Budgeting for Layoffs?

The Waxed Yak asks: "After reading the Slashdot tech worker unionization story, I started wondering: What are other IT workers doing to prepare for potential layoffs?" "We're all at risk of it, be it from actual layoffs or loss of employment for other reasons. My personal approach has been to live off about 1/3rd of my earnings and bank the rest, even though that means living in a hovel and driving an older car. Worst case scenario, I get to retire early.

I recently became completely self employed, which has made it all the more important to save. I understand many Slashdot readers have families to support, so they don't have the same option for savings that I currently enjoy. As I hope to have a family to support in the near future, I would be interested in tips or techniques to prepare for this situation. Judging by the posts in the unionization thread, many of you are dependent on a steady income to provide for their families. Hopefully this thread can provide some ideas for them as well."

Comments

Question or Comment???

[ericspinder]

The Waxed Yak asks "When I did work for someone else, I saved 2/3rds of my pay, but since I'm now self-employed, I'd like to really brag", "what guestion do I have to come up with so I can say so on Slashdot?"

Re:Question or Comment???

[The Waxed Yak]

I'm sorry if I came off that way. I'm really just financially paranoid. When I say I live in a hovel, I mean it. While most of my colleagues have $300k+ houses, I bought a $50k house, 500sq feet. I drive a 14 year old car. I live *really* cheap, because I'm financially paranoid. I've seen enough of the "I've been laid off for 3 years" stories that I want to be prepared for such a situation. I guess my comment about saving money was meant to be my contribution to the thread, and I'm sorry if it came off as bragging. I'm just wondering if there's an alternative to self imposed deprivation.

Now that I'm self employed, I don't make any more than I did before. In fact, when you take the "self-employment tax" into account, I make less. I've traded my security in exchange for ownership in what I do. Now that my security is gone, I'm interested in what other people are doing to safeguard themselves. I'm hoping I (and others) can learn something from this thread to increase quality of living without sacrificing security.

So, if you're through with cheap jabs that are an attempt to be modded up for humor, please contribute something constructive.

Thanks, The Waxed Yak

Re:Question or Comment???

[ericspinder]

So, if you're through with cheap jabs that are an attempt to be modded up for humor, please contribute something constructive.

What?!? 'cheap jabs' on Slashdot, one wouldn't think of such a thing. Seriously, 2/3rd of your submission details how great you are, now, 70% of your reply does the same. Good for you, like many (but not all) Slashdotters, I'm very happy for you.

You know I've heard the stories about 3 year layoffs, frankly I've always thought "what the hell were they doing for THREE YEARS". The self-employment tax is basicly your contribution into the Social Security Potsy scheme and is 'only' assesed on the first $94,000 of income. Most people like to bitch about it because it seems larger than SS, but for regular employees the company is charged the other half (any accountant with a sharp pencil knows that's a real cost). It just keeps people from skirting the regressive middle class tax, by either claiming to or actually working for themselves.

What would I do, well, live off of the layoff money (if any), then unemployment (as an employee I pay into unemployment insurance [1.5% of income I think]), while I look for work, and try to build a business while I'm at it. I have no money saved, but I do have a fair amount of credit left!. Like many here I'm a programmer, but this is my second career, I would go back to the first if I had to, but my real hope is to build out the 'billion dollar idea' which I have had for a couple of years now (I'm kinda working on it now, with a quite weekend).

While your ability to save money is really awesome, it already sounds like you live like you were laid off already. However it's most likely that I'm just really really jealous and more than a little impressed (if it's true* [*standard internet disclaimer]).

Re:Question or Comment???

[lawpoop]

I sympathize with your financial paranoia. I've become convinced lately that networking and being a good schmoozer are what let people keep their job in tough times -- qualities that are usually absent for a geek. You have to look out for number 1.

It's good that you have savings, but also consider diversifying your portfolio. If it's all in dollars, your might be screwed by the people in charge -- massive budget deficits, trade imbalance, outsourcing manufacturing... The dollar may not be worth as much in the near future as it is now. I would recommend looking at putting some money in other currencies as a hedge. Maybe Euros, Yen, Yuan... I'm not really an expert here, though.

You might be having the last laugh if your friends who have 300k+ houses encounter a 'market correction'. It would be a sad situation in general, but nontheless, look out for #1.

Re:Question or Comment???

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'm a frugal guy like the poster and save about 2/3 of my after tax income. Living this type of lifestyle gives me a sense of independence and accomplishment. My paranoia partially came from being unemployed for 2 years, but it is very liberating not being a slave to your posessions. Maybe the chicks don't dig my '94 Camry, but I don't give a shit. At this rate, I'll be millionaire at 40 and dating hotties 15 years younger than me.

My biggest peice of advice for those of you who want to save your money... Don't get married and don't have kids until you're wealthy enough to live off of your investments, then go for it.

Re:Question or Comment???

[ergo98]

I'm sorry if I came off that way. I'm really just financially paranoid. When I say I live in a hovel, I mean it. While most of my colleagues have $300k+ houses, I bought a $50k house, 500sq feet. I drive a 14 year old car. I live *really* cheap, because I'm financially paranoid. I've seen enough of the "I've been laid off for 3 years" stories that I want to be prepared for such a situation. I guess my comment about saving money was meant to be my contribution to the thread, and I'm sorry if it came off as bragging. I'm just wondering if there's an alternative to self imposed deprivation.

To me it came off more as self-justification more than bragging: You feel some bizarre need to explain to people why you drive an old car and live in a hovel, justifying your lifestyle, while simultaneously taking a jab at those who choose to live otherwise. I've known people in real life like this, and honestly they were entirely intolerable -- if they ever found out about anything you've done (such as gone on a vacation), or anything you've bought (seeing a new TV at your house), they immediately launch into a subtle jab that it was fiscal irresponsibility. "What if..." they ask, "the entire financial market collapses, bird flu erupts, and inflation goes haywire! That television purchase could have been used in an offshore banking investment!"

That guy living in a the 300K house probably bought it when it was 200K, and can easily liquidate it at a huge price advantage, barring some sort of huge house collapse (which would be more a worry with a $900K house). Leased cars are similarly easy to offload, possibly at a small cost. I think you're a little unreasonably smug.

Re:Question or Comment???

[Boone^]

I've always had it in the back of my mind that I could get hit in a layoff, so we have been *very* anal about keeping about 6-months of living expenses tucked away. I figure I could find a new job within a month or 2, so 6 months is a worst-case scenario. This is 6 normal months, not 6 months of complete shutdown (cancel everything but the car payment, house payment, and utilities bill).

I've never understood people who get laid off for 3 years... they've got to have either unrealistic salary expectations or are one of those bubble people who went from being a Wal-mart cashier in 1997 to being an "HTML programmer" with 15k pre-IPO options at some fancy web startup, and after being laid off as the market cooled to the point where monkeys were no longer being hired for programming tasks, they couldn't find another identical job. *shrug*

Re:Question or Comment???

[Anonymous Coward]

...into the Social Security Potsy scheme...

It's Ponzi scheme. Anything concocted by the Happy Days gang came much later.

Re:Question or Comment???

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be having the last laugh if your friends who have 300k+ houses encounter a 'market correction'.

Who cares, unless you need to turn it over quickly. (Or were one of those poor suckers that stretched themself thin with an interest-only loan, expecting to refi in a couple of years with all that equity.)

Besides, around here, the hovel is the $300K house.

Re:Question or Comment???

[Monkelectric]

I've never understood people who get laid off for 3 years...

Dude, it just happens. I graudated college in 2002, just after the tech bust and just after 9/11. I had a *LOT* of job experience already due to working through college (3 and a half years), and I did not get a *real* job until 2005. Almost all of my friends were in the same boat. I knew fully accredited teachers delivering pizza... Once a friend who tried to help me get a shitty sysadmin job at a bank -- he said there was nothing he could do when they recieved 1200 applications. Thats how bad the market was.

My point is, that if you can't imagine being unemployed for 3 years, you haven't seen some really hard times. Which I hope you never have to see, and I never have to see again.

Re:Question or Comment???

[Monkelectric]

As someone whose been through some really hard times ... Id like to offer you this advice:

The best thing you can do to make yourself recession proof is to keep your skills sharp, and make yourself extremely valuable to your customers. I am a "Software Architect" and I do consulting on the side... What I *DON'T* mean doing, is being an ass and hiding source code, and trying to lock in customers and what not... What I do mean is, become the guy that the VP calls whenever theres trouble.

Yes you still need to sock money away, but the root of your problem is you don't have confidence in *YOUR* ability to provide value to an employer/customers.

Re:Question or Comment???

[Tintagel]

That guy living in a the 300K house probably bought it when it was 200K, and can easily liquidate it at a huge price advantage, barring some sort of huge house collapse (which would be more a worry with a $900K house).

The guy who bought at 200K has NO "price advantage". Sure, he has 100K equity but every homeowner gains equity when prices rise 50%. When he goes to view a house that used to cost 300K, he finds it costs 450K, and he's 50K short. Only if he takes the 100K and trades DOWN does he gain an advantage over everyone else.

Re:Question or Comment???

[Richard Steiner]

Long layoffs are often just a case of bad timing.

I had a bit over 13 years of experience as a programmer/analyst when I was laid off in January 2002, mainly weird languages like Fortran and assembler and various macro languages, but also with some decent experience in C, Perl, Pascal, REXX, and a number of other more mainstream languages, experience with RDMSs like Sybase, as well as a LOT of medium- and large-scale applications design and high-pressure support experience.

I got nothing at all except one 8-month contract at the end of 2002 and a six-layer interview in Seattle in the spring of 2003 until I hit the jackpot and got a pair of out-of-town job offers at the same time in the fall of 2004.

I think I had a grand total of five (5) interviews in total during that time, and three of those were for positions outside the Minneapolis area.

I think one of the main reasons I had such a hard time was the fact that I was laid off a few months after 300-400 or so other experienced folks were laid off from my ex-employer (Northwest Airlines), so the marketplace was chock full of experienced UNIX and IBM mainframe people (the two most likely places for me to find employment) well before I found out that I was also in a position to have to find work.

I thought I had dodged the axe already by surviving the large initial wave of layoffs, but I was wrong.

A second reason was the fact that people tended to focus on the Fortran on my resume, so I ended up removing that and only stressing the UNIX-related things I had done and worked with when applying for such positions. It didn't do me any good.

A third reason was the fact that, because it was very much an employer's market in the Twin Cities at that point in time (and it still is), companies seemed to be looking for very VERY specific things.
I rarely got interviews as a programmer because companies wanted people with not only TECHNICAL skills but also specific INDUSTRY experience with medical products, or with insurance-specific EDIFACT formats, or with some specific image format, or even with company-specific internal products in several cases, and that ended up weeking me out early (in many cases I called HR to try to obtain some info about why I couldn't get an interview, and I heard all kinds of things along those lines).

I was also told on several occasions that I was overqualified for a programming position or a PC tech support position -- that they were looking for someone with 3-5 years of experience, and that they felt my 13 years made me too expensive (hey, a pay cut would have been FINE with me!), or made me a risk to leave later.

Etc.

As I said in another thread, I still know a few folks who are bouncing from contract to contract, and it's been almost five years now for those people. They *still* don't have a permanent (non contract) position.

You've apparently had it easy. My first layoff was back in 1993, and that wasn't so bad. Took me around ten months to find work that time. This last one was a LOT rougher. I didn't expect to have to look for almost three years, either. It's a good thing I had taken the time to prepare myself financially beforehand. If I had been completely unprepared, we'd be a lot worse off today...

Re:Question or Comment???

[Richard Steiner]

I was valuable to my customers, but HR made the decision to cut my position based on tenure.

Not much one can do about that.

Re:Question or Comment???

[qwijibo]

Oddly enough, this is where I think being a contractor is a good thing. HR cannot do anything to me, because I'm not a human resource. I'm no different from a budget perspective from hardware or software. I'm either the least expensive way for the business to achieve its goals, or I'm replaced.

From the perspective of the people making the budgets, that's true of everyone. It's just that from a cost perspective, it's easy to say the entire company needs to lose 10% of their people and let someone else figure out which people those are. It just means the departments who are running efficiently feel a bigger impact than those that filled out with lots of fluff employees to build their empire.

Re:Question or Comment???

[pnutjam]

I always wonder how people can be unemployed for 3 years. I've only a measly associate degree, but I've never had problems finding a job. Max unemployment over the past 7 years is 4 months when I first transitioned into "IT". Sure I've worked alot of crummy temp jobs, but they paid ok. I always wonder when, I see people posting about their unemployment, luckily you left a clue... ...Dude, it just happens.

Oh, it's one of those guys, who the hell talks like that?

Me personally

[mikesd81]

Right now I'm a machine operator @ Sealy components. It's a mechanical job. Yes I'm a geek, but I like mechanics too. There's 2 things a people will always have (relative speaking, let's not nit pick here): an automobile and computer.

Also, no matter how automated a plant may get, there still needs to be a person to fix the machine when it breaks.

Okay so my point is to always have a back up plan to fall on. You have more interests, I'm sure, than just computers. Capitalize on them. Wheather it be mechanics or landscaping or whate have you.

In the last James Bond movie to feature Q: "Never let them see you bleed, and always have an escape plan."

Other fields

[heinousjay]

Work on your smooth pimp game, round up a stable of hos, and watch the money roll in with a modicum of effort.

Sure, pimpin ain't easy, but that don't make it hard.

Re:Other fields

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no, it goes "pimpin' aint easy, but it's necessary" etc etc

Budget

[daeg]

I'm in a two-income no-kids (DINK) situation. I'm still paying off student loans. We live very comfortably but I have a strict 20% to retirement rule. For the past two years (roughly) we've been putting 30% into general savings. We could reduce it easily since we both work in very steady industries (him: high rate commercial insurance, me: television station). It is nice to know that just on the general 30% savings one of us can be without work for years and we'd never have to tap retirement. BTW - I'm 22, He's 30. Still a long time until retirement and our health care costs are quite low.

