Replies

If you look at the mainframe IT industry, getting rid of most of them would help.

"Would help" what? Drive the businesses they serve into bankruptcy? It may surprise you, especially if you've never spent a day on a mainframe, but the vast majority of code running banks, insurance companies, retailers, industry, and commerce is legacy mainframe code. It's stuff that was written 30 or 40 years ago, has undergone dozens of iterations, and has had virtually every bug exorcised over decades of use. Businesses have literally billions of dollars invested in their legacy systems. Mainframes are here to stay, Junior.

They still refuse to use technology.

If by that you mean they hesitate to jump on the most recent Golden Cure du jour, you're right. Adopting one unproven or trendy technology after another costs money -- huge money. When that technology fails, as it often does, businesses cannot service their clients any more. So they go broke. They lose their reputation in their industry. They are blackballed, excluded, and their contracts don't get renewed. Management knows that IT is not an end in itself, and that their IT staff are not hobbyists playing with the newest toy. If there's no business justification for adopting new technology, they rightly refuse to do so.

They use software from the 60’s and 70’s

Because it is bought and paid for. And it works.

and use every scare tactics in the book to keep their companies there and not getting any 21st century technology.

Tech gratia technis. Technology for technology's sake.

They don’t want to do the work and then blame their fellow employees by saying they are too stupid to learn.

A statement too stupid to even comment on.

You're right, looking into older corporations....the IT infrastructure where the money is made - the real dollars change hands (procurement, logistics, etc) are generally run on the old line mainframes.

The newer, trendy stuff is on the servers. Until it becomes a solid part of the company....after 10 years or so and all of the bugs are worked out of it.

I worked in textiles. The cutting machines were almost all on DOS-based PCs. One, because it was proven mature technology and Two, because it worked. Period.

“Because it is bought and paid for. And it works.”

So is windows so why then do they use 1960’s green screens. Every study done shows a GUI interface increases productivity by 25-27% so this guys cripple their own companies.

No one is talking about bleeding edge put into production but most technology 10-15 years old won’t get used while they won’t uses cars from that era.

I have been in too many meetings where they say the training costs far “out-weigh the cost benefits”

Get on IBM-Main you can read it there - they will tell you themselves. So, it is there stupid comment you are critical of.