It was mostly the continued posts from the "programmers" that caused me to go out and contact some friends, old and new, who are involved in IT in a variety of industries. In particular it was a post from a guy handled as CODER that prompted me. Many of the posters to this forum seem to follow the general line of reasoning that problems are being hidden, and that it will be the dreaded "death by a thousand cuts".

First of all, for the critics who cry, "it's just second hand knowledge", don't bother to read this. It's not second hand to me, and I really don't care about your opinion.

I spoke with two VP's, one at a large manufacturing firm in southern Cal ($30m+) and another at one of the largest in the US in their particular line of goods (I won't even guess at the volume, but much larger than the first). No problems at all at the first. The second reported one glitch in contract reporting dates, which was found and quickly corrected. An interesting note here is that both companies invested substantially in new software systems in mid-99 with an eye on getting everything in place prior to the end of 99.

I spoke with the head of billing (western US) for a nationwide DME. If anyone would have had a failure or major problem, it would have been these guys. Nothing. What's interesting here is that I originally built an EDI interface to Medicare for these guys and I tried to get them to pay me to make it Y2k compliant. They turned me down, and the friggin thing rolled over problem free.

Other miscellaneous calls/emails included a friend at an assembly plant in Mexico, suppliers in Brazil. Nothing. Two friends doing ATC in Europe, nothing. A semi-relative in Beijing at a bank. Nothing. And too many network admins to count - nothing. And on a personal level I have local friends whose computer support problems end up being mine, and again - nothing. Not a single error other than the typical.

Funny how the typical everyday PC problems are posted here as Y2k errors. It just goes to show that when the rest of the world gets their people a little better trained, there's a lot of people in the US who are going to be out of jobs.

So how do you explain all the people posting here, with all of this programming experience, claiming the end is certain? That Y2k is still a threat?

I loved a previous post, where somebody claimed that they were an expert because "they could sling COBOL". This particular "skill" was held up with the arrogance so often associated programmers. Which made me think.

Basically there are two kinds of people involved in this discussion. Decision makers and drones. The drones are sitting in a cubicle somewhere doing there assigned tasks, faced with fixing problem "A" which is probably boring and redundant. Do they really understand ROI's, supply chains etc? Maybe, but more likely they know how to "sling COBOL". Mostly they know what their boss tells them.

So lets take a look at those decision makers. The ones I know apparently made good decisions. The ones posting here with problems did not. Maybe they chose their path from lack of foresite, or for job security, or whatever, but they're stuck now. All I can say is that if you are in a company which is having Y2k problems, either you, or your boss, was an idiot. Sorry if that's harsh, I'm not here to hold your hand and sell you a book.

As far as Y2k weaknesses in companies causing stock market problems, be real. Those companies (with luck) may be in direct competition with someone I know, or if not then with someone else who was much smarter in their planning. And if it's bad enough they will simply be eaten. Their loss - our gain.

Just a general statement on the stock market, I personally find it too overvalued in general, I'm more of a real estate person. I don't even gamble when I go to Vegas.

As I have said before the interesting side of Y2k was the pseudo-religio aspect. I am a Christian, but the common US form of that religion sometimes bears little resemblance to what Christ was about anyway. One thing Y2k has shown (and it's a repeat lesson) is that it's never a good idea to mix religous zealots with public policy, business decisions or anything else requiring common sense. Something to keep in mind in November.

To those who accuse me of gloating. Absolutely. I came here specifically to gloat. After months of trying to explain to people how and why their misperceptions of the Y2k problem were overblown if not outright wrong, and having those same, thick headed, stubborn, misinformed fools ignore the facts - well it feels good to gloat. I enjoy it.

Continuing in this forum is like beating a dead horse. When the stock market does take a beating, even if it's two years from now, there undoubtedly be someone beating away on his crusty old keyboard about how it's all because of Y2k. Either you have figured it out by now, or it's a hopeless cause. As for me I intend to spend more time debating the real dangers to the economy (such as a Republican president or majority in Congress - gotta love the tax break/debt mentality) and other, more productive endeavors.

Which is also how I answer those critics of the "latecomers". I have been here and on other forums over the last year, but I could not, nor ever desired, to make it the crux of my existence.

-- jag (get@clue.net), January 12, 2000

Answers

jag, you are in denial. More and more problems are cropping up all the time, and they are becoming harder to fix. Soon they will be impossible and no amount of pathetic sniveling denial will make it go away.

-- (mitch@fergor.net), January 12, 2000.