However, as such, that money is invested quite aggressively. I make stock purchases that tend to be risky. Of course, it has paid off even in the short run, with the 30% savings pushing near 45% annual gain (not including additional cash put in).

I'd rather live modestly for a long period of time than live well and spend a lot only to lose a job and have to risk moving back to a frugal lifestyle.

Re:Budget

[Anonymous Coward]

quit your job, if your making consistent 45% annual returns then your in the wrong biz. Even the best traders would kill for that. Either youve been very lucky or your full of shit.

Re:Budget

[daeg]

Very lucky is all. I tend to invest in generally low price stock (not penny stocks). One company I remember in particular nearly tripled in value in less than a day when they announced they were getting bought out (a small mining corp of all things). I've also lost a lot (relative) on a few things. I don't think my "strategy" would be viable on a large scale, otherwise I would probably try it at least for a while. I also got in relatively fairly early on the Google thing and sold high.

Besides, I enjoy my job.

Re:Budget

[From A Far Away Land]

I was going to ask for tips too, seeing as investing in the stock market seems to be the only way not to be a "low income" worker these days, unless you're born rich.

What means do you use to trade stocks, something online I take it?

Re:Budget

[tverbeek]

I'd rather live modestly for a long period of time than live well and spend a lot only to lose a job and have to risk moving back to a frugal lifestyle.

This has been my approach, pretty much my whole life. Even though my family had a pretty good income when I was growing up, my parents both grew up as WWII-era working-class kids with stereotypically frugal Dutch parents. So they taught me not just to live within my means, but within within my means.

At times I've made pretty good money myself, but I've never let increasing incomes entice me to spend (much) more; instead I save more or invest more. I've only borrowed money when I absolutely had to for cash-flow reasons, with a plan in place to pay it off in X months: I did it for the first car I bought, and for my last year of college... that's it. (I should have made an exception for buying a house; even though I've had good reasons for putting that off, renting for 20 years has been my biggest financial misstep. But for any purpose other than college or a house, long-term debt is just plain stupid.)

Understand that I'm not talking about living in self-imposed poverty. In fact, because I've always had money in the bank, I've been able to buy new cars a couple of times... for cash. Not status cars, just good value cars (e.g. Honda Civic). Same with my apartment: nothing fancy, but I like it. To hell with cable; network TV offers several hours of decent entertainment per week, for free. Cooking is way cheaper than restaurants or even fast food. A five-dollar bottle of wine gets you just as drunk as the "good" stuff. To say nothing of how far FOSS and used gear stretches one's data-processing budget.

The end result of this kind of "keep it simple stupid" living is that when I've found myself out of work (twice, for a total of a year), all it took to adjust to living on unemployment benefits or savings was to put my occasional self-indulgent purchases on hold. "Sorry, but that antique three-year-old computer is going to have to last you another year or two, and you'll have to rent the LOTR Trilogy Extended Edition for a weekend rather than buy it." No biggie.

Live simply, and living is simple.

Re:Budget

[DerekLyons]

I'm in a two-income no-kids (DINK) situation. I'm still paying off student loans. We live very comfortably but I have a strict 20% to retirement rule. For the past two years (roughly) we've been putting 30% into general savings.

However, as such, that money is invested quite aggressively. I make stock purchases that tend to be risky. Of course, it has paid off even in the short run, with the 30% savings pushing near 45% annual gain (not including additional cash put in).

In other words, you are fooling yourself by mixing terms - because you have 30% of your income invested, not saved.

It is nice to know that just on the general 30% savings one of us can be without work for years and we'd never have to tap retirement.

Only if you continue to be lucky and have your investments turn out so well. Am unlucky streak could leave your investments valueless and find you without savings. If one of you loses your job at that point - whoops! Tapping into retirment becomes your first option rather than your last.

As an aside; I find this confusion between investments and savings common among youngsters lacking financial education.

Re:Budget

[LukeCrawford]

are you arguing that an investment in dollars is safe?

Re:Budget

[Money for Nothin']

Actually, there is a very good reason why investment and savings are considered to be the same thing: it's because they basically *are* the same.

Look into how a bank makes loans, and what it does with your money when you "save" it with them. They don't keep it locked in a vault for you, like money under a mattress; they loan it back out to people, and pay you out of their fractional reserves when you come calling.

In essence (and I'm glossing over a lot of my Monetary Policy class in college), the bank is making an investment on your behalf. They charge a higher interest rate to the loan recipient than they pay you to keep your money "saved" with them -- this is how banks make a profit.

I mentioned being paid out of the bank's fractional reserve. Because the bank has loaned-out money to people (businesses and individuals), it doesn't have everybody's money at the bank -- it's out being spent by somebody else who thinks they can turn a profit and pay back the bank with the money they make. What happens if everybody goes to the bank and demands their money back, and the bank doesn't have enough available -- i.e., what happens if you see a bank run? Your bank borrows what they need from other banks. Worst-case scenario, they go to the "bank of last resort", a.k.a. a Federal Reserve bank. The Fed waves a magic wand (seriously, it is not transparent enough for anybody besides the Fed to know precisely what they are doing), buys/sells bonds through "open-market operations", and as necessary, creates new money -- which causes inflation. In essence, if the Fed can't handle a bank run (the last time this happened was just prior to the Great Depression, and in fact, is considered by most economists now to be the reason the Depression was as bad as it was), we're all hosed. That said, since the Depression, it has handled some monstrous ones (including Russia's failure to repay its bond commitments, which led to the decline of the Ruble, causing the collapse of some big-name financial firms like Long-Term Capital Management). (OK, I'm not glossing-over as much Monetary Policy as I thought I would...)

Here's a dirty little secret about the FDIC, which insures the money you "save" at the bank: the FDIC only insures about 1-2% of the nation's fractional reserves. Hence, no matter how you slice it, If another Depression-style bank run occurs, we are all fucked.

In truth, savings and investment are considered more-or-less the same thing by economists today, because in the end, they *are* the same thing.

Yours,

A youngster who "saves" in mutual funds... (and in a high-rate savings account, and only what is necessary for paying bills from a checking account. Most of my savings are in my 401k for retirement though...)

Re:Budget

[cowbutt]

Here's a dirty little secret about the FDIC, which insures the money you "save" at the bank: the FDIC only insures about 1-2% of the nation's fractional reserves. Hence, no matter how you slice it, If another Depression-style bank run occurs, we are all fucked.

In truth, savings and investment are considered more-or-less the same thing by economists today, because in the end, they *are* the same thing.

Point taken, but there's still a difference between savings and investments; with investments, you can lose your shirt even during the good times if you pick the wrong stocks or the wrong combination of stocks.

Of course, the correct blend of savings/investment/retirement fund will depend on the risk profile of the person whose money it is...

Re:Budget

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather live modestly for a long period of time than live well and spend a lot only to lose a job and have to risk moving back to a frugal lifestyle.

Then again you may get run over by a bus tomorrow. You should always live well (enough), because any day may be your last.

two-income no-kids (DINK) situation

And that would be "dual-income..."

Re:Budget

[DerekLyons]

Actually, there is a very good reason why investment and savings are considered to be the same thing: it's because they basically *are* the same.

No, no financial professional considers them to be the same. (The slicker elements of the of the financial profession like to blur the line - because they make commissions off of investment churn, and none off of savings.) The risk v. reward ratio is, to put it mildly, extraordinarily different. (Not to mention tax issues.)

In essence (and I'm glossing over a lot of my Monetary Policy class in college), the bank is making an investment on your behalf. They charge a higher interest rate to the loan recipient than they pay you to keep your money "saved" with them -- this is how banks make a profit.

In essence, there is no functional difference between a bottle rocket and a Minuteman III at that level of generalization. In reality, they make investments (on the behalf of the account owner) - and pay a fixed and predictable sum on a liquid balance. (The return on investments on the other hand is unpredictable, and may even be negative, and liquidity is a variable.) Functionally, there are multiple difference between investments and savings - and you cannot ignore those differences in your financial planning.

In truth, savings and investment are considered more-or-less the same thing by economists today, because in the end, they *are* the same thing.

From they ivory tower point of view - I imagine that's true. From here outside the walls of the tower, it simply isn't.

Re:Budget

[Tango42]

The return on investments on the other hand is unpredictable, and may even be negative, and liquidity is a variable.

If you invest in equity, sure. There are fixed rate investments, like bonds - they have a very predicate return. There is a risk of default, but that's just equivilent to the risk of your bank not having enough money to give you yours back (the risk is higher, certainly, but that's true throughout the spectrum of investments - higher return requires higher risk).

A savings account is just a low-risk investment.

Re:Budget

[Tango42]

you can lose your shirt even during the good times if you pick the wrong stocks or the wrong combination of stocks.

That's the whole point of diversity. Losing everything in a diverse portfolio without major economic trouble is extremely unlikely. (It boils down to the law of large numbers)

Re:Budget

[An Onerous Coward]

You, sir, are sounding very much clueless. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, please categorize the following financial vehicles as "savings" or "investments", and explain why.

* Stock market
* Mutual funds
* Treasury bonds
* Fifty shares of GOOG
* Fifty shares of SCO
* Bank account
* CD
* Real Estate
* Blackjack
* Under the mattress/buried in the backyard
* Paying down debt
* Gold/Silver/Yttrium

As of now, you've done nothing to clarify the distinction between savings and investments, except to imply that any money you invest may as well be flushed down the toilet, from a financial planning perspective.

Re:Budget

[An Onerous Coward]

Banks take your money, loan it out at 8% or 9%, then use the profits to pay you 1-2% interest on that money.

I think it's a misnomer to say that the banks are making loans on your behalf. :)

Re:Budget

[Anonymous Coward]

3.5 years ago, my girlfriend and I were laid off from a call center, it was moved overseas (she was billing, I was dba) and it's been rough ever since. Her health has always been poor and has taken a turn for the worse, she's currently filing for disability so we're living off my salaray plus some help from her mother.

I worked stock in a supermarket for a year until I landed my current job, operations at a transcription company. Pay is good, better than the call center but now we're being bought by an overseas company and I suspect my job will be on the chopping block again.

I took a hint from PJ at http://groklaw.org/ and took online paralegal classes. Will have to downgrade my income while I build up some experience in a new field (after 20 years in computers) but it will give me more options.

Re:Budget

[Money for Nothin']

Heh, well, given their yields (loan interest rate - savings interest rate) they employ, I suppose that's a fair point. :-)

Re:Budget

[ultranova]

If you invest in equity, sure. There are fixed rate investments, like bonds - they have a very predicate return. There is a risk of default, but that's just equivilent to the risk of your bank not having enough money to give you yours back (the risk is higher, certainly, but that's true throughout the spectrum of investments - higher return requires higher risk).

Don't keep your savings in a bank, buy gold and other precious metals and hide them behind lots of nasty traps. Then draw a map and mark the nastiest trap with "X". The treasure will be marked with the text "minefield".

Re:Budget

[Money for Nothin']

The return on investments on the other hand is unpredictable, and may even be negative, and liquidity is a variable.

Of course. You can factor in inflation too to determine whether you're really making a real return on your investm-- err, "savings".

As Tango42 notes, what is generally thought of as "savings" is really just a low-risk, low-return investment. Perhaps it makes sense to classify them to the broader public as two different things, so that understanding the risk/reward ratio is simplified for the average person, but the fact is that you can lose your shirt in either "investments" or "savings" -- it just happens to be more likely in what you call "investments". And there, that is the whole point of diversification; of minimizing your risk profile... (you can even go so far as to invest so conservatively that you earn a worse rate of return than you would in some higher-yielding savings accounts)

Moreover, if you invest (using your distinction, such to mean that we are letting people borrow our money for business or public-sector development, i.e., we are buying equities or bonds) in a sufficiently-diversified manner for the long-term (e.g. for retirement) and over a long time horizon (like, when one is in their 20s), you are historically just about guaranteed to make a profit. You probably know as well as I do that the average real (inflation-adjusted) rate of return in the stock market, both considering a period of the last 200 years and the last 70 years, has been around 7%. (Some slicker elements of the financial world might tell you 10-11%, but they're ignoring the average 3.9% rate of inflation (my own calculation, not one I can cite) over the last 90 years.)

Savings and investments are, in terms of logical process, the same: Alice gives money to Bob to hold; Bob in turn gives some fraction (if "saved" as demand-deposits in a bank, or a 1/1 - fees, expenses, charges, etc. fraction if "invested" via a mutual fund or stock seller) of that money to Charlie to use for his organization's development. Charlie, in turn, intends to make repayments over time, and when he does, he does so with interest applied to the payment. The repayments and that interest returns back to Bob, who takes the interest and pays a portion of it (or again, a nearly 1/1 fraction of it, if an investment) back to Alice, as an incentive for her to save/invest with Bob.

Their only significant difference between savings and investment is in their risk/reward ratios, and the intents and advertising that represents them. That is, somebody who wants to "save" their money wants to *feel* confident that they can get their money back anytime they want and not have lost it to the whims of market forces. People who invest are more-willing to take that chance. This is fundamentally the distinction you're making, and what I am saying is that the distinction is, for practical, day-to-day purposes, possibly useful, but in terms of the logical path of money flow and the weightings (rates of return) applied at each link in the flow, it is a classification which does not exist.

"Savings" and "investment" are not a logical distinction, they are a *reasonable* distinction. We can argue over what is "reasonable" all day long (i.e., what should be classified into which bin), but at the end of the day, structurally-speaking, they are the same.

Re:Budget

[Tango42]

1-2%? We were talking about savings accounts - if your savings account pays that little (less than inflation!) you need to move banks.

If you're refering to a current account, that's a completely different story - they exist for convenience and security, not for making money on. Most banks make money on current accounts from charging fees, not from using the money in the account - if you have more than about one month's pay in a current account, you're wasting money.

