Intersting lurking here. I've noticed that given a person's viewpoint on Y2k, there are some implicit assumption here:

Pollys

Believe that it is in a businesses own best interest to fix Y2k. Assumption here is that companies have a realization of Y2k impact and realize the problem. Companies also are assumed to be an "ongoing concern", meaning: They'd like to be in business after 2000.

Realizing this, companies will try to remediate the situation as best they can.

Companies are also litigation conscious. Although they may be tight-lipped on specifics, they are still working to solve the problem. Because: see above.

Also implicit in this is the recognition that not all humans are truthful, there are liars out there, but they are not the majority.

Because of the ongoing concern assumption, companies don't need to hear from the government to begin remediation work.

GI's

Believe that companies are ignoring the problem, or else they would be upfront.

Companies are not aware of the problem, or management is ignoring the problem.

Companies do not wish to invest the money to fix the problem.

Believe that the systems involved are too complex and that a small problem can snowball into a larger problem quickly.

Anyone have other assumptions that are behind their arguments?

BTW, this isn't an invitation for flaming. Just post what your underlying assumptions are.

-- JAW (clueless@pollyanna.com), July 01, 1999

Answers

I do have one assumption, maybe wrong:

Some small businessed will intentionaly sabatoge their own Y2K efforts because they stand to collect large amounts of money from lawsuits if the can find some way to pass the buck, point the finger and lay the blame.

I guess it depends on how the Y2K Litigation Bill works out in Congress. Maybe the passage of the Bill itself will prompt some small businesses to give up that idea and start remediation, which at this tage of the game would be way too late.

Greybear... Got Insurance Fraud?

-- (AtlantaAS@aol.com), July 01, 1999.

Not "*A* small problem....", but THOUSANDS of "small problems".

Personally, I feel that "a failure here... a failure there...." doesn't mean SQUAT. What matters is that by the time these failure COMBINE in the supply chain, you end up with a MAJOR disruption. A FEW major disruptions, and you get TEOTWAWKI (or some variant thereof).

It's really not possible (again IMO) to "sound bite" the Y2K mess. Only the IN DEPTH analysis (on EITHER SIDE) is meaningful.

Sorry to burst your bubble...

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), July 01, 1999.

Pollys Expect that companies can fix on failure, order needed parts or programming; that the parts and/or programmers will actually show up and they'll have their system back up within 72-hours

GIs Assume that companies expect they can fix on failure, order needed parts or programming; that the parts and/or programmers will actually show up and they'll have their system back up within 72-hours

-- Dancr (minddancr@aol.com), July 01, 1999.

Because Y2K is so widespread and it involves so many organizations and a very significant number of people to fix it, I find that one's general view of humanity has a profound effect on how one views Y2K.

Pollys seem to hold to the optimistic view of human abilities. They see a world in which people generally meet and overcome their problems. They trust others to do their jobs well enough for us all to get by. They see how well everything works in the USA and other industrialized countries and base their point of view on that. If I had to guess, I'd say that Pollys tend to watch Star Trek and think that the super-competance normally shown by the characters is only a slightly-idealized portrayal of human capability.

The more gloomy of the GIs seem to hold a dark view of human abilities (not necessarily of their own abilities, but that of others). They see a world in which the simplest jobs get screwed up, in which malice or stupidity exerts a malign influence over most human interactions. They think it is a sheer miracle that society works at all, and when it does work it works mainly for the enrichment of the powerful. They often see force as the final arbiter in all disputes, and choose to be better armed than any potential foe. They are a wary lot.

The middle-of-the-roaders, such as Flint or Decker, seem to take a more rationalist and detached view of human abilities. They see a wide spectrum of possibilities at all times and have a hard time excluding any. They work on a more probablistic model of the world and project a bell-curve and normal-distribution point of view on the world as a matter of habit. Anything could happen, they say, but what usually happens is in the middle of the bellcurve.

Just my own observations. Comments?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 01, 1999.

Well, I'll take a swing at this.

"Pollies" seem to think that everything will go fine unless there is a verifiable reason for a problem (preferably a "single point", perhaps?). They trust the machinery.

"Doomers" BELIEVE in Murphy's Law. Things go wrong for no apparent reason, even in spite of your best efforts sometimes (often??). They do not trust the machinery to work perfectly or even well all of the time.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), July 01, 1999.

I think a common assumption by optimists is that having or not having electricity is the only big problem a person preparing for Y2K would be concerned about. Since the optimists feel that electricity will not be a problem, they see life in 2000 as being very similar to the way it is in mid-1999. Major problems would only last a long as electricity is out, and they don't see that happening.

