Don't You Know About the "Dress Rehearsal?" : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Over and over, on this site, much conjecture is posted about "what MIGHT happen, when and if....." Others ( convinced newcomers?) post their agony about not being able to persuade family, friends, etc., about the necessity of preparation. Why not take a deep breath, relax, and observe what happens on April 1? (I've posted this before on other sites, as an "answer." Maybe headlining it now as a question will get more attention, I hope!) On that day, Canada, Japan, and New York State will advance to fiscal year 2000 in their computer systems. A few days after that, we will learn, via the media, whether New York City and other places experience "disruptions" (putting it mildly) from people who do not receive their welfare checks. (Or am I conjecturing? I don't think so!)) On April 6, Great Britain's government systems advance to fiscal 2000. After just these events the first week of April, problems with convincing others will be eliminated, I believe! (Now we can start conjecturing about whether there will then be massive bank and food "runs!") Hopefully, readers, you're not waiting til then with your own preparedness! Lord help us!

-- Holly Allen (, December 03, 1998


Very cool observation. Note that many system working TODAY are already doing date work that spans into next century. That is why I rate y2k as a 2, at most. Yet I'm prepping like hell ... Crazy !


"The situation of these unfortunate exiles was in itself very painful and melancholy; but, as it usually happens, their apprehensions far exceeded their sufferings."

(E. Gibbons, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", v1)

-- Runway Cat (, December 03, 1998.

Holly, I totally agree with you. I think it will take more than a few days, or even weekds to really judge the fallout of the April rollover. But, I'm certain that by next summer it will be much clearer. Unfortunately, even if the problems are only moderate, fixing them, which will need to be done immediately, will take away resources from the "longer term" y2k problems that won't have popped up yet.

New York State, as an example, may simply choose in April to reprint March's checks, so many people won't notice at first. Etc. I have a feeling that summer '99 is going to be incredible...

-- pshannon (, December 03, 1998.

I have been told that Japan begins their '1999' fiscal year in April, not their '2000' fiscal year.... Can anyone confirm or refute this??

-- R.A. Mann (, December 03, 1998.

That's true about Japan, from what I've heard. They start their 1999 fiscal year in April 1999--not their fiscal year 2000.

-- Kevin (, December 03, 1998.


I don't think I want to wait to prepare. If there are big failures 04/01/1999, the herd will turn, and I won't have time. If 01/01/2000 comes and nobody notices, I can give a large part of my food stockpile to a food bank, or other charity.

-- anonymous -thanks (, December 03, 1998.

While I expect some problems with fiscal rollovers, I doubt you will here very much about them. Critical items like checks could be produced by jamming 1999 dates back into parts of a system. Oh, it would fall apart after a few months of this kind of "workaround", but I don't expect immediate fireworks. Actually, I hope I am wrong about this. If L.A. or New York have "welfare riots" because of Y2K related processing, that will jolt the rest of the country into frantic preparation.

-- RD. ->H (, December 03, 1998.

I like RD's take on fiscal rollovers. Even if there are problems we wont hear about them right away. I actually think there are problems NOW that we just aren't hearing about.

The big problem with 1999 is that during the time that remediation is occuring there will also be bugs and errors and failures all occuring at the same time. Tough work environment to say the least.

I think the global economy will be the biggest worry of 1999 and thus only compound the seriousness of y2k. That will be the major factor that will cause bank runs, business failures, a market crash, etc. People that don't give a darn about y2k certainly do care about the economy, their jobs and their investments.

Mike ========

-- Michael Taylor (, December 03, 1998.

"While I expect some problems with fiscal rollovers, I doubt you will here very much about them."

This is the case now with Y2K failures of any kind. What was the percentage of companies that have already experienced a Y2K related failure according to the Gartner study... 48%? I think that was the precentage though I'm not sure. How many did we hear about? Even if it was 'only' 05%, where are they all? The answer is under the corporate rug.

Perhaps it's reasonable to expect more of the same. Many of us look towards April and the fiscal rollovers with a keen awareness of the potential failures. Yet it's possible the failures will have to be either so pervasive or of such high magnitude, that companies won't be able to hide them. If they are not, we won't be hearing much about them.

The question, I think, is will the failures be severe or frequent enough for us to get a Y2K clue. If they aren't, it'll be less likely we will be finding out that soon. All of this is predicated on the assumption that the feces doesn't hit the turbine beforehand, which is not an assumption I am comfortable making.

-- Rob Michaels (, December 03, 1998.

I think we will see an increase in domestic terrorism made to look as if it is y2k problems...the oil refineries will be a target since there is an oil glut. If our refrineries were taken out they would control the oil

-- deborah cunningham (, December 03, 1998.

Don't forget about dams and nuclear power plants.

-- bardou (, December 04, 1998.