Re:Budget

[Eivind]

You're rigth in principle, in practice though the difference between saved and invested is smaller the longer the perspective is. (and for a girl aged 22, saving for retirement is very long-term)

What would be "saved" in your book ? Bank-account ? What if the bank goes bankrupt, or the dollar falls sufficiently that the money loose substantial value, or inflation goes higher than interest ? Gold ? What if the purchasing-power of gold falls by 75% over the next 3 decades ?

There's absolutely no way to make 100% certain that a certain value is "saved". Yes, there's more risky and there's less risky ways. But in general, putting say 25K in *diverse* funds investing in all the major world markets and simply letting them sit there the next 30 years is very very VERY likely to give a nice boost to your pension.

Re:Budget

[Eivind]

In reality, they make investments (on the behalf of the account owner) - and pay a fixed and predictable sum on a liquid balance.

No they don't. Pray tell, how much *value* *will* the bank give me 35 years from now if I put $10.000 in the bank ?

First, interest-rate over that period is pretty hard to predict, and fixed interest over those timespans are rarely offered.

Second, even if the interest *WAS* fixed, that still wouldn't answer my question, because what interest me is what *value* I get out, not how many dollars. So if the interest was fixed at 3% pro year, I'd get out $28.138, but how much I'd be able to *buy* for that money (i.e. what is the *value* of it) is anybodys guess.

Third, not even that certanity exist, there's no telling how taxes will change over the 35 years, so I don't even, with a fixed interest, know how much *money* I'll end up getting, nevermind how much value.

The return on investments on the other hand is unpredictable, and may even be negative.

As is anything else, including, but not limited to, buying gold or putting the money in the bank.

Functionally, there are multiple difference between investments and savings

There are differences, yes.

But it's differences of *degree* more than it fundamental differences. Fundamentally they're the same, they differ in the details, along a continum. Some investments are more liquid than others, some have higher risk than others, some have higher expected return than others. Different investment-scenarios mean different strategies make sense. We all agree on this.

We just don't agree that there exists some magical barrier separating "savings" from "investments", rather those are points along a continous function.

Re:Budget

[DerekLyons]

A savings account is just a low-risk investment.

Certainly - I've never debated that, nor engaged in the semantic games that others are doing.

What I am doing is refusing to call Red just a 'low frequency Blue'. We have different names for thing for good reasons - in this case, because the risk, liquidity, and tax implications are dramatically different between savings and equities or securities. Even though, in the abstract, they are the same thing - real world financial planning does not take place on the abstract plane, but in the real world.

Re:Budget

[DerekLyons]

You, sir, are sounding very much clueless.

Only to one who massively clueless to start with. To those not clueless, I'm enjoying a fascinating discussion/debate.

As of now, you've done nothing to clarify the distinction between savings and investments, except to imply that any money you invest may as well be flushed down the toilet, from a financial planning perspective.

'Financial Planning for Dummies' and 'Investing for Dummies' are both excellent books for those seeking to understand the difference. I am however afraid they may be above your comprehension level.

Re:Budget

[DerekLyons]

You're rigth in principle, in practice though the difference between saved and invested is smaller the longer the perspective is. (and for a girl aged 22, saving for retirement is very long-term)

You'd have a point if the portion of the OP that I quoted and discussed dealt with retirement vice short term savings.

There's absolutely no way to make 100% certain that a certain value is "saved". Yes, there's more risky and there's less risky ways.

Certainly. But the OP boasted of how proud she was of her savings rate - and how it was supposed to protect them against having to dip into their retirement funds in the event of financial problems (job loss). Choosing risky investments in place of savings is exactly the wrong way to go about that.

But in general, putting say 25K in *diverse* funds investing in all the major world markets and simply letting them sit there the next 30 years is very very VERY likely to give a nice boost to your pension.

It's also dead-on certain to give you some *very* scary times along the way - but if you can ride it out, you will get a nice boost to your pension.

But the OP isn't talking about pensions - she's talking about (and I replied to the portion discussing) short term savings.

Re:Budget

[DerekLyons]

Functionally, there are multiple difference between investments and savings

There are differences, yes.

But it's differences of *degree* more than it fundamental differences. Fundamentally they're the same, they differ in the details, along a continum. Some investments are more liquid than others, some have higher risk than others, some have higher expected return than others. Different investment-scenarios mean different strategies make sense. We all agree on this.

We just don't agree that there exists some magical barrier separating "savings" from "investments", rather those are points along a continous function.

I never claimed there was a magical barrier. What I claimed was that though they are fundementally identical from the academic point of view - they are not functionally identical from the real world point of view. From this first point of view, there is nothing wrong with the OP placing short term savings into risky equities - because they are *fundementally* the same. From the second point of view - there is something deeply wrong with that action, because of the *functional* differences between the two.

One confuses the academic with the real-world at the real world risk of real money.

Re:Budget

[Tango42]

That's very much a "semantic game"...

the best thing you can do right now.

[Truekaiser]

is figure out how you can live with 50% of your income and 50% of the resources available to you.

Give up

[cubicledrone]

What are other IT workers doing to prepare for potential layoffs?

W-4 employment, along with nearly all IT "skills" is obsolete. Companies and the people who manage them no longer have the huevos to employ people. They would much rather shirk their responsibilities to the communities they insist on shoving their products at. They want it all for free. They want free access to free markets with free labor and free equipment, free buildings, free services and free use of all the infrastructure necessary for them to stuff their own pockets at everyone else's expense. Oh, and if you're about to reply "taxes," save it. Businesses pay no taxes other than sales, which is actually paid by the customers.

When asked, they will screech "free markets" and "capitalism" and "being competitive in the global marketplace" which are all euphemisms for "ram tall dollars into my pockets and fuck everyone else." "Sell the seed corn," they say. "We don't need the farm after I'm done shoving cash into my pockets." Of course all the people who depend on that farm so they can eat? Well, fuck them. They should go retrain so the next asscrack lying piece of shit can have a chance to fire them.

We, as a society, allow corporations the LUXURY and PRIVILEGE of being able to operate as corporations in exchange for certain benefits to society, among them the creation of JOBS and CAREERS and the availability of products and services. Business, naturally, is trying to fuck society by keeping the quo and not exchanging the quid, precisely the same way they are unfairly refusing to honor the original deal in the copyright laws. The reason is because they want everything for free.

Business wants free labor. If they can't have that they want slaves. If they can't have that they'll just fire everyone and close the store/factory/whatever. Profits are more important than not fucking over their neighbors and customers. When people question their hiring decisions they screech "marketable skills" without ever actually explaining what those are. Yet another scam and another lie from a bunch of rat fuck lying cheat phone-flipping asscracks.

Best way to prepare for a layoff is not to buy into the scam of W-4 employment. It's a fucking scam.

Re:Give up

[heinousjay]

Wow, you must had a bad experience somewhere (maybe a few somewheres).

Sorry to hear things didn't work out for you the way you wanted. Still, the hyperbole is a little over the top in your post. What you said applies to a lot of places, but not all by far. That's the free market at work, you know. Employees generally get a choice where to be employed (unless they're useless, of course.)

I'm kind of assuming you'd rather have the government mandate some form of working conditions that are acceptable to you, so you could just sort of slide into a place and be comfortable. Am I far off base?

Re:Give up

[BVis]

Sadly, the GP's set of experiences and opinions is hardly unique.

I myself have been employed at several places where if they could have chained me to the desk, they would have. The only reason that they didn't is because those pesky laws regarding wage and working conditions kept them from doing it.

The US isn't run by the federal government. It's run by the people who get the government elected.

Re:Give up

[Anonymous Coward]

> along with nearly all IT "skills" is obsolete

Huh???

Ok, if you're some "MCSE" or "web programmer", maybe.

But "all IT skills obsolete".... come on, be real. There's HUGE demand for good programmers these days. If you have more than a trade-skill level knowledge, if you know ring-0 from your ass, if you know how stuff works at a nuts and bolts level, there is plenty of work out there. The problem I see is that 95%+ of the people who *think* they know how things work at a nuts and bolts level, really have no clue when you get right down to it. They learned Java or Perl and a little Win32 and think they're god's gift to the industry.

Yes, those people might be hurting these days.

But I'd say there's more demand now than when I got into the industry in the late 70's. I had an easier time finding a job when my last company shut down ~6 months ago than I ever did before.

Re:Give up

[heinousjay]

I certainly agree that the experience isn't unique. I won't work for large corporations because of the terrible experiences I've had. What I came to realize is that I need to stay a little closer to the entrepreneurial spirit that keeps this country running, stick with smaller companies, and try to keep myself as independent as possible.

The US isn't run by the federal government. It's run by the people who get the government elected.

Considering the small parts of the government I've experienced as a contractor, I think a strong case could be made to say no one is running things at all.

Re:Give up

[Nutria]

have the huevos to employ people.

The eggs to employ people??

Re:Give up

[cubicledrone]

There's HUGE demand for good programmers these days.

As long as they're willing to work for shit in a perma-temp job with no benefits, sure.

Buy a home on those jobs? Not a chance. Be in Chapter 11 so fast it would make your head spin. Used to be able to raise a family on just about any full-time job. Now you're lucky to keep a job a year, if that, and then it's back to the want ads for another entry-level no benefits steerage-class slave assignment at temp wages working for some motherfucking rat asscrack lying cheat hairpiece phone-flipping mouth-fulla-bullshit salad-bar ordering upfuck crotch-sucking asshole.

If you have more than a trade-skill level knowledge

I knew eight programming languages. Couldn't rent a job with a coupon. Businesses never explain exactly what skills they want, because if they did, it would prove they were fucking liars.

Re:Give up

[cubicledrone]

Still, the hyperbole is a little over the top in your post.

It's reality. I had one boss that wasn't a fucking liar. One.

Employees generally get a choice where to be employed

Sure, and since they'll be fired every six months, they'll get to exercise that choice over and over again.

so you could just sort of slide into a place and be comfortable

Yeah, I'd like to just "slide" into a place with a pile of qualifications that would blot out the sun. Sure. Anyone who wants more than a temp job wants to "slide" into a place and be "comfortable." Comfort defined as the ability to make consecutive electric bill payments on time. For some reason people think it's good for a person to lose their job every six months. It's good for people to live in constant financial stress. That's the free fucking market, right?

Re:Give up

[FigWig]

Yes

Re:Give up

[mobiGeek]

I myself have been employed at several places where if they could have chained me to the desk, they would have.

...yet you continue to work there?

Land of the free??

Re:Give up

[samdu]

"We, as a society, allow corporations the LUXURY and PRIVILEGE of being able to operate as corporations in exchange for certain benefits to society, among them the creation of JOBS and CAREERS and the availability of products and services. Business, naturally, is trying to fuck society by keeping the quo and not exchanging the quid, precisely the same way they are unfairly refusing to honor the original deal in the copyright laws. The reason is because they want everything for free."

We also tax the baJEEZUS out of them and don't allow them a vote. Corporations, besides being a necessary "evil" are made up of people. They're not nameless, faceless entities. And they get screwed almost, if not more, than they end up screwing. Until you've run your own business, you don't have a frame of reference to make comment on the situation.

Re:Give up

[dgatwood]

There are plenty of very good jobs with benefits, etc. You just have to choose the right companies. Pick a company that has been around for at least 10 years. Start-ups are nice, but they are not particularly stable. Pick a company whose products you use. Pick a company that is public and whose stock has done reasonably well over the last two or three years. Anything that meets these criteria should be at least a decent job.

A little secret for you: the HR department's primary purpose is to weed out anybody who doesn't really want to work at the company. If you want a job, see if you can find out who the hiring manager is and drop that person a note directly. If they won't tell you, find a way to meet someone who works at the company you want to work for. They will be able to find out who the hiring manager is. Email that person.

Once you have successfully circumvented the great HR firewall, getting jobs is easy. As long as you just deal with job web sites and stuff like that, you're pretty much guaranteed to remain unemployed. Well, not quite, but pretty close....

Oh, and one last thing: job advertisements always dramatically exaggerate the required skills. They claim to be "minimum" skills required, but in most cases are actually an ideal set of skills, many of which are just "nice to have" skills, many of which are unlikely to ever exist in the combination listed, and many of which are complete fabrications by HR staffers who don't really understand the position.

Don't be turned off by jobs just because you don't meet the listed qualifications. If you think the job is well within your skill set, it probably is. Apply anyway... but again, not through HR, since they will just pick resumés using keyword searches and yours won't match the keywords. Don't waste a single minute dealing with HR, and if a hiring manager insists that you should go through HR, find a different company. Seriously.

Re:Give up

[Anonymous Coward]

> long as they're willing to work for shit in a perma-temp job with no benefits, sure.

I don't know what reality you are inhabiting, but nobody I know is in that position. They seem perfectly able to buy nice houses, good cars, etc. Getting filthy rich? Nope. But certainly a perfectly comfortable life.

Of course, they are good at what they do.

> I knew eight programming languages.

The worth of an engineer is not measured by the number of languages known. Some of the best engineers I've worked with over the years were really just on top of *one*. Heck, not sure I'd claim much more than 1 at the moment either - two tops, the rest too rusty to count. But somehow it's always been perfectly OK.

What matters is whether you are useful. If you're not, well, naturely you'll find your opportunities on the meager side. If you are, nobody cares what or how many languages you know. Those are just tools, and it's assumed you'll learn them as required.

The good news is that there are like a zillion things to get good at. It might be being an expert at computational fluid dynamics, or coming up with new ways to model electromigration, or being an expert at creating new compiler optimizations. There are probably many thousands of others. The point is, nobody is going to offer you a job because you "know 8 languages".

Trust me on this. I've never claimed more than about 2 or 3 languages on a resume, and have always made it clear I'm just an expert at one, but don't seem to have the troubles you allude to. What matters is that I am very good at a particular useful thing. Knowing a language is not, in and of itself, useful. It's a means, not an end.

