Out Like a Lamb

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

This a very long article and I hope my link works this time.
Link

snip

An organization called the Washington D.C. Year 2000 Group sent a questionnaire to 700 email addresses of people who had indicated an interest in Y2K. The survey asked for an estimate of the impact of Y2K within the U.S., on an escalating scale of zero to 10. The survey revealed that an "overwhelming majority of the respondents believe that the United States will experience a significant economic impact from the Year 2000 issue," and that "one-third (34 percent) believe it will at the least result in a strong recession, local social disruptions, and many business bankruptcies." A significant number even believed that Y2K would result in "martial law, the collapse of U.S. government and possible famine." Once again, it's a dire prediction that seems credible-unless you know something about market research. The Year 2000 Group study employed a research methodology known as a "self-selected listener opinion poll"-SLOPs for short. It's a methodology that nobody who does real market research takes seriously. The classic example of a SLOP is the typical mail-in magazine survey. For example, a women's magazine might have a mail-in survey entitled "Have you ever been cheated on?" asking readers to mail in responses. Most responses are naturally going to be from the scorned, because they're the ones likely to care. In the next issue, the magazine publishes the results, which indicate (not surprisingly) that the country is experiencing an epidemic of cheating boyfriends. It sells magazines, but the research is meaningless. In order to have statistical validity, the poll would need to include a broad cross-section of women, none of whom had previously indicated an interest in the issue. The Washington D.C. Year 2000 Group SLOP is even less scientific than the magazine example. Because the email addresses were from a list of those who had indicated an interest in Y2K, the baseline was pre-selected to favor those who thought Y2K important. Not only that, of 700 surveys, only 230 came back-presumably from people who cared most- thereby creating an additional level of self-selection. By contrast, the Addison Whitney survey cited earlier in this article simply included Y2K questions in the context of a broader survey, rendering results that are a statistically valid representation of the IT community.

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), August 02, 1999

Answers

Tremendous article. Interesting that you should point out this little snippet of the article when the tone seemed to me to be that statistics are not able to be proven and that experts predicting catastrophe have a vested interest in all of this. Somewhere in the article, the author talks about 'gathering evidence that things won't be as bad as originally thought'. I am wondering why you omitted this.

I am necessarily an optimist in life. I hope and pray for the best. However, I will not subscribe to a camp mentality in this mess. This article drives home the point that there are people on both sides of the issue with agendas to push and money to make. When it's all said and done, y2k will no doubt remind me that the late 90's provided one helluva opportunity for people to get rich off of a real computer glitch.

Thanks for the article. It only reinforces my claim that this is the era of the new carpetbagger.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), August 02, 1999.

ROTFLMAO! Read the article--carefully. The irony is that in an article about how those who sell Y2K services and products use unscientific polling techniques to make their points, the author of the article makes a similar kind of error himself. Notice this quote which seems to imply that either the world's financial system is already compliant or that it would work even if it wasn't compliant:

http://www.marketingcomputers.com/issue/aug99/feature2.asp

[snip]

Another popular canard is that the world's financial systems are in danger. But, once again, the reality seems quite different. As early as summer of last year, Y2K tests of 29 securities firms and 12 exchanges went smoothly, according John Panchevy, Year 2000 project manager for the Securities Industry Association, the organization that conducted the test. "The financial industry in the United States will be fine," he says.

But what about overseas where, according to alarmists, they're far behind? Not a problem, according to tests of 190 international banks conducted in mid-June. "Everything has gone very well for us so far," according to Gerhard Singer, a vp of Deutsche Bank quoted in the June 14 edition of The South China Morning Post.

[snip]

I know from this link...

http://cnn.com/TECH/computing/9907/22/bank.y2k.idg/index.html

...that there is still work to be done to get financial systems ready internationally. The author of "Out Like a Lamb" is assuming that the tests he mentions are representitive of the international situation, when in fact there is still work to be done--unless of course financial systems would work OK even without Y2K remediation.

There's a moral here somewhere. Those who sell Y2K services and products have a vested interest, and so do corporations and financial institutions whose financial success depends on the confidence of stock holders and depositors.

Don't trust any one source of information about Y2K. Read widely, read carefully and then slowly come to your own assessment of how risk adverse you are.

On the other hand...individuals and families being ready for emergencies is always a good idea:

http://www.fema.gov/library/emfdwtr.htm

"Emergency Food and Water Supplies"

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), August 02, 1999.

Hey, Bad Dog....would you be so kind as to enlighten as to how I can get rich off of Y2k? so far this family has spent about $20,000 in preps. I sure would like that "opportunity to get rich" that you talk of. Maybe I can recoup some of the cash we have spent. Thanks.

-- Hannah (Hannah@Colonial America.com), August 02, 1999.
I think the money that was to be made on Y2k was made mostly in 97 and 98. A lot of IT firms that were getting (or trying to get) Y2k work have already started to move on. Seems like e-commerce is all the rage now. Y2k projects are winding down, I work for a major paper/forest products company, and there are people starting to rotate off the Y2k project here.

-- JT (missed@theboat.org), August 02, 1999.
Bad Dog? Ruff. Ruff. Um.....Hannah, your points are well taken and I am in awe of your preparations. They make my miniscule, 2 months of food and water seem extremely petty and well, useless.

I don't think I was intimating that the y2k scenario presented everyone with an opportunity to get rich off of misfortune. No, the unwashed masses are the ones that have to pay the piper, but in the article, I certainly got the feeling that a lot of computer geniuses have moved on to selling other products since remediation is being done and since the profit margin isn't that great. Linkmeister points out that corporate heads are also moving on---literally and in many cases, in a p.r. sense---to further their profits and maintain confidence in their products and/or services.

With all of this in mind, one must wonder how much angst has been spread to spur sales, whether it is in the preparations sector that you have bought into or into remediation packages and IT services that corporations have bought into. I harken back to Dennis' '25 methods' post of late last week and chuckle here. It seems that all sides of the y2k issue have made their bucks, and some are still making some money. Others sense the well has run dry.

I am hopeful that should y2k actually be the bump in the road it well may be, that you exact some comeuppance on those that been the purveyors of anxiety. I believe Linkmeisters words in that I have read every possible y2k piece of info for two years now. I have learned to come to my own conclusion and respectfully listen to the words of others...and then....to glean my own connotations. IMHO, and above all else, this has been a golden opportunity to make money, regardless of which side of the fence one is on.

With that in mind, I'll stay in the middle, ignoring emotion-riddled messages and news that eminates from agenda-laden sources.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), August 02, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