increase his profit margin...
        \_ A VC wants to keep as much of the stock for themselves (and give
           as little to employees as possible).  That maximizes their return.
2012/12/21-2013/1/24 [Industry/Startup, Finance/Investment] UID:54568 Activity:nil
        Yahooers in Sunnyvale don't seem to average 170K/year.
        \_ Googlers average $104k/yr? Uh huh.
           \_ what is it suppose to be?
                 Google Sr. Software Engineer in Sunnyvale averages $193k in total pay,
Cache (454 bytes) ->
Salary Surveys As part of its ongoing effort to gain recognition and advancement for system administrators, SAGE annually conducts a System Administrator Salary survey. The 2002 SAGE Salary Survey The 2002 SAGE Salary Survey is now online. Weve also got a compendium of the comments about various topics that the respondents submitted. It makes fascinating reading, especially on the current hot topics like outsourcing and overtime with no compensation.
Cache (8192 bytes)
Backgrounder #1713 January 5, 2004 | 23 Executive Summary | 24 Download PDF | 25 Send to a Friend Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers--to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II. While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat. Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians. Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care. The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home. In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty. While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. Ownership of Property and Amenities Among the Poor Table 1 shows the ownership of property and consumer durables among poor households. The typical home owned by the poor is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths. It has a garage or carport and a porch or patio and is located on a half-acre lot. The house was constructed in 1967 and is in good repair. The median value of homes owned by poor households was $86,600 in 2001 or 70 percent of the median value of all homes owned in the United States. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own microwaves; Poor households are well-equipped with modern entertainment technology. It should come as no surprise that nearly all (97 percent) poor households have color TVs, but more than half actually own two or more color televisions. One-quarter own large-screen televisions, 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player, and almost two-thirds have cable or satellite TV reception. More than a third have telephone answering machines, while a quarter have personal computers. While these numbers do not suggest lives of luxury, they are notably different from conventional images of poverty. Housing Conditions A similar disparity between popular conceptions and reality applies to the housing conditions of the poor. Most poor Americans live in houses or apartments that are relatively spacious and in good repair. As Chart 1 shows, 54 percent of poor households live in single-family homes, either unattached single dwellings or attached units such as townhouses. Department of Energy shows that Americans have an average of 721 square feet of living space per person. This survey showed the United States to have by far the most spacious housing units, with 50 percent to 100 percent more square footage per capita than city dwellers in other industrialized nations. The average poor American has more square footage of living space than does the average person living in London, Paris, Vienna, and Munich. Poor Americans have nearly three times the living space of average urban citizens in middle-income countries such as Mexico and Turkey. Poor American households have seven times more housing space per person than the general urban population of very-low-income countries such as India and China. To assess the validity of this argument, Table 4 presents national housing data for 15 West European countries. These data represent the entire national housing stock in each of the 15 countries. In general, the national data on housing size are similar to the data on specific European cities presented in Table 3 and Appendix Table A. The housing of poor Americans (with an average of 1,228 square feet per unit) is smaller than that of the average American but larger than that of the average European (who has 976 square feet per unit). Overall, poor Americans have an average of 439 square feet of living space per person, which is as much as or more than the average citizen in most West European countries. However, data from the American Housing Survey indicate that such is not the case. The most common "severe problem," according to the American Housing Survey, is a shared bathroom, which occurs when occupants lack a bathroom and must share bathroom facilities with individuals in a neighboring unit. However, the problems affecting these units are clearly modest. While living in such units might be disagreeable by modern middle...
Cache (171 bytes) ->
Entertainment Centers Styles and sizes for every home and television. Medicare Recipients Enroll today to save on prescriptions with Medicare-approved drug discount cards.
Cache (171 bytes) ->
Entertainment Centers Styles and sizes for every home and television. Medicare Recipients Enroll today to save on prescriptions with Medicare-approved drug discount cards.