> want ads for another entry-level no benefits steerage-class slave assignment at temp wages working for some motherfucking rat asscrack lying cheat hairpiece phone-flipping mouth-fulla-bullshit salad-bar ordering upfuck crotch-sucking asshole.

You know, I'm beginning to see why you are in the position you claim to be in.

I don't think it's a problem with the industry.

But hey, don't listen to someone like me who might try to offer advice from his own experience. Better just to bitch - that's sure to work. I seem able to find perfectly good jobs and I'm trying to offer useful advice. It's totally up to you whether to listen to it. Being good at ranting is not going to get you a tech job.

Re:Give up

[karmatic]

This is probably going to come off as "flippant" to you, but I'm genuinely curious. I'm a programmer as well, with a number of languages. I did the 80-100 hour (no overtime, of course) wage slave number, and finally quit because it was intolerable. Man can not live on Powerade and Hot Pockets alone (I tried).

If you know 8 languages (presumably fairly well, that's about the number I'm at, depending on how you count the C derivitives), why don't you go into business for yourself. I realize it's the new mantra for why crappy work conditions are OK ("... but you could start a company..."), but in all seriousness, why not?

I finally sat down and realized a number of things. First off, what I really do is solve problems with computers. The language sometimes matters when interoperating with other people's code, but for the most type it's the solution that's important. Two, for every problem I solve, someone else has the same (or a very similar) problem. Three, software (and other IP) is the one industry where the cost of production beyond the first unit is effectivly _zero_. So, given that everyone has problems, there is a large opportunity available to someone who can solve problems (as opposed to the aforemention rat lying cheat salad-bar orderer, who just hires developers to do it for him).

Write the software once, for a client. Do it at a decent discount, in exchange for retaining ownership of the code. When you are producing "solutions", rather than "products", the companies are a lot more willing to do so (at least in my experience). They'd rather save the money. Sell it again, and again. Every new job you do increases the number of products you have to sell (and gives you flexibility to combine projects for even more functionality).

Now the downside to this is that you are, in fact, competing with some guys from third-world nations, who will work for very cheap rates. You can't beat them on price, and you wouldn't want to, at least not on the first sale. So, to compete, you will need to offer something that they can't, or won't. After you sell the first copy of a project, you can cut prices to below the cost of production. If the indians haven't already made one of whatever it is, they can't beat you on price.

I know this works, because it's what I do. I earn American level wages, despite very heavy competition from overseas and my peers. I offer what they can't - personal service, a sales department (me) that speaks English, an extensive code library. I usually have a functional demo of whatever it is they are looking for. This is easy to do; I found out people who need my products beforehand, and I approach them. My products also often include features (Search Engine Manipulation, intrusion detection, very effective caching with good scalability) that the Indians simply can't provide.

In other words, I provide the product my customers need, from an American, better, faster, and cheaper than people in third world companiess can (unless they too wrote whatever it is I'm selling). It's not a hard sale to make. I've carved out my niche (search engine manipulation, cloaking, crawling sites that don't want to be crawled, etc.), and it does well. If it dries up, people will still have problems. I can adapt.

So, the questions I have are:
1) If you can program well, why don't you choose to work for yourself? Uninsurable (too fat/diabetes)? Too much risk (as opposed to a job you get fired from in 6 months anyway)? Couldn't manage to sell $0.50 gas to a Hummer owner?

2) If you do feel it necessary to work for someone else, why don't you diversify your skillset (I never had a shortage of job offers as a Unix Admin who could program, even if the jobs were long hours. The pay was decent, too.), or move. For a "HTML Programmer", there aren't too many jobs since the bust, but for a competant person, there are plenty of jobs, at least where I live. Somehow, I doubt that Mesa, Arizona is the only place in the country where a competant programmer can find work.

Re:Give up

[EllF]

Good on you for knowing so many programming languages. Work on your attitude a bit, and perhaps someone will want to hire you. I turn down about a dozen candidates a month -- and rarely is it for lack of technical skill. Most of the folks who interview with me mumble, stutter, and babble their way into another interview with another company. Technical prowess is fine, but give me a motivated, intelligent, personable candidate any day. I'm not concerned about your lack of PHP knowledge if you can learn, want to work, and have a good enough attitude that I feel that spending 10 hours a day near you will be a mututally enjoyable situation.

Re:Give up

[ClamIAm]

In the US, corporations have effectively become tax shelters that allow the owners to pay much less in taxes than the average lower- or middle-class person. I remember very well the taxes portion of my high school economics class, which, using the data straight from the US Gov't, showed a continual decline in the tax revenue from corporations and the upper class.

Also, I do not see how an entity made of paper and ink should be allowed a vote in any government.

Re:Give up

[Anonymous Coward]

spending 10 hours a day near you

If we're talking 2-hour lunches every day, why do I have to spend that time as well with you? If we're not, you couldn't afford me.

Re:Give up

[Bloke down the pub]

I myself have been employed at several places

yet you continue to work there?

From his use of the perfect tense (indicates a completed action in the past), I'd conclude that no, he doesn't.

Re:Give up

[rhendershot]

>>If you think the job is well within your skill set, it probably is

If you *think* it is, it probably is not.

The *last* thing a job seeker should do is send an uninvited correspondance to a middle manager. Getting someone on the inside to speak for you or to break the ice is one thing. As a hiring supervisor, I'd toss anything that didn't match up to a public job posting or referral or came from our internal email system as a current employee. And if it was a phone call? I'd forward to HR with barely a comment.

My job descriptions generally *understated* the required skills. My boss's and my philosophy was that drive and ingenuity more than made up for specific experiences . Some skills were absolute and they were portrayed as such.

I hardly know what to say about your concept of HR. They have the resources to answer phones, verify initial matches, check references, etc. They do a lot more than notice someone who is uncertain. Most job seekers are uncertain. For their part they have to know some detail before they can imagine life at your company. That's natural. To extend your metaphor; you know how we treat unauthorized invasions across our firewalls, right? ;)

Re:Give up

[cubicledrone]

There are plenty of very good jobs with benefits, etc. You just have to choose the right companies.

There are plenty of lottery jackpots. You just have to pick the right numbers. People keep saying "there are plenty of good jobs." But it's bullshit. Sorry.

Anything that meets these criteria should be at least a decent job.

For six months. Then it's a layoff.

A little secret for you: the HR department's primary purpose is to weed out anybody who doesn't really want to work at the company.

No. An HR department's primary purpose is to weed out anybody.

Once you have successfully circumvented the great HR firewall, getting jobs is easy.

Amazing we managed to build an economy without HR departments for 170 years, isn't it?

Oh, and one last thing: job advertisements always dramatically exaggerate the required skills.

No shit? You mean they are motherfucking liars? Never would have guessed.

Re:Give up

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, corporations can't vote as citizens can do. Why vote when you have campaign contributions, PACs, industry associations, and lobbyists to push your interests in the halls of government? I suggest you set aside the Ayn Rand blinders and take a wider view of the world.

Re:Give up

[cubicledrone]

why don't you go into business for yourself.

Now there's an idea!

If you do feel it necessary to work for someone else, why don't you diversify your skillset

"Diversify your skillset" is a scam designed to distract people from the fact they are being fucked out of their careers.

Re:Give up

[cubicledrone]

Work on your attitude a bit, and perhaps someone will want to hire you.

Typical middle management attitude: suck my ass and I might listen to you.

Most of the folks who interview with me mumble, stutter, and babble their way into another interview with another company.

Because if someone has a speech impediment they should go hungry. What, do they think they are entitled to a job or something? I mean really! Who the fuck do they think they are!?

Technical prowess is fine, but give me a motivated, intelligent, personable candidate any day.

How about someone who is smarter than you?

Re:Give up

[cubicledrone]

I don't know what reality you are inhabiting, but nobody I know is in that position.

Must be nice living in a perfect world.

They seem perfectly able to buy nice houses, good cars, etc.

By stealing opportunity from other people, firing them, taking away their benefits, paying slaves to make products sold at 500,000% markups. Sure.

Of course, they are good at what they do.

So am I. In fact, I'm better at what I do than they are at what they do. I'm also smarter than they are. Managers hate confident people, because confident people don't put up with being lied to and fucked over. So the confident people don't get hired. Simple. Right?

The worth of an engineer is not measured by the number of languages known.

Of course not. See, this is the easiest (and most dishonest) way to disqualify someone. Simply move the bar. If they know X, then Y is the qualification. If they know Y, then X and Z are the qualifications. Therefore, no matter what you know, you're not qualified, and they can ship the job to a $4 a day temp somewhere and spend the difference on "nice houses, good cars, etc." and "certainly a perfectly comfortable life."

The point is, nobody is going to offer you a job because you "know 8 languages".

Good. I didn't ask for one.

You know, I'm beginning to see why you are in the position you claim to be in.

Oh good, so you've worked for motherfucking liars too?

I don't think it's a problem with the industry.

Sure it is. It's a problem with all business. Business is about "stuff my pockets and fuck everyone else" now.

Being good at ranting is not going to get you a tech job.

I didn't ask for a tech job. I gave up on tech jobs a LONG time ago, not long after being laid off by, you guessed it, a motherfucking liar.

Re:Give up

[EllF]

I doubt you'll read this entire post, given your response, but I'm going to give it a go regardless:

It's obvious that you've got some bad feelings about your employment experiences. Your words sound very much like my own did and still do from time to time, and I can understand where you're coming from. There is a notion within geek subculture that only the "stupid jocks" are successful, and that there is a network of handshakes and back-scratching that perpetuates this success.

What I've found is that viewing the world that way is born of insecurity and unhappiness. "I'm smart! I've always been a cut above, and nobody has ever recognized me for it! What the hell -- it's THEIR fault!" Ego, at its finest.

Ultimately, that kind of ego is interested in protecting itself from pain, and rarely does it allow you to step back and realize what's going on. When you take on an air of aloof deservation, nobody will wants to be around you for very long. You bitch and bemoan the state of the world in isolation, and before long, everything you see and do is filtered through a lens of unhappy comparison.

The alternative is to turn that intellect and passion towards the areas where it will bring you success: adapting to social paradigms in little ways, smiling, accepting your follies and failings at face value, and trying to be compassionate towards other people's personalities and egos. Doing so does not change you into some sort of middle-class robot, despite what you might think. Making other people feel comfortable and respected builds for you a reputation of being a good, solid character. In turn, you start to realize that you have a worthwhile place in the world, and that the ups and downs of your days aren't that different from anyone else's.

As I see it, the "I'm smarter than you, and shouldn't have you treat you with courtesy, because that's sucking ass!" mentality harms only one person. You aren't significant enough to ruin anyone else's day or life, usually. What you are creating is a perpetuating cycle of bad luck and hard experiences by playing to the concept of being better, more worthy, or somehow above the people who can help you. Fine by them, of course: they'll just help someone else succeed, and at worst, make you pay for it by acting cruelly in response.

No advice here, other than this: ask yourself if your attitude has done more to bring you peace and compassion, or to drive others away. No need to respond to me -- I'm just some guy who works in tech, hires people, and tries to find people who aren't so bitter that they can't see past their own noses.

Re:Give up

[cubicledrone]

It's obvious that you've got some bad feelings about your employment experiences.

I was six months from buying a house. Six months away. I lost it all. My entire career evaporated and I had to start over, from scratch, after being six months away from buying a house. Why? Because some middle manager decided the numbers on a spreadsheet didn't add up the way he wanted them to. So I and about 200 other people lost our careers. Dozens of people that I worked with lost their homes, marriages, savings, retirement, health insurance, investments, all of it, gone.

We did the right thing. We played by the rules. We did exactly what was asked of us and then some. We went to school. We got degrees. We worked for years to build careers. We did what we were supposed to do.

And some middle manager destroyed it. I worked for one boss in my entire W-4 career that wasn't a liar. Millions of people in this society have gone through the same thing and I do not understand why people not only tolerate it but defend it and then blame the people who were cheated out of what is rightfully theirs.

Defend it all you want. It's not right.

Re:Give up

[EllF]

I'm sorry to hear about your troubles.

I am not a religious person, but every major theology has a theme of temporality running through it. I think that's a reflection of our innate desire to make sense of an entropic universe. Nothing is safe or secure -- no combination of morality, planning, or playing by the rules can shield you from the fact that life is unpredictable. I don't mean to sound callous. I have lost things that I wanted and thought that I deserved, and I know the pain, if not under the same circumstances that you've felt.

We can only walk two paths: we can build and hedge against the inevitable decay of everything we hold dear, and suffer for each inch that erodes away, or we can struggle and fight and suffer to recognize the current moment for what it is without lamenting it if/when it is gone.

Bitter or happy, bemoaning or bemused, life sweeps onwards. Memento mori, and choose how you react to that current. May you find a way out of the dark place you're in.

Re:Give up

[Richard Steiner]

The problem that *I* ran into during a lengthy unemployment stint was talking to *anybody*.

It seems that most companies weed most candidates out well before the interview stage, so I only had a half-dozen or so interviews all told. Actually, I think the number of interviews that weren't consulting firms or job-hunting agencies numbered precisely five, though I may be forgetting one or two. I don't think so, though.

That's five interviews in 33 months. Out of over 1000 cover letters and customer resumes sent out.

Once I actually got into an interview situation, I did quite well (my first got me an eight-month contract even though I didn't know the platform in question at all, my second led to five subsequent interviews before the position was dropped for financial reasons (still a successful one from my perspective because the manager wanted to hire me), and the third and fourth both resulted in companies flying me across the country for in-person interviews and eventually making offers.

If personality or interviewing ability was one of the main things required for successful job hunting, then I'd have been hired almost immediately after being laid off. I've been told on numerous occasions that I interview well.

Re:Give up

[Richard Steiner]

Hey, I worked for an airline until the beginning of 2002, and I saw a lot of the same thing happening.