Although I must agree with you on the Y2K issue as you have said it above, I have to ask, what could be bad for the economy about a GOP majority in Congress (which we have now) or a GOP president (which we had in the '80's)?

Obviously, economic times have been quite good in the last 20 years (barring, of course, a few months in 1987 on the stock market). Unemployment rates, inflation rates, and interest rates have all seen a steady decline since Reagan's inauguration. Real estate has seen better days in the last 20 years everywhere but L.A and Texas.

What, exactly, are you referring to in this arena?

-- Three Dots (three_dots@work.now), January 12, 2000.

Jag: Thanks for the post, even if you are gloating. I for one, have come here seeking objective information. I am not in IT field and it has been a real challenge to weigh one "expert" against another to try to sort out the "truth." Obviously, the government and industry were fall closer to the truth than many of the so-called "experts" in the y2k "doomer" field. Your post is reassuring to me and confirms what I have suspected for the last week -- that it is time to forget this, put it behind us and move on to other more productive goals.

I do not, however, regret the preparations I made or the concern I felt. There was enough concern expressed by the CIA, the Senate committee, the Fed. government and the State governments to warrant reasonable precautions.

Those that ran up credit card debt, spent thousands of dollars in solar energy or moved across the country to safer locations will have to answer their own questions about if they can live with their preparations. I spent a couple of thousand dollars on food, a well, a garden, a propane stove and some cool camping equipment. I can live with it and I am really ready for hurricane season!

Thanks again. Enjoy your gloat! (smile)

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 12, 2000.

Sorry Mitch! but I'm afraid I must disagree with you. Jag carefully researched the issue and contact people who should know. You are the one who is in denial. There may be more problems with y2k, but it is pretty clear at this point that any problems can be fixed as they arise. Gary North said this, Russ Kelly said this.

I know that you and many others in this forum disparately want the system to crash and civilization to fail. Evidently you are unhappy with life. The system may crash someday but not from y2k. It is over. Go give somebody a hug and try to think positive.

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 12, 2000.

Three Dots,

Sorry, I shouldn't have thrown that in. It's just my personal thing with national debt, I'd like to get rid of it.

-- jag (get@clue.net), January 12, 2000.

Hey Jag sure appreciate your ( Hindsight is clear as a bell attitude ). For what it's worth there was just a handfull of staunch polly position posters before and you weren't one of them. At least not to the point of gloating now. That doesnt mean you haven't agreed with them to some degree Do us all a favor, go out on a limb state your case and let the dice roll. If your correct come and remind us later not after the apparent fact as you have

-- kevin (innxxs@yahoo.com), January 12, 2000.

i am a christian and very happy to hear your news on the y2k front. i was pretty concerned about the potential outcome and feel that the actual outcome is somewhat of a miracle--considering how most software projects require a small miracle in order to even come out robust and bug free.

however, i am puzzled by a few things and that is 1)that christians who are "zealots" and mix their enthusiasm into public policy are somehow in error and 2) that you call yourself a christian and yet you "gloat".

my perspective on christ is that even though he was humble, he was a zealot (about a limited set of issues) who mixed his faith in with his "public policy". he was primarily about his father's business but he was a kind of "in your face guy" who confronted wrongs and wrong attitudes where he saw them and was not afraid to speak the truth though it be politically incorrect.

you tell me--who is going to speak up for some of the hideous evils that are being perpetrated in this country (killing babies/selling their body parts, countries being forced into our version of "family planning" in order to get financial assistance, massive human rights violations in countries, abuse of our own most vulnerable citizens through govt-spoonsored gambling, forcing genetically engineered seeds on third world countries--to name a few)? who? maybe if more christians had been "zealots" who dared mix politics with their faith during the rule of hitler, there would have been fewer of our jewish friends slaughtered.

secondly, i have never yet seen any kind of scriptural rationale for "gloating" -- most of scripture admonishes against a haughty attitude.

i would love it if you (who is pretty intelligent and well reasoned) would turn that energy of yours into more worthy pursuits than rubbing peoples faces in what you perceive to be "errors".

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), January 12, 2000.

I know that you and many others in this forum disparately want the system to crash and civilization to fail. Evidently you are unhappy with life. The system may crash someday but not from y2k. It is over.

Then why are you still here?

-- (mitch@fergor.net), January 12, 2000.

Consider that Jag looked at one sector of the potential problem. He is the the proverbial blind man feeling the trunk of the elephant and declaring the nature of the animal.