Those making contingency plans for their families, however, see the possibility of a variety of problems occuring that could last widely differing lengths of time. Supply chain problems could last longer than utility problems, and high unemployment could last longer than supply chain problems--especially if Y2K concerns impact the stock market.

Y2K is about a lot more than just whether or not we'll have electricity next year. Imagine for a moment a town that loses electricity for only three days. But then also imagine this same town not having drinkable water for three weeks, having food and gasoline shortages for three months, and the area having a high unemployment rate for three years.

These aren't predictions. I'm just saying there's a whole range unpleasant possibilities of varying durations that fall short of a collapse of society.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 01, 1999.

"Y2K is about a lot more than just whether or not we'll have electricity next year. Imagine for a moment a town that loses electricity for only three days. But then also imagine this same town not having drinkable water for three weeks, having food and gasoline shortages for three months, and the area having a high unemployment rate for three years."

Echoes a personal experience of mine. In spring 1997 Grand Forks North Dakota had a 500 year flood. Most of the city of 50,000 lost power, natural gas, water, and sewer service for at least 3 weeks. Most people left town to stay with firends. Some areas were without services for twice that long. My family was evacuated from our home for 3 weeks. I am also a computer programmer and bank director and am preparing for the scenario above. Maybe it won't be that bad, but I am doing everything I can not to repeat what remains all too fresh in my mind.

Of course, we were able to recover with the help from thousands of people from all over the country. What if everyone has their "500 year flood" at the same time?

-- Been There (Done.That@GetReady.com), July 01, 1999.

I find a lot of folks making the assumption that it will be equally bad all over. I rather expect a few bad 'pockets', while things go on pretty much as always for most everyone else. Call that an assumption, if you will.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), July 01, 1999.

I expect all of the cases JAW has listed are occurring, across the spectrum from "Duh?" to ganz kaput, across the country from Portland to Portland,from El Paso to Portal. Lots of systems will work. Some may have problems. Some of the problems may be serious. Some of these may be hard to remedy. It's hard to imagine an uneventful outcome.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 02, 1999.

Ah, Brian. Wonderful post. Just what I was looking for.

Interesting how people's worldview and outlook on life can affect thier interpretations of things.

I'll bet that one could almost profile a lot of the regulars here politically, as well as personally, based on their postings.

Anyone want to take on religion as well?

Nah...don't do that.

An interesting study in human behavior and thought, lurking here, believe it or not.

-- JAW (clueless@pollyanna.com), July 02, 1999.

A lot of people see m to assume that whatever goes wrong will go wrong suddenly on Jan 1.

Embedded systems problems will happen then, but other problems may take weeks to become apparent. Even when the software fails on the rollover, people will try to workaround the problem, and may may suceed for a while.

-- (y2kbiker@worldnet.att.net), July 02, 1999.

I would guess that most of the people posting to this and other Y2K sites are, 1)Americans, or at least from English-speaking countries; 2) "middle-class", in the fairly inclusive way most Americans understand that term; 3)people born after 1945, or who at least reached adulthood after 1945. That means they have a fairly narrow range of experiences, by world historical standards, by which to judge this issue. I can't find much here to give me a clue to how this is perceived in, say, Egypt or Japan.

-- Paul DiMaria (p_dimaria@hotmail.com), July 02, 1999.

Look folks,

It's really very easy. A polly, as applies to this board, is someone who really isn't "con" y2k, heck they may even be GIs. They just love to throw out comments and see who takes the bait and all the hub-bub it causes. A lot of GIs are so firm, unmoving and just down right touchy about their convictions, that they see any comment that does not agree with them as a personel afront. SOME will reply in very harsh and indignant terms. This and THIS ALONE is why pollys post. They sit back and laugh their keyboards off.

They are just fishing and some of us take the bait like a big sun raised bugle mouthed bass (carp). Got a net?

-- sigmund (cigar@justacigar.com), July 02, 1999.

Sigmund: take me bass-fishing and I'll mudwrestle for you????

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), July 02, 1999.

sigmond,

I won't disagree with you about why some people post. But I think it is also fair to same the same for some GI's.

Those people like Flint et.al. whom most GI might consider Pollys, actually do prepare, but you will see a common thread of challenging assumptions and asking details.

But that in and of itself should not be construed as a personal attack. One should be able to back up one's arguments and statements.

But sometimes it's fun to call somebody a hamster humper and see the fur fly!

-- JAW (clueless@pollyanna.com), July 02, 1999.

JAW - Fair enough.

Lisa - I may bite, got worms? Fish fear my name.

-- sigmund (around@thebend.com), July 02, 1999.