Yeah, it sucks.

I personally had just bought a house a year before my layoff, and we had just gone into a little bit of additional debt to buy various household things, something that shouldn't have been a big deal (I figured it'd take us 2-3 years to pay it off and we'd be gravy).

All of a sudden the airline industry hid a little bump, which wasn't that alarming by itself, but then the happenings of 9/11 sent the entire airline industry into a tailspin.

Who could have predicted that in 2000? Or that so many folks who had 10, 15, 20 or more years of decent IT experience at the airline would be dropped like hot potatos across the entire org chart? Whole teams were axed just because they were working on "nonessential" projects.

I understand the airlines' need to trim costs and such, but it's still a tremendous shock to me how suddenly things hit.

I ended up slowly making my way thourgh it, and my wife and I are in a different part of the country now licking our wounds and starting over, but it seemed like a nightmare when it was happening.

No, it's not right. I agree. It sucks.

Re:Give up

[dgatwood]

I'm not talking about completely unsolicited out-of-the-blue "are you looking for someone" messages. You should only do something like this if you know that the hiring manager in question has a job posting that you fit.

And I guess "uncertain" was probably the wrong word. "Not sufficiently determined" would probably be more suitable. Yes, it's normal to not know if you want to work somewhere. However, you are far more likely to get hired if every interviewer comes away thinking that you are familiar with the company and genuinely want to work there.

Oh, yeah. That's another thing. When I'm interviewing someone for a position, I like to ask questions that test the person to see if they know at least something about the company and what we produce. It pays to do your homework. They don't have to imagine life at the company, but they do have to at least have a passing understanding of what they're getting into or they won't make it past the first round of interviews.

I got my current job because one of the hiring managers went way outside channels and posted on a public mailing list for the technology area. I communicated directly with the hiring manager, typed out a very abbreviated resumé tailored to the specific position, interviewed about two months later, and was working there the following Monday. Because I had been active on that list, the people hiring knew me by name before I even answered that email. I very much doubt that anyone in HR would have given my resumé much notice. It would have been lost in the flood.

You're right that job descriptions should understate the desired skills. At most large companies, that isn't the case, though. At least with most large companies, you don't apply for a job. You put your resumé into a pool. When you have tens of thousands of resumés in a pool, the odds of the HR person pulling yours is vanishingly small. Bear in mind that unless it is a very esoteric position, there are probably 9,999 other people with the same skills. (Yes, I'm exaggerating a little, but you get the idea.) The odds of yours being in the ten that get sent to the hiring manager are pretty slim even if you would be a good fit for the job.

And of course, all this depends on whether the HR person happens to guess good keywords. I've seen it take three or four rounds with HR to get people who are even halfway qualified for some positions. If you feel that a job would be a good "fit" for you and can find a way around them and get that resumé in front of the hiring manager, you are at -least- ten times as likely to get a job than putting your name into a pool, from what I've seen.

Your company may differ, but if so, IMHO, it is the exception.

Re:Give up

[rhendershot]

>>more likely to get hired if every interviewer comes away thinking that you are
>>familiar with the company and genuinely want to work there.

This is a great point and should have gotten you modded up. It's probably one of the things I most often fail to do myself. (mental note ) We know applicants are busy and that it's tempting to shoot off electronic resumes to anything that moves... but we're busy too. You're asking us to take 5-20 minutes to take a look at you. Give us the most reason you can to do so.

>>I'm exaggerating a little, but you get the idea

I think this used to be true. I think apres buste it isn't so much. I'd love to hear from some HR folks in both large and small organizations. For us, a position generated a number of responses, they were sorted through by HR based on the requirements we gave, and possible matches forwarded to us for second round evaluation. We didn't keep those after all was said and done but I don't know how long, or if, HR kept them. I don't see much point to it myself since both our and the applicants' status quickly changes and our need for that combination of skills and experience has moved past that applicant either to satisfaction or not.

Your odds are not increased by contacting me directly (even if a perfect fit) since HR has to vet the submission anyway. All I can do with such is pass it to HR for their 'blessing' and hope they send it on back to me. That's actually a delay. Even if I *love* you, I'm going to have to push to get it through HR. I probably won't since, well, I don't love easily and I have little time for love in any case :O

>>whether the HR person happens to guess good keywords.

We always try to give HR as helpful a filtering scenario and criteria as possible. We always ask them to call if they have one on their desk they're not sure about. Hearing the cover or skills list can help them determine matching. Not that they typically made use of this channel, but at least they could not deny our involvment.

On the other side, I try to target my cover letter to HR. Even in small organisations where the hiring manager proxies, he's thinking in different terms when shuffling through a bunch of new submissions. If that captures any interest then if I've done my homework, he'll have little reason to *not* see a match with my skills and experience.

>>I got my current job

I moved from electronics to software QA in '95 by exactly the same mechanism. Also to a better position in '97 by exactly the same mechanism. In both cases I was hired within weeks of responding to the newsgroup posting. ISP's no longer carry local newsgroups (for some reason nobody uses them much anymore except for spam, pr0n and fighting) these days. Too bad.

When the rush to six-figure consulting took a lot of our programmers to the South in the late 90's I was tapped to take a programming position. I've never had a review that wasn't exceeds or above. That's due to my having a love for programming. Had I submitted a resume through normal channels I am absolutely certain I'd not have gotten past the initial HR screen. Only my direct physical access to the hiring manager and the company's dire need made it possible.

So- I don't discount your point as to getting access directly to the person who would supervise or hire. But for those who chose this path be aware that contact has to be carefully managed.

Re:Give up

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is safe or secure -- no combination of morality, planning, or playing by the rules can shield you from the fact that life is unpredictable. I don't mean to sound callous. I have lost things that I wanted and thought that I deserved, and I know the pain, if not under the same circumstances that you've felt.

Well, why should anyone get up out of bed in the morning, eh? If there is no safety and security? Why isn't this the fundamental lesson that we teach our young people, then, eh?

The reason is for some people, there's all the safety and security in the world and for the vast majority, there is none. Pointing that out is not in the intrests of those who have that safety and security.... Since, for the vast majority, if there is never any hope you can "win" economical, why "play" the game? And my, if the vast majority ever realized that, the safe and secure minority would no longer be safe and secure.

Avoid IT in the United States. Period.

Re:Give up

[EllF]

Tactfully put, could your resume and cover letter skill sets be lacking?

Re:Give up

[Anonymous Coward]

My experience is 180 degrees away from yours. I've worked in the same (small) company for almost seven years, and currently make 105K. My previous position was nearly 5 years, and I would have stayed longer if they hadn't gone bankrupt.

Maybe your attitude has something to do with it?

Re:Give up

[cubicledrone]

My experience is 180 degrees away from yours. I've worked in the same (small) company for almost seven years, and currently make 105K.

I met a guy who opened a sammich stand on Neptune once.

Maybe your attitude has something to do with it?

Maybe the people doing the hiring are motherfucking liars?

Re:Give up

[karmatic]

"Diversify your skillset" is a scam designed to distract people from the fact they are being fucked out of their careers.

And who, exactly, "owes" you a career? Who's fault is it that you are incapable of providing sufficient value to a company to justify the wages you want?

If there is _anything_ that companies can be counted on to do, it's to act in their best interest. If you can provide $70,000 worth of value to a company, it's not too hard to convince them to pay you $40-50K. If you provide $40,000 worth of value to a company, you shouldn't realistically expect them to pay you $50,000, can you? That's not a job, that's charity.

Here's the funny thing about a marketplace - the more of something there is, the less it's worth. All companies have to deal with the fact that the more competition they have, the harder it is to turn a profit, and so do you. People who can do what you do will probably work for cheaper than you. So, you need to either a) provide something the other people can't, b) do something better than the other people, or c) do it for cheaper. That's where diversifying your skillset is necessary. Niches can be really lucrative, but it doesn't take very much competition to make it an unattractive prospect. You can work for what the market price is at, or you can try to do something new or better. You can make a good amount of money doing it, but you can't sit still doing that. Someone else will come in and try to take your piece of the pie.

What's the alternative? Government assigning you a job, and prevent others from doing it? Unions driving up wages to the point where it's higher than what an employee's worth? (Here's a hint, if an employee does a job worth $8/hour to a company, and it costs $10/hour, that employee's getting the axe). Stopping the hiring of illegal aliens and deporting them? Here's a hint - if you think that last one's going to work, you're an idiot.

1) There's too many of them to make it feasable.
2) Their children are often US citizens. You're deporting the parents of American Citizens.
3) If you're worried about your job being taken by someone who can't speak english, and isn't a legal citizen - congratulations, you have a job that requires no skills.
4) If you, for example, deport all the melon pickers, the melons won't get picked (it's happened in Utah and other places). If you pay Americans enough to pick them, the prices go up so high that it's cheaper to ship them from Mexico, where it's still picked by Mexicans, and still results in money getting sent to Mexicans.
5) You lost a whole lot of tax revenue, whether you want to believe it or not. I've hired (and have worked with people who hired) illegal aliens. They all have papers (forged ones are easy to get), and they have taxes withholded just like you or I. Unlike you or I, they aren't getting a refund.

You're welcome to make a case for repealing NAFTA, and revoking lots of people's citizenship, but if we're going to run around revoking citizenship, start with the lazy, good-for-nothing, welfare-abusing americans (not generalizing this to all americans, just refering to that specific segment). The mexicans I've known (and hired) were the hardest working bunch of people I've seen.

So, ok - the system sucks. What do you suggest doing about it? Tarrifs and the like have their own problems, as wealth is built when money _moves_. Stagnant economies are bad.

Re:Give up

[cubicledrone]

And who, exactly, "owes" you a career?

The business that hires people without telling them "we're going to fuck you out of this job in six months."

Who's fault is it that you are incapable of providing sufficient value to a company to justify the wages you want?

"Sufficient value." Scam. Sufficient value is whatever some motherfucking liar says it is, meaning it ain't whatever you got hired for and there went the job.

If there is _anything_ that companies can be counted on to do

It's lie to the people they hire and then fuck them out of their jobs.

If you provide $40,000 worth of value to a company, you shouldn't realistically expect them to pay you $50,000, can you?

Whoever sucks the most ass gets the tallest dollars.

That's where diversifying your skillset is necessary.

Scam. None of this bullshit existed even one generation ago. It's all a fucking scam. A bunch of motherfucking liars stealing other people's paychecks. Face it. FACE IT. Stop the babbling about supply and demand and the babbling about skillsets and the horseshit about "sufficient value" and all that mass of shit swirling around the bowl. It's all hay-fed fragrant HORSE SHIT. Qualified people with immense skill sets are fired from jobs on a daily basis for no reason at all.

Let's go back to the Disney example because it is perfect, and it shuts down the horseshit cold.

Disney fired all of their animators recently. Canada, Florida, Europe, Australia, Japan. All of them. These people are irreplaceable. They're like astronauts. They can never be replaced. Ever. Disney fired them all. Destroyed their careers. Hundreds of people who had dedicated their educations and professional lives to their craft were thrown into the street for absolutely no reason at all. None.

Now let's go through the list.

a) provide something the other people can't

Check. There are no other Disney animators in this solar system.

b) do something better than the other people

Check. Disney was the best in the world. Billions of dollars at the box office.

c) do it for cheaper

Oops. The animators wanted to have light and food. Layoffs for all!

"But, but!" they say. "What if 2D animation wasn't a good enough market any more? What if Disney couldn't afford to pay their animators?"

2D animation is still a multi-billion dollar business, even in North America. There are FOUR HUNDRED animation studios in Japan. And Disney couldn't make money? Please.

So the conclusion is simple: Disney destroyed an 80 year tradition of some of the finest animation known to mankind. They did it deliberately, and they did it for no reason whatsoever.

AND THEN THEY SPENT SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS TO BUY PIXAR.

Discussion over.

Re:Give up

[Nutria]

But eggs are, well, female. Estrogen, shopping, etc.

How does that sync?

Whatever happened to cohones?

Re:Give up

[ErikZ]

...and then they spent seven billion dollars to buy Pixar.

That's a lie and you know it.

They bought half of Pixar.

Re:Give up

[Richard Steiner]

That's a very good question. That occurred to me on several occasions, as I'm sure it would to anyone who was running into an apparently endless series of stone walls.

Here's what I did. I ran a half-dozen versions of my typical resume and cover letters (ones which I had actually used to apply to positions) past a number of folks I know at various times during my period of joblessness. Two of them were hiring managers (not hiring techie folks at that time, unfortunately), and most of the others were working at headhunter or contracting firms and evaluated resumes as part of their jobs.

They liked my cover letters and attached custom resumes for the most part. FWIW, my initial resume was written while going through a local job placement firm's "job search preparation" course, and the instructor there asked for a copy of my first attempt at a resume to include with her examples for future classes. :-)

I typically used a "T-letter" format for the cover letter -- two sets of parallel bullet points that showed requirements for the published position on one side and my qualfications for each on the other.

In any case -- I got a lot of feedback over time and made adjustments, sometimes focusing a resume on specific technical stuff (e.g., my experience with SQL and relational databases), and sometimes glossing over tool specifics completely and stressing the nature of the products/processes I had used which were similar to those required for the position, and the resumes I was tossing out near the end was somewhat different from what I started with.

Sometimes I received conflicting opinions, too. Resume writing isn't an exact science by any means, and some folks will immediately reject something that another considers stellar.

It's possible those were an issue, but I also used a couple of formats that were written by other people, and those didn't work either. Who knows?

Re:Give up

[Richard Steiner]

On a related note: I would say that roughly 25% of the companies out there impose some sort of limit on the format that one can use when submitting a resume or a cover letter.

Some of them had a policy of only accepting resumes through their web site's fill-in form, meaning that a prospective employee had to fit his or her resume information into the format that the company had hard-coded into their web site. Some of those web sites only provided fairly small editing areas for each item (63 characters or less in at least one case I can remember), and some of them made no provision for cover letters at all.