Did he look at shipping? Oil? Manufacturing? Mainframes? Was his vision circumscribed by an office world common in mini-industrial parks?

-- anon (anon@anon.calm), January 12, 2000.

(killing babies/selling their body parts, countries being forced into our version of "family planning" in order to get financial assistance

The silly business about withholding the UN dues because of the conservative position on abortion was a great example of what I meant. Thanks.

forcing genetically engineered seeds on third world countries--to name a few)?

As I said, religion and public policy is a poor mix.

-- jag (get@clue.net), January 12, 2000.

Good point, anon. He fails to see the "big picture." Typical DGI.

-- (mitch@fergor.net), January 12, 2000.

jag,

You are a consultant with many of these companies you talked to and many were just friends and people you know. Even though you know these people you are not an employee, therefore, an outsider. Y2K is a sensitive area with most companies and I feel that most companies won't disclose sensitive information about Y2K problems at this time.

I agree with you that the budget surpluses should be used to payoff the national debt, but why do you think the Democrats are more likely to do that than the Republicans?

-- ds (ds@deepsouth.com), January 12, 2000.

your positions belies your true faith.

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), January 12, 2000.

Hi Mitch. Good question. I am probably addicted. However, I was and am concerned about y2k. I want to see how it plays out in terms of foreign banks, main frames and what Dale Way calls "Accounting and Administrative" software. I do not think that any problems that will arise will threaten our infrastructure or civilization. I think it is clear that the danger of collapse is past, if it every even existed in the first place.

I do think there is still a possiblity of an "economic downturn" or recession, although I am begining to doubt even that. I will probably hang around here until the first part of Feb. and then leave if only minor glitches and problems continue to be reported.

I'm sorry if I came across as being sarcastic with you. I do believe that there are "doomers" who are in denial and are hoping for a crash or major disaster because a) they are unhappy with life, b) they hate the system or c) they want to be proven right and cannot accept the fact that they were wrong.

I prepared along with the best of them. I convinced a lot of other people to prepare. I have no regrets and given the same information and circumstances would probably do the same thing again. However, I have learned not to ignore voices of reason who contradict the voices of doom. I have learned not to be "selective" in listening only to the "experts" that tend to confirm my own Worldview.

By-the-way, Jag, I will vote Republican in November!

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 12, 2000.

Typical DGI's can read. It's obvious from your response that you did not. Perhaps you should review the post again.

-- jag (get@clue.net), January 12, 2000.

Jose,

That's not the worst news today ;-) I have to get back to work. Good luck.

-- jag (get@clue.net), January 12, 2000.

Deep South,

I have gotten far more sensitive information than this from the three biggest companies. They haven't had any problems. In fact, for the two manufacturers, raw material costs have dropped in the last week (petroleum pricing). Shipping is done 7 days a week. There are simply no problems with any of these guys, big or small.

The debt rational revolves around the tax cut issue. I try not to ask for a pay cut when I owe on my bills, it's bad financial planning. Kind of OT and I shouldn't have thrown it in.

-- jag (get@clue.net), January 12, 2000.

jag
I call you to task on your comment, "that it's never a good idea to mix religous(sic) zealots with public policy, business decisions or anything else requiring common sense." Brother, (if I am correct in calling you that), you have either missed the boat BIG time on Christianity, or perhaps you are a troll. You don't want Republicans in government, but you would rather have pro abortion Democrats? If you are not a troll, maybe you will see the error in your line of reasoning about Christians and politics.

-- J (Y2J@home.com), January 12, 2000.

jag writes:

As I have said before the interesting side of Y2k was the pseudo-religio aspect. I am a Christian, but the common US form of that religion sometimes bears little resemblance to what Christ was about anyway.

Well, we sure ain't sailing on the Mayflower and the Arabella these days.

One thing Y2k has shown (and it's a repeat lesson) is that it's never a good idea to mix religous zealots with public policy, business decisions or anything else requiring common sense. Something to keep in mind in November.

So what, jag, Christ was about supporting dismemberment of the living in utero, like the formal policy of that political party you not-so-subtly pledge mindless allegiance to in your post? Methinks we have a general societal problem these days with the abandonment of classical liberalism, the banner of which was "liberty accompanied by responsibility," and the substitution of a hybrid "liberty degenerated into license."

Not to preach on a techie board, mind you, but I know jetsam and flotsam when I see it.

Hopefully, Y2K will indeed be of zero effect and impact.

-- Harbor Guy (HarborGuy@OnThe.Waterfront), January 12, 2000.

