Xref: utzoo comp.misc:1933 misc.headlines:2395 misc.jobs.misc:1296 talk.rumors:1067
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!roger_warren_tang
From: roger_warren_tang@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.misc,misc.headlines,misc.jobs.misc,talk.rumors
Subject: Re: Doom and Gloom, Reply to Kurt Guntheroth
Message-ID: <3244@cup.portal.com>
Date: 15 Feb 88 08:44:28 GMT
References: <1177@polyslo.UUCP> <2843@fluke.COM> <1223@polyslo.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 22
XPortal-User-Id: 1.1001.3405



    No flames, but where are you getting your figures?  Specifically, the figur
of 60 million in the work force with access to computers?  The civilian work
force is, I believe, well over 100 million and inching toward 110 million.
This does not include military or younger students; both of these groups
may relrfect substantial need for computers, both at home and at school/militat
With these figures in mind, I'm curious as to why you feel only 55% or so
of the work force would have access to a computer.  Do you have any hard data
on what occupations definitely do not have access to computers of any type?
 
   This is a separate issue from your assumed ratio of 1:3 to obtain 20 million
units.  As best as I can figure, your ratio of NEEDED PCs is still guesswork.
The evidence you give seems more related to the ratio of computer contact.
Can you give a source?
 
      All I can give you is anecdotal evidence for your ration of NEEDED PCs;
the rations I've come across are 1:3 at the worst (this was in a state   
government office who was in the process of ordering more PCs); most other
offices I've been in, the ration was 1:2 or 1:1.  This evidence doesn't mean a
whole lot, of course; anything here on the net is biased toward PC-using biz.
 
   Still, there is a lot of slop in your figures that I reallwhere it's cominum