Thankfully, there were also a number of well-designed web sites out there which either allowed attachments (so one could submit a preformatted cover letter and sometimes resume in PDF, RTF, ASCII, or DOC format), or which had flexible input fields which were large enough to hold the information and would also retain any formatted you wanted to use.

I tried to get around web web site on many occasions when it seemed on the surface that it was a hard requirement, contacting HR and asking if there was an address I could send a paper cover and resume letter to, and some companies were quitie receptive to that.

However, a surprising number of companies would ONLY accept resumes through their web site. No paper resumes were being considered, and that fact was stressed to me over the phone.

Thankfully, a certain percentage of companies were a bit old-fashioned and still accepted paper resumes sent via US Mail, and a few even required them and provided no electronic options, but those two groups represented well under half of the positions I dealt with.

That was over a year ago now, and I'm willing to bet the number of companies which accept traditional paper resumes is shrinking, not growing.

Re:Give up

[cubicledrone]

They bought half of Pixar.

That's even better!

we IT workers are the most advantageous

[unity100]

when it comes to layoffs.

Especially programmers, designers, web developers, or any information technology service or counseling / technical support, anything that can be performed remote :

We have the internet.

When you get laid off, even in the u.s., you have the chance to put your resume & experience in a post titled 'experienced ..... looking for work/taking on projects' and shortly you get many inquiries.

Sure wages are not that high, comparable to when you work full time on-site.

But then again, a hourly $15 should be enough thinking you are working from home ? or from a remote site on vacation - hell, practically anywhere in the world.

Our professions are the most suitable for the internet - no surprise, as we are the ones that built it.

That might not seem enough, a mere $15, however there is no limit as to how many projects you can take on or at the same time how many hourly paid jobs you can manage - handle 3 simultaneous work, get $45 in total - no contractor will object to you as long as you handle their work fittingly. That is something you cant do while working on-site : work on someone elses stuff for an hour, get busted, youre in trouble.

I understand that many have families and people to support, and quite a many have become accustomed to rather high living standards.

So what ? if we lower our standards a bit in such times, we can work anywhere, anytime.

And note that, not having a profession that is required to be registered, unionized, guildized etc nowhere in the world, makes us capable of working ANYWHERE.

Too high taxes in u.s. ? Move to some other country where you are allowed to live in, just start working there. Its that simple.

On top of that, many countries will be pleased to have more it workers.

Unionization, regulation and etc are not to our advantage, but to our disadvantage. Keep in mind that organisations always fail to represent the masses they set out to represent - because only the rich, powerful & influential enough can spare enough resources to get on the helm of any of them. Then the result leads to manipulation and molding of the related masses to some other power's interest, and that generally becomes the industry bosses.

So far so good, were not mine workers, we can easily find ways to sustain ourselves, heck, even prosper (we are always free to use our skills to set up our own job, and we can do it with minimum capital) whenever we get laid off.

Maybe we are not that safe always, but, for the first time in the world history maybe, we have more freedom than any profession member had on the face of the world.

Re:we IT workers are the most advantageous

[LanimilbusLE]

Our professions are the most suitable for the internet - no surprise, as we are the ones that built it.

claims_of_creating_the_net++;

Re:we IT workers are the most advantageous

[cyber-vandal]

Unionization, regulation and etc are not to our advantage, but to our disadvantage.

A quick look at the history of the 20th century as compared to the the rest of human history would instantaneously prove you wrong. The 20th century saw the most regulation and unionisation in human history. It also saw the greatest period of social and technological growth the human race has ever seen.

Too high taxes in u.s. ? Move to some other country where you are allowed to live in, just start working there. Its that simple.

That may be possible for a multi-lingual 25 year old with no family or friends. How about the other 99% of the population? I've lived in 3 other countries apart from the UK and I'm telling you right now, it's not "simple" at all, and I didn't have a wife and children to relocate as well.

Re:we IT workers are the most advantageous

[unity100]

As for unionization, the past history is not sufficient to judge their value in the case of it - never before in the world history there has been much flexibility and communication and networking than internet is offering. we are not local, we are global.

As for families, having a family and roots is ALWAYS hard whether you are unionized or not. What will happen if a plant closes and union gets a deal elsewhere ? Youll move, as a family and thats it. Whats the difference ? At least , in it field, you dont have to answer to no union, and you can work from home, and get MULTIPLE jobs. You cant do that with a union.

Re:we IT workers are the most advantageous

[cyber-vandal]

the internet and improved communication technology at the end of the 20th century, so had no influence on the main part of it. Try again and this time read the whole of the history of the 20th century.
You have a weird idea of unions if you think you have to answer to them, and being a union member would have no bearing whatsoever on how many jobs I would be able to take, not that I would want to take MULTIPLE jobs when one job should pay enough in the first place. I do have a life, family and friends, I've got no interest in working 18 hours a day 7 days a week.

Re:we IT workers are the most advantageous

[unity100]

It is odd that you are proposing the objection about the unions, and their irrelevancy to telecommunications industry, to ME, as i have not proposed any idea close to it. Somebody else said that, unions being a milestone of development in the 20th century and they would help the it field too, so I suppose you should direct your objection to him/her.

As for multiple jobs, having a union that FORCES the industry to make them pay more for a job does not mean that you will be able to get the job. In such situations industry prefers to lay off employees, reduce the number of them and make them work their full pays' worth, sometimes overusing them

As for 'not answering to' the union, that can change, and such changes did happen in history. Also, not all the unions are alike, not all unions are like yours. There are unions that can limit where you can work and where you can not, and can limit your mobility instead of boosting it in terms of geo location.

Re:we IT workers are the most advantageous

[bratwiz]

I hope you're not posting from the United Kingdom. That's where I'd like to live-- and yet they have really screwed-up immigration policies. If you're poor, destitute, and from some god-forsaken third-world country-- then by all means, come right on in. BUT... if you're from the good old U.S. of A... well, then, that's a horse of a different color. Never mind that WE were once a British colony... the Brits don't give us the time of day when it comes to immigration status. Surely they can't still be sore at us over that little 1776 thing... can they?? That was a long time ago-- forgive and forget and all that (old chap)?? But no, despite the fact that we are their number one ally, supply them with a great deal of intelligence and defense needs-- not to mention food and other goodies-- Americans are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to immigrating to Britain. Bloody wankers.

Re:we IT workers are the most advantageous

[cyber-vandal]

Unions have in the main been a very positive influence on the situation for the average worker, I never tried to claim they were perfect (name a human-run organisation that is). Anyway the usual proposition for IT workers is a professional organisation; looking at professions that do have that like lawyers and doctors, I'm having trouble seeing how their ability to make money is in any way compromised.

Re:we IT workers are the most advantageous

[unity100]

They are too closed, and rigid organizations. First, internet, IT, are worlds that change quickly, and there is high mobility and freedom, second, any limitation on who can and can not do it work, development, programming etc is hampering to the field in general. The fast paced - high intense growth in both market, technology, innovation, and the reach of all of these has been because the internet/it is in a state like the west in era of gold rush - huge expansion, huge growth, huge reach, hence huge number of available jobs.

If we bring any limitation to it, we will break our own market.

May I suggest a subscription to...

[linzeal]

Backwoods Country Magazine so you can learn to make it when they shut off your electricity and you are forced to use your 1/8th of an arable land that used to be your lawn to grow corn on and hunt neighborhood cats.

Re:May I suggest a subscription to...

[From A Far Away Land]

You may be joking, but people aren't putting their lawn space to a great enough use. We have all sorts of room to be growing hemp [illegal in the USA sadly, but makes food, paper, rope, clothing], peas, peppers, onions, and fruit bearing trees that would feed our neighbourhoods nicely, and aren't even an eyesore. It's just a myth that someone needs a lawn to look sucessful. Grass is for cattle, gardens are for people. Oh, and wild rabbits would be better eatin' than cats.

Psst

[Wordplay]

W-4 is the withholding form. "W-2 employment" is probably what you're looking for there. :)

Live now or live later?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen many people, especially Americans, worry about their retirement. Nothing wrong about planning for the future, but somehow I get the impression that some people are living in a way that says "suffer a lot - suffer now - and when you retire, you'll be fine". Some people never make it old enough to retire, and some who do, are so much wasted that they can't really enjoy the retirement anyway. Some hard earned life savings have turned out to be totally useless when called upon.

So, think what you invest in. Not only in terms of money, but life in general. Even if you don't have kids (that's a completely different story, which I will not go into), you can put money in a bank, or you can spend it to something you really value. If worst comes to worst, you still have the memories of sailing around the world, or climbing that mountain, or visiting that faraway place. No economic hardship can take that away.

Of course I don't recommend just burning your money away the fastest possible way, that would be stupid. But do not postpone living until you are too old to do it!

-H

Re:Live now or live later?

[vanye]

Live fast, die young might be bad, but its not as bad as live slow, die old.

Of course I'm going for the live slow, die young to maximise my misery (I'm English).

richard.

"Be prepared."

[Deagol]

I live in Utah, where long-term food storage is (to put it mildly) a big thing. I'm not LDS ("Mormon" to you unlearned gentiles), but my family has taken to putting away food as part of the rainy day fund. A couple of years ago, I took a year off. I cashed in the pre-tax retirement fund my employer was contributing to, and lived off of that (for the most part). It wasn't much -- about $30k after the 20% withholding, most of which was used to pay off a small loan (some remote land). My salary before my little sabbatical was about $53k/yr. The food storage we had on-hand helped to stretch the remaining $10k, which also had to pay for a mortgage and a hefty truck payment. Having a milk cow and chickens also helps the food go a long way, too. :) Had I not had the truck to pay for, we could have easily coasted along for 2 to 3 years.

While one can't go wrong with having money in the bank (or a fund) earning interest, my family's philosophy is to reduce monetary need first then put money away. I recently downgraded my job from $45k/yr to ~$17k/yr, and our standard of living hasn't suffered.

One poster on this thread has mentioned she doesn't wish to "risk" being forced into a "frugal" lifestyle. Our take on things is live frugally by default and you live with much worry in the long run.

Re:"Be prepared."

[dasunt]

You know what? You own a house. Get out of here. If the rest of us were so lucky... Sell your house, and come live here. My rent is probably more than your mortgage.

Many times, it is not 'luck' that leads to financial success, but hard work and sacrifice.

We spend money on what we want and what we need. A few people want savings, so they "spend" some of their money on savings (to varying degrees).

Your scenario, while it works for you, is not doable for most. You started out with money. You even took a long unpaid vacation. You chose to take a huge salary cut. You own a house, and enough land for livestock. You're already ahead of the curve. Most people start out way, way, way behind the curve, and many never catch up.

I've noticed that a lot of people complain about having no savings, yet drive newer vehicles, eat out alot, have large apartments/homes, afford a full cable package, and buy a lot of gadgets. While I don't advocate living like a pauper on beans and ramens in a studio apartment, I do think it is possible for most people to scale back on their spending and build up some savings.

Just my $.02

Re:"Be prepared."

[maxume]

You misunderstood that other post. She doesn't want to have to lower her standard of living because of a job loss and plans accordingly. That's not any different than what you are talking about.

Re:"Be prepared."

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Utah

I'm sorry.

A few key things

[roc_machine]

- Keep my resume up-to-date. Most resumes you do will be custom tailored for a potential employer, but keep a generic one on hand and update it.
- Know what's going on in the job market. For me, that includes jobs in my hometown and network management (netcool, concord, cisco, etc) jobs anywhere in North America.
- Apply for jobs even if you think that it may not be a good fit for you. At least it provides good experience in writing a resume and cover letter, and possibly interview experience as well.
- Keep a minimum balance in a bank account, say $7000. These are emergency funds, and I think being laid off counts.
- If your company has a share ownership plan, get out if it, or at least make routine transfers out to another account. If the company is considering layoffs, there is a good chance they are not performing well, and that includes stock price. The last thing you want is to be hit with a double whammy of being unemployed and seeing your retirement income evaporate.
- Whatever training you can get at your current job, take it.
- Lastly, try and stay positive. Enjoy life to the fullest outside of work.

Re:A few key things

[tverbeek]

Apply for jobs even if you think that it may not be a good fit for you.

For the love of god, please stop wasting your time... and mine... with this.

My boss and I are are trying to hire someone, and the majority of the resumes we're getting are for people who obviously don't fit what we're looking for. They don't even bother lying to us to make it look like they are. Listen: We're not that desperate. We're not going to hire someone who just might theoretically be good at what we need after several months of retraining and a few years of on-the-job experience. We're going to hire someone who actually has the qualifications we're asking for. If you deep-down believe in your heart-of-hearts that you'd be a good fit for the job, despite a resume that suggests otherwise, then please go ahead and make your case. But if you know that you're not a good fit, then rest assured that we'll figure that out too. And if you get "lucky" and we don't figure it out until after you're hired... you lose, too, because we're all going to be miserable about that mistake until you're gone. If you want interview practice, at least stop wasting the time of people who'll never hire you, and instead interview with people who might actually want you, even if it's not the job you're dreaming of... at least that way there's a chance that you'll avoid the repeated ego-pounding of constantly be turned down, and maybe you'll get lucky and pick up an interim job you're (over)qualified for.

Re:A few key things

[Dausha]

"Keep a minimum balance in a bank account, say $7000."

I like to follow the general rule of thumb: first accumulate six months easily-liquidatable assets. That is, six months of your current salary. Then, acquire two years of non-retirement assets--of your current salary. When you get fired, you won't continue to consume income at the same pace. However, you will have a rough guess as to how long you can coast . . .

Some would consider $7k one-month's assets. It's probably good to have a month in your primary bank account as part of those six months. My wife and I put ours into a money market fund.

Re:A few key things

[cubicledrone]

We're not going to hire someone who just might theoretically be good at what we need after several months of retraining and a few years of on-the-job experience.

