Slashdot Mirror
Techies Migrate in Search of Work
prostoalex writes "Tracing the story of one family where the father is employed in the IT field, the Washington Post discusses the current unemployment in the information technology field. For a good reason - for the first time in 30 years the IT unemployment rate exceeded the national average unemployment rate, implying that you have a better chance of getting a job if your field is something other than IT. The journalist does offer a disclaimer, saying that the term 'IT worker' is applied equally to a top-notch scientist in a research lab, to a dot-com startup billionaire, and to a local HTML guru. Relevant employment statistics also shows that layoffs in the IT field were up 60% in the third quarter of 2004."
Here in Silicon Valley, the SJ Mercury News recently put out a report on the "improving economy", as measured by the declining unemployment rate.
In other news, the unemployment rate in this area is declining because IT workers have given up trying to find work, and are leaving Santa Clara County in droves.
Thereby reinforcing the finding that 90% of statistics are worthless.
I thought for sure this would be an article about IT workers moving to Canada where they're actually hiring people
for the first time in 30 years the IT unemployment rate exceeded the national average unemployment rate
And pro-work-visa lobbyists, such as ITAA, still claim there is a "shortage" of IT people.
Table-ized A.I.
That being said, it wouldn't take too much to change it. Combine raising the retirement age with increasing the payroll taxes would do a lot to take care of the issue.
Raising the payroll taxes is just plain punitive though - especially for low income earners and the self employed. Raise them enough and you'll see a lot more tax planning to take advantage of the Sub-S corps like Edwards did or less reporting of that kind of income (a loss either way for the treasury). Raising the phaseout for payroll taxes (currently around 83K or so) would also help, but not as much as raising the payroll taxes.
"Means testing" is another option - if someone was wise enough to save for retirement we can penalize them for doing so. This probably wouldn't fly because one of Social Security's selling points is that if you pay in, you get to draw out. Remove that lock in and you'll loose support.
Probably the best bet is to raise the retirement age. We're already seeing people who are retired for as long or longer than they worked, and it's also not uncommon for people to work well into their 70's. The retirement age was initially set so that most people die before drawing it because most people were doing hard manual labor. These days, the nature of work has become more safe (desk jobs and even factory jobs are safer) and people live longer. I think that retirement age is currently at 67 or so. That could probably be raised. (Besides, you don't get old until you retire - look at the people you know and you can see it happen!)
Sorry to write so much. I don't know that there is a good answer. What will probably happen is that Bush wants to allow people to take a portion of their 14% Social Security tax and place it into a "private account", so he'll probably be able to get it by raising FICA 3% or so (split between the employee and the employer - the only ones who would really see this are the self-employeds).
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
I agree with the concept you are trying to convey. Save money whenever possible.
:-) (Yes it is possible for geeks to get girlfriends)
However, when you take someone who has earned X dollars for ten+ years, let them go and instantly make it impossible for them to get a job except by moving around, and that job only pay 1/10th of what X did, then something is seriously wrong. Now if this happened over say 10+ years that would be bad enough (like the manufacturing jobs) but this happened over two years. That is horrible.
Yes people should learn to save. I remember saving up all week to take my girlfiend out and get breadsticks on the weekend. If I skipped a few meals during the week I could actually afford extra cheese for both of us.
However, when someone with a family looses their job they don't instantly sell their house, all their cars (at a loss mind you) and start farming for food. Normally they will try for a long time to work in their profession in their area, then they will start to lower their standards over time to work just about anywhere, and then at last be forced to make very tough decisions. I have seen many of my friends have to make these tough decisions after being out of work a long time. Thankfully most have found a new job, but some more are about to loose their jobs now. I will say that the difference between now and a few years ago is that people know that the there are no jobs now. They didn't know that a few years ago.
I can tell you that NOBODY wants to hire an I.T. person for another profession. Their fear is that the economy will turn upward again and the person will quit. I have seen a few of my friends try and get jobs a Walmart and others. This has NEVER worked. So they are stuck.
So yes I agree that people should save whenever possible. But for those 35-55 year olds out there that have been "downsized", it is not reasonable to expect them to become farmers overnight. Again as I mentioned above, today is different than two years ago. Today, if you have an I.T. job, you better be saving like mad.
The sad part of all this is that if Kerry would have been smart, he would have played this issue up and made this his core issue. In my opinion he didn't and that is why he lost. Well that and the fact that his past haunted him.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.