The "Dress Rehersal" is rolling now.

Have you noticed how many large corporations are sending layoff notices? They blame it on the Asian economic crisis, which is valid, but I can't help thinking Y2K is lurking behind the corporate decisions too, not to mention Wall Street's insistance on profits not people.

What happens to all these people, estimated at a half million being laid off this year, when the unemployment computers start having problems? Isn't that one a January 1999 estimated wake-up event?


-- Diane J. Squire (, December 04, 1998.

How can the unemloyment be so low when there are so many layoffs?

-- fly . (.@...), December 04, 1998.

How can the unemloyment RATE be so low when there are so many layoffs?

-- fly . (.@...), December 04, 1998.

The unemployment rate was just released this morning - 4.4% - lowest in 6 months. I think it is a measure of last month's figures, before the newest rash of layoffs got really rolling. If that is the case, it should bump up when they release this months rate about this time next January.

-- Rob Michaels (, December 04, 1998.

How can the unemployment rate still be so low? Partly, I think, because losses in manufacturung jobs are being cancelled out by gains in service and construction jobs.

-- Kevin (, December 04, 1998.

Layoffs low, HOW can it BE? For real, EVERY DAY in the paper you read of companies shutting down, more following, I tell you someone is FUDGING the numbers, they must be. Get real, with all the layoffs going on, the government screaming "good economy" but yet on t.v. all are blaming asian economy. Something is UP bigtime and if we believe for one second these stats are right, i got one word....................NOT.............

-- consumer (, December 04, 1998.

P.S. "Our economy is the best it has been in a very long time".........."I did not have sex with that woman"


End quotes.

-- consumer (, December 04, 1998.

True about Japan's fiscal year. 1999 begins April, 1st, 1999. But, that doesn't change RTC or date calculation routines. I really don't see the fiscal rollover as being a true indicator of problems to come. Fiscal rollovers are part of planning and projections only. They are more a part of documents. I fear that the lack of visible impact will create a false impression and complacency. I see people making claims such as," I told you the problems are small," or companies making claims that they are well prepared and the lack of problems during the fiscal rollover prove their claims.

IMHO, the fiscal rollover is over rated as an indicator. Comments please...

-- PNG (, December 04, 1998.


I suspect that you're right on the money again.

Not too long ago, there was much bally-hoo over the fact that New York state uses two-year fiscal years and that they were going down the dumper in April 1998!

-- Hardliner (, December 04, 1998.

We will not really know until the big day has passed. I sometimes wonder if it will seem a LONG year.

Then again, this past one positively flew by.

-- Uncle Deedah (, December 04, 1998.

Boy, is that the truth... Everytime I look at my watch, another month has passed.

-- PNG (, December 05, 1998.


I think you're right. Fiscal-year rollovers are more of a bookkeeping problem, which a customer might never know about. I think early Y2K glitches the public will notice are things like insurance policies that go into effect January, 1999 and expire January, 2000.

-- Kevin (, December 05, 1998.

The whole "unemployment rate for the last five years" low, low, low,....unbelievable!!!! Course we work 'off the grid'...but we don't believe it ever for an instant...I agree...there is major IFGURE FUDGING going on somewhere.

What was the reported-recorded unemployment rate before the 1929 crsh? anybody know?

-- Donna Barthuley (, December 05, 1998.

Remember that the unemployment rate reflects the percentage of people actively looking for jobs. If we have just heard of the massive layoff plan (ie boeing), chances are, those people aren't searching for their next job yet.

Just a thought...

-- Christine A. Newbie (, December 06, 1998.

One more thing...I don't think that the unemployment rate pre-1929 would be a very accurate comparison to todays rate. In 1929 most of the work force consisted of men. It wasn't until WW2 that the women really started to leave their homes. Furthermore, it has only been in the past 2 decades where it was necessary (or appeared that way) for both members of a family to hold a job - just for survival.

Just more thoughts...

-- Christine A. Newbie (, December 06, 1998.

The U.S. unemployment rate right now is 4.4%. That's quite low, but not as low as the rate of 3.5% in 1968-69.

During World War II (1944), the unemployment rate got down to 1.1%!

-- Kevin (, December 06, 1998.

A couple of comments on comments to this thread.

In the early 80's the unions started being done in by by the government. Air traffic controllers strike; allowing companies to cancel union contracts by entering into reorganizational bankruptcy; negative going changes to guaranteed pension plans, etc. Before that, it was not *usual* for both members of a family to be required to work.

Re Clinton not having actual sex. I wonder what that will do for all the working girls and their johns. Maybe they can now sue for false arrest?

-- Floyd Baker (, December 06, 1998.


I just found the statistics today. The unemployment rate in 1928 was 4.2%. The current unemployment rate is 4.4%.

-- Kevin (, December 07, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