Of course not. Unless you're hiring research neurosurgeons or astronauts, I really REALLY doubt it takes "years" of on-the-job experience to do whatever the job is. But then, businesses can't be bothered with training people. That's someone else'e responsibility. Make the rest of society pay for it because we want perfect employees for free.

At half price.

Re:A few key things

[tverbeek]

Unless you're hiring research neurosurgeons or astronauts, I really REALLY doubt it takes "years" of on-the-job experience to do whatever the job is

Maybe that utter cluelessness is why no one will hire you. The beginning of wisdom is understanding what you don't know, and it sounds like you're not there yet. The irony is that it usually takes experience to grasp why experience is important.

Sorry, kid, but there are a lot of jobs where just being well educated and highly motivated don't cut it. I'm not hung up about someone having done this specific job before; I'm prepared to spend a lot of time showing a new employee how we do things. But if I have to explain to him the difference between pliers and a wrench*, he isn't qualified. And if I have to babysit him because he hasn't driven around the block enough times to understand why we look both ways before making a left turn into traffic*, then I might as well continue doing the work myself.

*metaphor; not literal example

Re:A few key things

[cubicledrone]

Maybe that utter cluelessness is why no one will hire you.

Who the fuck are you? Who the fuck are you to talk about my level of knowledge? Ain't no fucking cubicle job needs years of on-the-job experience. It doesn't take years to learn how to schedule meetings. People in cubicles produce nothing. They build nothing. Give it up.

but there are a lot of jobs where just being well educated and highly motivated don't cut it.

Yeah, and they all have one thing in common: they are all supervised by a lying dumbass. Any hiring manager that actually believes there is any job where education and work ethic don't matter is a fucking moron.

Re:A few key things

[tverbeek]

Who the fuck are you?

I'm the person who read your adolescent whining in other messages and the sadly ignorant comment above that the only jobs that REALLY require experience are brain surgery and astronautics. That statement demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. Stop wearing your stupidity like some badge of honor and maybe people will stop calling you on it.

Yeah, and they all have one thing in common: they are all supervised by a lying dumbass. Any hiring manager that actually believes there is any job where education and work ethic don't matter is a fucking moron.

That's not what I said. Go back and read it again, this time without your head up your ass. My point was that education and work ethic aren't enough. You may also need skills that can only be learned from experience. "Fucking moron", indeed.

You want to know why no one will hire you? The problem is facing you every day in the mirror.

Re:A few key things

[cubicledrone]

That's not what I said. Go back and read it again

but there are a lot of jobs where just being well educated and highly motivated don't cut it.

Quoted verbatim. That is precisely the attitude that fucks good people out of their careers. They are among the select few who ARE well-educated and ARE highly motivated and THEN they find out "that doesn't cut it." The phrase "bait and switch" comes to mind. Only problem is 20 years of education and experience can't be replaced.

You may also need skills that can only be learned from experience.

That's corporate-speak for "someone else pays for training." It's all part of the same scam. If someone else doesn't pay for training, then the lying fuck ships the job off to where they can pay $5 a day. Of course, they have no clue whether the $5 a day person has any experience, education or skills at all, but what the fuck do they care? The lying fuck gets to stuff his pockets with tall dollars while good people lose their careers. It's a fucking scam.

You want to know why no one will hire you?

I don't care. You proceed from the mistaken assumption that I give a flying at mach 2 fuck whether some blow-dried phone-flipping asscrack hires me or not. I didn't ask for a job. There is nothing as worthless as a job in this society, given that companies can arbitrarily fire anyone they feel like for no reason at all. What, I'm supposed to sign a mortgage on this "right to work" horseshit scam? I'm supposed to try and build a career working for people who lie and cheat people for a living? Not a fucking chance.

Re:A few key things

[tverbeek]

Quoted verbatim.

Good. Now get someone with an 8th-grade (or better) reading level to explain to you what it means. Seriously: You don't understand what I'm saying, and I don't know how to dumb it down any further for you.

I didn't ask for a job.

No, you just spend a lot of time stomping your feet like a petulant 8-year-old and whining (like an 11-year-old who just learned a new swear word) that no one will give you one.

Get back on your meds, kid. If you don't have any... go find a mental health counselor before all this paranoid ranting about "lying fucks" alienates every last person who ever used to tolerate you.

Re:A few key things

[cubicledrone]

You don't understand what I'm saying, and I don't know how to dumb it down any further for you.

Lack of substantive response to two well-written and very clear explanations and concession of the point noted.

No, you just spend a lot of time stomping your feet

I speak the truth. It's not my problem if you don't get it. This is the first generation that will do worse than the previous one. We're stressed, financially and emotionally. We're in debt. We're out of work far too often. Our educations are being wasted.

And it is the fault of middle management in our businesses. They are deliberately incompetent. They are failing to utilize fully the investment society has made for our benefit, and it's wrong. Period.

Re:A few key things

[tverbeek]

No, I understand what you're trying (incoherently) to say.

But you're wrong. It's not everyone else's fault.

Your problem is you.

If you're self-employed, you're not laid off.

[IANAAC]

Now that I'm self employed, I don't make any more than I did before. In fact, when you take the "self-employment tax" into account, I make less. I've traded my security in exchange for ownership in what I do. Now that my security is gone, I'm interested in what other people are doing to safeguard themselves. I'm hoping I (and others) can learn something from this thread to increase quality of living without sacrificing security.

I'm also self-employed. You budget just as you would if you were employed by any corporation. You sock away what you can every month. So it's not a paycheck every two weeks. You still live on a monthly budget, don't you? Put away what you can above your monthly budget. Once you have a few grand in savings (not checking), look into CDs or other forms of investments. Just as you would if you were employed by someone else. You were doing that, right?

Really, I don't understand why you're asking. The parent may have been flippant, but what are you looking for? Validation of your self-employment?

Re:If you're self-employed, you're not laid off.

[hazem]

If you're self-employed, you really should be looking into doing a SEP to save for retirement. The big benefit is that money you put in your SEP is pre-tax. You can usually put away quite a bit more than you can in a normal IRA. It's also a pretty simple form.

Avoid the simple-IRA, because it's not simple and the SEP is usually a better deal.

Roth IRAs are a great way to save your post-tax income for retirement since once you retire, all the returns remain untaxed.

Both of these are better than doing just CDs unless you need the money for retirement.

Re:If you're self-employed, you're not laid off.

[Bill Dog]

Roth IRAs are a great way to save your post-tax income for retirement since once you retire, all the returns remain untaxed.

For now. Who knows what the economic conditions will be like, and might require, by the time we retire.

Re:If you're self-employed, you're not laid off.

[hazem]

I had an engineering professor who once said that engineering was making decisions without all the information. If you have all the information then you're just doing technician work.

Saving/Investing is, in that sense, a bit like engineering. You do your best to make a good decision with incomplete information. There's no way to know what will happen in the future, so you make the best decisions you can and try to recognize the various risks and account for them somehow.

Another quote I like: Making predictions is a tricky business, especially when they're concerning the future.

Re:If you're self-employed, you're not laid off.

[Kagato]

The tax laws have changed and SEP isn't the only pre-tax option out there. Single 401K is also an option to consider if you have a self employed business and won't have any other full time employees.

Re:If you're self-employed, you're not laid off.

[Bill Dog]

True, I would just say one might want to max out their pre-tax investment opportunities first. The IRS limit for contributing untaxed (deferred until retirement) income to a 401K this year is $15K, and I would reach that before even considering a Roth. Because even if they have to change the rules on us later, they can't really go back in time and know what our contributions were each year to tax them retroactively. But Congress can very easily change their minds about Roths. Take full advantage of what has a tax benefit now, and then take part in what is only a promise of tax benefit in the distant future.

Me personally-Maytag.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Also, no matter how automated a plant may get, there still needs to be a person to fix the machine when it breaks. "

You wouldn't happen to be the Maytag repairman? Seriously, two things to keep in mind. One as things become more reliable, less repairmen are needed As things become more reliable, the less they break, and the more time you spend twiddling your thumbs Heaven help you if machines start fixing themselves.

"Okay so my point is to always have a back up plan to fall on. You have more interests, I'm sure, than just computers. Capitalize on them. Wheather it be mechanics or landscaping or whate have you."

Life as a drifter sounds nice. Thumbing your way across depression-era America. Wanna buy an apple?

Re:Me personally-Maytag.

[mikesd81]

Where did I say drifter? I said it's good to have a back up plan in case something doesn't work out. That's just common sense planning.

Re:Me personally-Maytag.

[Ex-MislTech]

Heaven help you if machines start fixing themselves

If the machines start looking for broke things to fix, and they happen
to take a look at some of the things humans have done to each other in
the past . They may chose to fix the human race .

If we ever get bio-genetic nanites that re-route neurons and brain memory,
The machines could end up programming us ...

Makes some sci-fi a little less surreal .

Over here, it's mandatory

[Opportunist]

In theory, I could rely on the system. When I get laid off, my employer has to give me one month of payment to get rid of me, and I am entitled to 80% of my wage for 6 months.

Usually, plenty of time to find a new job.

Retirement is taken care of, too, so that's, at least in theory, no issue either.

Still, I try to spend no more than 1/2 of my income. Being able to rely on the system is nice. It gives you a sense of security. Not relying on it gives you a feeling of independence, though.

Re:Over here, it's mandatory

[Balun]

I am doing the job search thing and having being going to various employment places for help and advice. One very interesting statistic has been that it that about 1 month/$10k salary to find a new equivalent job. For example, if you made $60k last year as a developer, it should take you about 6 months to find a new job as a developer making $60+k/year.

You don't need to save a whole months salary. Figure out how much you really need to spend each month to keep up you home. Sit down and evaluate everything you spend money on. Dial back on the utilities as much as you can. Don't renew subscriptions. As another poster mentioned have some food stored away for that much time as well.

Also don't be afraid of taking a minimum wage job. It will only be temporary but how long could you last if you had to on a minimum wage job?

Finally, budget for a brand new interview outfit: top-to-bottom everything--from a suit to shoes and socks to a watch. It might be overkill or it might be just enough. Think of it as a job search emergency fund, sort of like a home appliance fund enough money to replace a major home appliance at any time.

Re:Over here, it's mandatory

[Richard Steiner]

80% of your wage for six months? That'd be nice.

Here in Georgia it's US$300/week max (gross before state/federal/FICA which you will owe on that) for six months, and you may or may not have gotten any severance depending on your circumstances (most programmer severance packages I've seen are roughly 1 week of pay per past year of service).

Re:Over here, it's mandatory

[Opportunist]

Technically there is a limit here, too, but it's around USD1000 a week or so. Unless you made more than 5k a month it's not really something that could somehow influence you.

Hide your money

[slindseyusa]

"As I hope to have a family to support in the near future, I would be interested in tips or techniques to prepare for this situation." Seriously, hide some of the money you saved and don't let your wife know how much you make. They always want more. They will suck you dry (and not in the good way that makes you smile).

Every 6 Months

[Anonymous Coward]

You can sometimes tell if a department is going to get the axe if their computers aren't being replaced on schedule. Maybe that department X is forced to use Windows 2000 and IE5.5 should be a clear sign, but it's not to them.

I keep nicey-nice with former employers in case I need some extra work or even a temp job. Nothing like randomly appearing when things are good and giving them some extra knowledge to keep things friendly for when things aren't so good.

My resume gets updated and resent to the major job sites every 6 months.

Investment

[diakka]

So what are the best resources for us engeineering types to learn about investment, stocks etc.?

Re:Investment

[hazem]

I've learned a lot by listening to Clark Howard: http://clarkhoward.com/

He has a lot of general consumer advice, but he often talks about investments and saving for retirement.

In general:
1) save in your company 401k/403B, etc up to the point where your company matches
2) then save to the max you can in a ROTH IRA
3) then save more in your company 401K since it's pre-tax
4) invest additional money in something like mutual funds. Pick ones with no-loads. You'll probably do well with an indexed fund like an S&P500. He often recommends vangaurd and tiaa-cref. BUT never invest in something you don't understand, no matter how good it sounds
5) retirement savings is always a higher priority than saving for kids education. There are tons of ways for a kid to get an education paid for. There are few ways to fund your retirement.
6) use a credit union if possible - lower fees, better service, with few downsides
7) pay off all your credit cards and don't keep balances on them. Consider if you already have $5,000 in credit card debt at 17%, every dollar you put in is "earning" the same as a 17% investment

For specific advice about stocks and such, you probably need a "more advanced" source of info. But, Clark is a good start and his advice is probably good enough to cover most people's needs - since few have savings and most have lots of debt - and stocks are the last thing they need to be thinking about.

He has a pretty good book, I think called Clark Smart.

Re:Investment

[TermV]

Go out and buy yourself the Motley Fool's Investment Guide. You can buy it for $10 at amazon.com.

Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) and index mutual funds have become very popular over the past few years for a bunch of reasons:

1. They're inexpensive - the Management Expense Ratio (MER, which is the percentage of your money taken as a fee) is very low since they don't use stock picking gurus.
2. It's an investment that requires very little thought, time or knowledge of investments.
3. Over time they outperform most mutual funds.

An ETF is traded like a stock, whereas an index mutual fund is not. Generally an ETF will have a lower MER/%fee but you have to pay a brokerage fee when you buy. You There is no load (purchase/sales fee) on index mutual funds so they're better if you're making frequent small purchases. ETFs are better if you infrequently buy large amounts.

Buy a variety of ETFs/index funds. There are dozens to choose from - different countries, industries, market cap size, commodities, etc. Keep it simple, and try and avoid overlap.

