Re: AT&T Inventions Fueled Tech Boom, And Its Own Fall

Some critics blame the mgmt of AT&T and IBM for allowing the companies

> to be top-heavy. I don't agree. At the time the people were hired, > there was a need for their skills. At the time they were hired, they > still had a to support a network antiquated by today's standards.

I forgot one other important point.

Throughout the postwar history of both AT&T and IBM new technology was more efficient and reduced the number of workers needed. Yet the companies _added_ workers. Why was that?

A reason was the new technology lowered the cost of service and thus increased business level. As AT&T automated long distance and reduced its cost, customers made more calls and the net need for telephone operators actually went up. There were fewer operators per call, but so many more calls. Likewise for IBM*. New technology reduced the number of employees needed to service computers, but the lower cost enabled more people to get computers, thus producing a net gain in employees.

For both companies, technology (and business world) changes exploded the business yet employees were no longer needed to support even tremendous high volume of business. When was the last time we needed a human telephone operator? When was the last time an IBM service technician came out to fix a broken card, printer, or install new software? Those things are automated or eliminated.

*How many employees did IBM need just to test and replace vacuum tubes in its mainframe computers of the 1950s -- which continued in service well into the 1960s?
Reply to
Lisa Minter
Loading thread data ...

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.