Slashdot Mirror
Down and Out in White-Collar America
XorNand writes "Fortune has a pretty sobering article on the employment situation for white-collar workers. By many accounts, we've never had it harder--the slump in the 80's primarily hit blue-collar workers. While bleak, things might be inching towards the light; as my econ professor says, jobs are the last thing to recover after a recession."
Oh sure, eveything was fine when it was manufacturing jobs that were exported to other countries. Now that white-collar/no-collar jobs like software development are being exported, suddenly it's alarming.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Don't forget about the president's impact on the economy.
It's been a long time since we've had such an idiot in the whitehouse: not elected, taking away your rights, giving disproportanate tax cuts to his wealthy friends, ignoring corporate execs who have cost the economy billions, fighting questionable wars.
He's making us into servants.
That companies keep outsourcing things to foreign countries. Of course, it saves them money, but at what cost? As they do that, unemployment in the US will only rise. I guess the prospect of higher profit margins outshines the prospect of giving a hard-working American a job.
Ok, let's say that these things do allow for more investment into other markets. But with the US economy in the shape it is in right now, will these companies want to spend the money on possibly risky ventures into new markets, or just claim the money as profit and make all their execs super rich with fat bonuses.
Or maybe I'm bitter because I can't find a job.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
I was laid off four months ago from a software development firm with 170 others working with me. In those four months - i had only 2 interviews (with one leading to an offer very recently) & i consider myself lucky to have had those because many of my collegues are yet to get their first call.
The four month period was a interesting experience & here are some things i learned/did in that time:
1. Remind yourself "often" that it is not your fault. Economy is bad and nothing stays that way forever.
2. Network: I created a simple discussion forum on my server (http://www.toastforums.com/) and asked all my 170 peers to register. It turned out to be very useful in discussing subjects like - how to get our unemployment benefits & severence packages/Over Time pay from our old firm. Many of them started posting job opportunities too as soon as they found themselves in a job.
3. Actively prepare towards something : How about a certification that those recruiters so much like ? Or simply read tech forums and keep updated on any new thing on your subject that shows up. This gave me an artificial feeling of getting somewhere which was very useful to keep my hopes floating.
4. Apply to every ridiculous job on the web, even to those recruiters with fake job descriptions. This could seem like a futile effort with many not even drawing a "hi there, i got you email response". But, again - its one of those exercises that help in keeping a healthy hope alive.
Thats about it.
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
"What's the basis of your conclusion? Do you expect an entire economy to make a U-turn in a few months? What would qualify as a "fixing" the economy in your mind?"
Well, one thing that leads credibility to his statement is that war/defence spending doesn't comprise nearly as much of the U.S. GDP as it used to. If I'm remembering stats that I heard on NPR properly, during WWII, the war spending portion of GDP was something like 22%. Granted, it was spending that went nowhere in a sense, since there was no return on the 'investment' that war bought, but it stimulated market aspects back into production that found something to do after the war ended. It didn't hurt that tensions between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. escalated as well, generating R&D, assembly, testing, and materials jobs to build the infrastructure that carried us into the fifties and sixties. Once the government didn't have one single active enemy to be able to propaganda the country into paying to "fight" against, matters toward defence didn't get what they had.
Contrast that to the modern state, where GDP impact of a war is more like 4%, which can almost be written off as statistical noise, and you end up with a war not helping the economy as a whole. We don't build hundreds of planes a day for our "police actions", we don't crank out the carpet bombs, the tanks, the rifles. We have most of the war materiel stockpiled already, with personnel already trained in its use, and actively being paid already. We move them to the area affected, pay them more for combat duty, go through more ammunition, and put a little more wear and tear on the big items like tanks and planes, but we don't ramp up production. Things remain nice and stable. The fact that no additional money appears to be necessary to pay for the rest of the expenses from the Iraq invasion should be proof enough for that.
I personally am glad that our "problem" is mild enough that we don't even have 7% unemployment. 5% is considered regular, healthy unemployment, and if this is the worst that it gets, we're going to be just fine. I'm glad that we shouldn't need another multi-million casualty war in order to feed people.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Obviously, you don't know many dot bomb coders. I've known several that have struggled to eat, pay rent, and other basics. Especially those that are fresh out of school and didn't get any of the riches from the boom. The fucking IT market was flooded by schools pushing through no talent, no interest folks that just wanted the big paychecks. Now it's a real bitch to prove you actually know what you're doing. Several years of job experience? Means nothing now. People with several years of job experience and a couple degrees are lucky to keep decent jobs. If you live outside major cities your doubly screwed. Nobody is paying to relocate fresh hires these days and most won't even give you an interview if you're out of area. A lot of coders are being forced to compete for jobs flipping burgers in order to stay fed themselves. Did you ever try to apply for a job at Burger King when the 18yo manager hiring you can't even pronounce the qualifications on your resume? Uhh huh. I'll teach those smart asses the meaning of overqualified!