"First of all, for the critics who cry, "it's just second hand knowledge", don't bother to read this. It's not second hand to me, and I really don't care about your opinion."

If you want to start out with a chip on your shoulder, then ....

It's secondhand. And I really don't care about your opinion either.

-- Reality Check (Go@back.to.sleep.jag), January 12, 2000.

jag,

Since I started your quest, let me respond to your post. First of all, what I posted earlier was a list of Y2K bugs my company is/was experiencing. As one who expected problems to happen on Jan. 1st, I found it hard to believe that things went as smoothly as they did. Then, when I get to work on the 3rd, we start running up against multiple problems with our system. Since this company isn't terribly different from other companies I've worked at, I made the assumption that others are facing the same types of problems. It is quite possible (probable, knowing my track record on assumptions) that I am wrong.

Now, some specific responses to your post:

I spoke with two VP's, one at a large manufacturing firm in southern Cal ($30m+) and another at one of the largest in the US in their particular line of goods (I won't even guess at the volume, but much larger than the first). No problems at all at the first. The second reported one glitch in contract reporting dates, which was found and quickly corrected. An interesting note here is that both companies invested substantially in new software systems in mid-99 with an eye on getting everything in place prior to the end of 99.

Not to quibble, but we do about $20m+, and are certainly not large. I would be curious to know the programming staff sizes of the various companies you mention. Also, my company has software that was developed in house and modified over the last 15+ years. I would doubt that a company that just installed software within the last year or two would be in the same boat we are. Years of modification and hard coding are the causes of many of our problems. Another note is that you spoke to VP's. If you ask mine, you will get a similar answer about maybe 1 or 2 glitches. Believe it or not, we don't give him a daily report of all the problems we fix on a daily basis. This is mainly because we were usually the cause of the problems.

Basically there are two kinds of people involved in this discussion. Decision makers and drones. The drones are sitting in a cubicle somewhere doing there assigned tasks, faced with fixing problem "A" which is probably boring and redundant. Do they really understand ROI's, supply chains etc? Maybe, but more likely they know how to "sling COBOL". Mostly they know what their boss tells them.

I would tend to think that the "drones" you speak of above exist mostly in large programming houses. In smaller shops the programmers are also analysts, database administrators, network engineers, and hardware technicians. To properly do my job, I have to understand not only how to write code, but also how each job function (AP, AR, Billing, Order Entry, Inventory Control, etc.) is performed. And, on top of that, I have to know how each piece impacts the rest of the system. If you want to really know how a company works, talk to the analysts. They usually have the best view of the big picture.

So lets take a look at those decision makers. The ones I know apparently made good decisions. The ones posting here with problems did not. Maybe they chose their path from lack of foresite, or for job security, or whatever, but they're stuck now. All I can say is that if you are in a company which is having Y2k problems, either you, or your boss, was an idiot. Sorry if that's harsh, I'm not here to hold your hand and sell you a book.

Probably the best decision they made was in picking which drones they hired. In just about any business, you can trace most brilliant high- level decisions back to a suggestion or proposal made by a drone. Do you really think the VP's you mentioned above were the driving force behind buying new software? Many of the VP's at companies I worked for don't even have a computer on their desk. I would agree that many Y2K problems (if there actually were any besides mine) came about from poor decision making. But usually not on the part of the IT people. Yes, we've made some poor design and coding choices over the years. But we only recommend software and system upgrades and changes. It is the big boys who sign the checks.

As I have said before the interesting side of Y2k was the pseudo- religio aspect. I am a Christian, but the common US form of that religion sometimes bears little resemblance to what Christ was about anyway. One thing Y2k has shown (and it's a repeat lesson) is that it's never a good idea to mix religous zealots with public policy, business decisions or anything else requiring common sense. Something to keep in mind in November.

I am a Christian as well - grace and peace to you. It was my professional experience that made me first think about the potential problems that Y2K could cause. But as I prayed about what steps I should take, and discussed it with other Christians, it was a "spiritual uneasiness" that helped dictate my level of preparations. I was surprised by how many Christians I met who felt like "something was coming". What I tried to do was align my lifestyle with biblical principals. Get out of debt (not there yet but working at it), reduce my reliance on the system and increase my reliance on God. Was the "something coming" Y2K? Apparently not. But my nagging feeling hasn't gone away yet, either. As for this coming November, I would find it hard to believe that a Christian would want to ignore a candidate's religious aspects when choosing a leader. Personally, I would feel much better if I knew it was the President on his knees in the oval office (praying, that is) rather than an intern.

To those who accuse me of gloating. Absolutely. I came here specifically to gloat. After months of trying to explain to people how and why their misperceptions of the Y2k problem were overblown if not outright wrong, and having those same, thick headed, stubborn, misinformed fools ignore the facts - well it feels good to gloat. I enjoy it.

I guess I would rather have you gloating because I was wrong than have me sorry because I was right. For the life of me, I still can't understand why nothing major happened from Y2K. I guess I am too thick headed and stubborn. But I'm not still hanging around this forum because I'm expecting Y2K to suddenly jump and end the world. I'm here because there are posters here who are in key places in industry and society and who have a unique and valuable perspective on what is happening around the world. Like I said before, I still think something is coming. I just hope that too many people aren't so caught up in gloating that they don't see it coming.

As for me I intend to spend more time debating the real dangers to the economy (such as a Republican president or majority in Congress - gotta love the tax break/debt mentality) and other, more productive endeavors.

I agree with you about our national problems with debt. However, I tend to see over spending rather than letting the taxpayers keep too much as the cause. Either way, we are in a huge financial hole of our own digging. But as daunting as that is, I am more concerned with our country's current moral deficit. As Billy Graham (or was it his wife?) said (paraphrased) "If God doesn't judge America, then He owes Sodom an apology".

Thanks, jag, for taking the time to query your sources. Your results seem to be overwhelmingly the most common. And I, for one, am hoping that things stay that way.

God bless,

Coder

-- Coder (Coder@Work.Now), January 12, 2000.

"Obviously, economic times have been quite good in the last 20 years (barring, of course, a few months in 1987 on the stock market). Unemployment rates, inflation rates, and interest rates have all seen a steady decline since Reagan's inauguration. Real estate has seen better days in the last 20 years everywhere but L.A and Texas."

Uh-oh, now TB2000 aspires to be the New Republic or National Review. Listen: since Reagan's inauguration, there has not been any time period where there was both a Republican majority in Congress AND a Republican prez. On the other hand, Clinton had a Democratic majority for about 1/4 of his total time in office. Could be an argument for "gridlock is good", although I won't press it. I will say that the most punctuated boom has by far been on Clinton's watch.

But lest you mistake me... giving Clinton, or Congress, or ANY government entity credit for this economic boom is like saying Bud Selig (Commissioner of Baseball) deserves credit for the excitement of the McGwire-Sosa home run race. It happened on his watch, but that's about it. Thank the rise of the internet and "irrational exuberance," not Clinton, Gingrich, or any of these other folks. I voted for Clinton in '92 (sat out '96 for logistical reasons), but I get sick to my stomach every time I hear Gore (or any of my true believer Clintonite friends) say C/G deserves credit for the economy. Give me a break.

JAG, as for government debt, let's be fair... historically, Democrats have been bigger spenders (with some obvious exceptions) than GOPs. The Clinton era is an anomaly as far as Dems go (in many ways, hahaha).

Just my $.02 (I stole that tag line from another poster)...

-s-

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), January 12, 2000.

Bravo, Coder!! BRAVO!

-- Sheila (sross@bconnex.net), January 12, 2000.

Re: Repubs/Dems/budget deficits/national debt

Several years ago (near the beginning of the Clinton administration) the Wall Street Journal, that "well-known bastion of liberal thinking", published a chart and figures showing quite unmistakeably that since WW2 the federal budget deficit had climbed, on average, during the fiscal years for which Republican presidents drafted the budget, and dropped, on average, during the fiscal years for which Democratic presidents drafted the budget.

Clinton's budgets have maintained that correlation.

The reason for the WSJ's assigning the results not according to which party was in office during the fiscal year, but according to which party's President drafted the budget was to correct for effects of (a) the time lag between budget-drafting and fiscal year outcome, and (b) every first-year President's situation of not having enough time between November election and January budget submittal to make any thorough overhaul of the budget already drafted by the preceding President.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

Jag obviously is a person with a very strong point of view, even to the extent of making demeaning comments about people who disagree with him. I don't think that the information he obtained from his contacts really means very much, especially since he didn't go into any detail about what kind of software they use and how it was developed. Dale Way seems to think the greatest danger is from companies that started developing their systems in the 60's and 70's and kept adding on to them and modifying them in various ways so that no one really completely understands how the complete systems work.

I don't pretend to know what is going to happen, but nothing Jag has said has changed by thinking.

-- Dave (Dannco@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.