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Another Anonymous Coward loses his job due to Chronic Foot In Mouth syndrome.
Right. You have a job. You got job security? You got the code to prove it? Doesn't mean a licking difference, because a faltering economy means just that: FALTERING. Your job exists now, but will it in a year, month, week or will you get a pink slip tomorrow?
How do you know you won't be knocking on IBM's doors praying to be let in or accepting some shit job like Game Testing for EA or something like that? Because, frankly, there is zero job security in the tech world today.
Karma: Non-Heinous
of course not.
the traditional theory is that war is a stimulus for the economy because it is an instant export generator. materiel (bombs, ammo etc) is manufactured domestically and then exported to (ie, dropped on) a foreign country. george orwell outlines this economic theory quite nicely in 1984, and that's how it was back in '48.
however, the war against iraq and most modern interstate wars involving a developed nation are different for several reasons:
- they are shorter. unlike world war 2 which lasted between 8 years (if you were japanese or chinese) and 4 years (if you were american), modern wars are measured in weeks. there is no time to ramp up domestic production. peacetime surpluses of materiel are expended so there is no productivity boost during the war itself.
- modern weapons don't lend themselves to effective wartime production. during ww2, planes, tanks, guns were all simple to mass produce and were consumed en masse for the war effort. modern weaponry (planes for instance) require a long time to design and manufacture. they are best developed during non-war periods and then held on hand to be consumed during a conflict. replacement production during wartime is not really an option.
- production is no longer exclusively or predominantly domestic. for better or worse (i suspect worse) oecd economies are globalized. foreign instability caused by war or threat of war has a greater impact on the domestic economy than during the isolationist 40's. look how badly wall street behaved during the lead up the iraq invasion.
the bottom line is, that war's traditional role of providing a fine way to just throw away production on a foreign "market" is obsolete. if the united states wants to develop a government-funded make work project, they should investigate something more productive... highways again maybe. or a second panama canal?2 1337 4 u!
... for companies to do so. Many were hiring people just to have them available to them for work. They never gave them anything revolutionary to work on (by and large), and ended up wasting them. It was a bad investment, planning for something that didn't pan out.
It didn't help that people *flocked* to technical programs at universities, forcing excessive weed-out classes to reduce admissions numbers. I ended up ceasing to ccontinue with my CSE major not because I didn't want to learn the trade to do something that I liked, working with computers in newer, exciting ways, but because I didn't want to do group projects with people who had no idea what a spreadsheet was, and we all were to be basically graded on the performance of the lowest member of the group. (yes, I am bitter)
People flocked to the programs for the money. There's no money now, and there are a lot of trained people who are very upset about not being able to make a five year career on a four year education. This is one fad that died.
I believe that it'll level out again, and that suitable numbers of college-training-required technical jobs will come back, but hopefully this period of bust will be remembered, and the trend won't repeat for a long time.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Easier to bully. Cheaper.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
Just out of curiosity: Isn't it possible for people like Mr. Klinck to keep salary considerations off the table? If he states something like âoeSalary requirements: Negotiableâ or âoeFlexibleâ or something like that, wouldn't that be a good clue for a future employer that he may very well be happy with the $50K or whatever they have budgeted for the position?
I think this whole "over-qualified" thing is a bit ridiculous when people clearly are willing to take on positions for which they might seem over-qualified. I frankly don't understand what "over-qualified" means. If someone is willing to take on the position and the corresponding salary, then I think the company ought to congratulate themselves on filling the position with someone that has considerable experience. Additionally, that person will probably feel a measure of gratitude for the break and offer back to the company a measure of service and insight to which the company would not otherwise have access.
What am I missing here?
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
In a saturated market, the guys without college degrees are the first ones crossed off the list.
What am I missing here?
You're missing that an over-qualified person typicaly would start looking for a better position quicker than a person who's 'just' qualified. Hireing someone costs money, you need to teach the person how your company works and therefor you want to keep your employers for a long time.
Like with fliping burgers, if you had an engineer and a teenager applying of course the teenager. (S)he is more likely to stay.
1. Many of you are complaining that you are putting in 60+ hours at work for low pay. May of you also have ideas on how a business should be run. Why not combine your willingness to put in great number of hours and great business ideas and run your own business?
2. We as consumers put mom and pop stores out of business because it is cheaper to shop at Wal-Mart, Costco, etc. Then why are we suprised that businesses are laying people off for cheaper labor overseas?
3. If we tax the shit out of businesses, won't they encourage them to cut costs by laying more people off?
4. For people who invest, do you not invest with hope that you'll make money off of your investment? Since share holders elect board members who in turn hires CEOs, why are you suprised when CEOs act in the interests of the shareholds?
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d