Put a certain percentage into foreign markets (very important). Most people don't look beyond their borders when investing, which is a big mistake. The US markets have been doing pretty well, but the weakening US dollar has made the actual performance pretty dismal. Consider Canada. Canada should look pretty safe and ordinary to an American investor. It's a stable democracy that's close to the US with the same general economy and culture. The Canadian markets are heavy on oil, natural resources and financial institution stocks. We'll look at a lucky Canadian and an American investor who invested on October 4 2002 when the Dow hit bottom. Both investments (iyy and xiu) are ETFs that require zero thought:

Patriotic US investor:

An investment of $1000 US in the Dow Total Participation Fund (iyy = $37.38 usd/share) is now worth $1689.94 ($63.17 usd/share). Not bad!!

Foreign US investor:

An investment of $1000 US in the TSX 60 ETF (XIU = $33.32 cdn) is now worth $2972.69 US ($67.95 cdn/share). This guy is looking like Warren Buffett. The falling US dollar added a 31% additional return.

Patriotic Canadian investor:

An investment of $1000 cdn in the TSX 60 ETF (xiu) is now worth $2039.32. Not bad!!

Foreign Canadian investor:

An investment of $1000 cdn in the Dow Total Participation Fund (iyy) is now worth $1159.33. OUCH!

If your dollar is going up relative to foreign currencies, your foreign investment returns will be decreased. Invest in a currency hedged investment. When your dollar is falling, you want to invest directly in the foreign currency.

prioritize-future proofing

[Anonymous Coward]

Future proofing, identifying actual needs and necessities instead of wants and toys. Cover the needs first, not theoretically, *cover them*.

What will you still be needing in the future if you get nailed with a layoff (or loss of personal business) or the economy itself gets so bad that there are millions and millions of you in the same boat at the same time? (this could happen if the world switches to the petroeuro over th petrodollar, it could happen *fast*), or say the expanded war in the middle east starts to not be restricted to the middle east, stuff like that. Think worst case, plan for that, anything better keeps you in the gravy.

Well, what do you really NEED?

You need a home-check you got that, one you can afford-but is it paid off completely, so all you need to come up with is utilities and taxes? Priority. If it is paid off that is a HUGE worry off your shoulders if the income dries up.

What's nice to have every day? Why food is nifty! As in further down the thread, how extensive are your basic food stores? How long can you live without going to the store? Do you have an extensive working garden, or maybe an attached combo solar room/heater/greenhouse deal? I know my parents and grandparents made it through the depression because they had a big garden and chickens, and gramps hunted rabbits on my dad's side and on my mom's side they had a farm and her uncle was the local sheriff, so they got a few perks.... There was very little money, but they got by, primarily because their lives were so arranged that they didn't really need money. Folks in the city just stuck because they actually needed money for every aspect of their lives were hurt much worse overall..

You are on the computer, that means you use electricity. Electricity=ultimate geek good. We need it, gotta have it, too dang important to do without, correct? So...how much do your produce yourself, and is it paid off yet? Grid power you rent, means you will always need cash for it and never pay it off, with absolutely no price guarantees-other than most likely it will keep going up, and they will want that bill paid-and they don't care if you have been laid off or are unemployed otherwise. they get real antsy after the first month skipped payment.. They-don't-care. So, how big is your at least backup sized solar rig? Wouldn't it be nice to have a paid off minimum guaranteed supply of electricity to always count on, something that won't require a monthly bill? You don't have to go whole house unless you want to, but a one circuit deal-say enough to run the computer and some lights and the furnace blower- is affordable right now, and you can pay it completely off. Use the grid while you got it, the solar stuff is a nice one room UPS system you can always run your critical stuff on, and in a pinch, you can live with just that amount. useful for brownouts, blackouts, storms, etc as well. (I can almost guarantee once you have a smaller but practical sized rig you WILL be looking at whole house, it is *that neat* once it is up and running. Gives you this marvelous feeling of freedom to completely pay off one critical utility debt-and still have the utility!)

I'm a geek but live at the low end of the US economic scale. Some is voluntary, ssome was forced from an accident I had. Stuff happens.so, although I don't have your savings in dollars, I am past that on the "necessities" part, because I know I can't count on dollars always being available in any good sized pile. So, same as you, only older vehicles. No payments, just occassional repairs, and being a geek, I have tools and I know how to use them. I get new tools every month, always find a use for them. We grow a ton of our own food, I mean a ton, eat a lot fresh and can a lot.. We heat primarily with wood that I cut myself, but also use *some* propane, and that is purchased in the middle of summer when the prices are cheapest, and the prop guys will rent you a tank *cheap* as long as you buy some from them regularly. You can store a LOT for not that

Re:prioritize-future proofing

[tengwar]

I'm sorry, but I can't take this as a serious answer to the problem of being laid off, because your preparations cost too much and restrict your options and your mobility. You're taking savings (flexible) and converting them to single-purpose items that you probably won't use, and you're nailing your feet to the floor with non-portable assets

• Backup solar power? Mains power is cheap. Keep the money in the bank, spend it on mains if you have to.
• Food stores? Really bad idea if all you're worried about is being laid off. If you've kept the money as savings, you can buy the food when you need it. If you buy food now, it's a wasting asset (i.e. its value declines because some of it goes off).
• Pay off the house? No, keep a substantial chunk of the money on deposit where you can get at it for emergencies, and only after that pay off more than you have to on the house. You may get a lower interest on deposit than you're paying on the mortgage, but if you're looking for work, you are likely to need cash.

This sort of advice is only useful if you think that the whole of civilisation is going to collapse. As a preparation for personal financial problems, it's foolish.

Re:prioritize-future proofing

[mutterc]

This sort of advice is only useful if you think that the whole of civilisation is going to collapse.

Many geeks actually think collapse of civilization, or events of a similar catastrophic scale, are likely. For people who a bit cynical and can see patterns (both traits of most any professional programmer), it's easy to see current trends leading to a Great Depression II, the U.S. becoming a third-world country because of racing to the bottom, the U.S. middle class becoming extinct (and since few of us are already wealthy, we'd be consigned to poverty), or other Bad Stuff.

I deal with this partially through spiffy meds, and partially though denial. Simply assuming a relatively static future (e.g. no hyper-inflation) works well for day-to-day planning and living. Also, many of the patterns we see (e.g. political corruption up, corporate control up, income stratification up) have happened before, and either ended up swinging the other way, or have failed to destroy society so far.

Besides, there's no good way to prepare for economic/societal collapse, other than those that involve a compound and a heavily-armed like-minded population, so you can keep your hoarded goods / farm from being taken over by local warlords. If society then fails to collapse, at best you look pretty silly and waste a ton of money, at worst you get into a fight with the still-powerful government and get squashed like a bug.

Re:prioritize-future proofing

[Balun]

We all get laidoff eventually. His Ideas make a lot of sense if you are not expecting to be booted next month. Not everyone can or wants to move because of a job. I've moved because of a job enough times to know that it isn't really worth it. You lose too much of your network and support to be offset by the money.

You don't say what a substantial chunk of money is. A typical job search will take 1 month/$10k you made. So if you had a $60k job you need to save enough for 6 months of the basics and cost cut as much as possible in cost saving when you learn that the ax is falling.

Once you have that, wiping out debt is a big thing and the mortgage is the biggie. If I didn't have the mortgage I could support my family on an $8/hr job. That is a big deal if there are a lot of layoffs and the market is flooded.

Food storage is a great idea, as long as it is stuff you eat. You have to store food an awfully long time before it goes bad nowadays.It is also cheaper then a lot of the junk we tend to buy. A freezer full of meat is a great source of peace of mind. and that is where solar can come in handy.

A basic solar system can cost only a few hundred bucks and is very handy when the mains go down as they do from time to time. A panel, battery and inverter can be mounted to a handtruck and is big enough to run a freezer or laptop for a while.

My goal is to build my investments to be able to support the family and home at least minimally without any other income. This requires different skills them engineering but is fun to learn too.

Now if you are expecting the ax to fall then doing all kinds of cost cutting and converting assets to cash is a good idea.

Never take vacation

[Ratbert42]

At my old company, nobody ever used vacation time until they were forced to. Since the company would pay it out if you were laid off, it was the only severance package most people had.

Re:Never take vacation

[hswerdfe]

1. that's unhealthy
2. paying vacation time is a leagal requirement. (in canada at least)

Keep your skillset up to date

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't rely on your current job skills to take you to your next job - if you are a Foxpro programmer, you probably won't have much use after your current job. Do the nerd thing and have some home geek hobby - whether it is setting up the family using LTSP or making a beouwolf cluster of Furbies - doing something currently interesting or highly technical will help to show you are not a one trick pony to any future employment committee.

Or for another example - I work in the non-profit sector in a rural area, we regualrly go through contractors (were' too cheap, or they move) many that we see moved up from the valley and seemingly only know thier jobs whether it be microcoding or whatever and not much about what 'we' need which io this case is business computer troubleshooting (workstations, networks, dbs, etc) either that or they have a major enlish or attitude problems (techie-vs-rest of the world)

If you are good at what you do (REALLY good) you don't have a problem, if you are only good at that you do (and at only that), then you may have a problem.

Always have enough money to walk away

[FrenZon]

Someone smart once told me that in addition to savings, you should always have enough money spare to be able to walk away from your job and last you until you get a new one. This ranks as some of the best advice ever given - it gives you, especially while you're young, just that little bit of extra confidence to stand up for yourself and to push back on management, which I've found leads to a better feedback loop between you and your managers, removes 'silent grumbling', and has (in the past) lead to a far more enjoyable workplace.

So don't budget for being laid off, budget for freedom.

Re:Always have enough money to walk away

[ergo98]

Someone smart once told me that in addition to savings, you should always have enough money spare to be able to walk away from your job and last you until you get a new one.

In addition to savings? That doesn't make any sense to partition savings into specific purposes like that, and the whole premise of savings is to deal with such a rainy day for most people.

Re:Always have enough money to walk away

[Anonymous Coward]

just that little bit of extra confidence to stand up for yourself and to push back on management

Little bit of foolishness is what it is. I was young and stupid and tried that. It got me put on projects by myself.. projects were eliminated, I was fired.

If you like your job, keep the silent grumbling, and kiss up. Make your boss happy. Otherwise he/she'll just look to get someone else. If you don't like your job, then find another one and move to it.

It's great that you have a job where the higher-ups are reasonable, but your exception is not the rule.

Re:Always have enough money to walk away

[PatrickThomson]

I heard it was called (and this is not inflammatory, I'm quoting) "fuck you money". Money for the explicit and sole purpose of replacing your regular income for a few months, to give you the freedom to say "fuck you" to your boss at any time.

Re:Always have enough money to walk away

[rlp]

There is lot of discussion of 'FU' money in Neal Stephenson's novel 'Cryptonomicon'. One of my favorite novels (and to the best of my knowledge - the only novel to ever include a PERL program). 'FU' money is not a constant, it depends on your standard of living and life style, the local cost of living, the rate of inflation, the current rate of return on your savings, and how long you plan to need the money (i.e. amount of time to find a new job, or not as the case may be). One of the characters in Stephenson's book has a spreadsheet to calculate it.

Re:Always have enough money to walk away

[PatrickThomson]

Aah, so the person I heard it off (who was talking about advice from his "dad") is a thieving gypsy.

Re:Always have enough money to walk away

[Anonymous Coward]

I will take this one step farther- invest your money so that it makes you money. Keep doing this until you have enough "base pay" that if tomorrow you get called on the carpet and are escorted out of the building, you can still pay your bills. The best way to invest is to start a business on the side, whether it be IT consulting or something completely different, though you could just invest in financial instruments aggressively.

I myself chose real estate... not the speculative get rich quick type of stuff, but long term cash flow properties. When fully occupied, my rent and bills are paid for. I also try to live far below my means. I don't need a luxury doorman building, just a place to come home to. I do get strange looks when I tell people I am looking to move to Spanish Harlem, but I would rather spend the $6k I will save on in rent on more fun things than a doorman or a trendy address.

Re:Always have enough money to walk away

[Anonymous Coward]

So don't budget for being laid off, budget for freedom.

Unless you are independently wealthy, then you are never free. We are all slaves to the dollar, slaves to our stomaches. Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

Emergency Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

My financial strategy is:

• Max out my allowed 401k and Roth IRA distributions. The 401k can't be used until you reach a certain age, but you can withdraw Roth IRA contributions (but not earnings on those contributions) at any time.
• I am single and live alone. I live in a miniscule, but cheap, condo that I own. This helps me save pennies to build my future home, as well as build an emergency fund. I am currently able to put $12k/year towards savings, in addition to the retirement contributions.
• When I determine what I have available to me for a down payment on my future home, I take into account that I also need an eight months of expenses set aside, in case I lose my job or hit some other financial setback. In addition, I keep eight months of current expenses in a money market fund; I invest additional money in stocks and index funds.

Regardless of your financial fears and goals (layoffs, significant home repairs, retirement), I think the keys are living frugally and saving aggressively. Don't be a complete miser, but if you can save a decent chunk of money every month then you should be able to survive financial setbacks with little difficulty.

wasting time

[rhendershot]

Apply for jobs even if you think that it may not be a good fit for you.

For the love of god, please stop wasting your time... and mine... with this.

Poster should probably have said "perfect fit" instead. I agree there's no sense to wasting time at either side of the desk when the applicant lacks core skills. However there are two scenarios that going ahead with a resume submission makes some sense. 1) Most skills are met fully/exceeds and one or two are not. 2) Skills are met fully/exceeds but experience is within 65-85 percent of stated need.

Few job postings present any prioritization matrix since that's wordy, probably not well understood on the hiring end, and probably dynamic in nature. So needing 3 years of C++ and 5 years of Java today may well be 5/3 next month. Perhaps java and C++ are required. Perhaps any object oriented experience would suffice.

If you're getting what you consider an inordinate number of bad submissions, I suggest to you that your statement of requirements might be lacking. Few job seekers will find any value in wasting the time to create the submission when it is clear to them they have no chance whatsoever. I'm sure Microsoft draws an exceptional amount of submissions and I'd offer to you that means you need to be especially adept in your job requirements. And there are the total noobs who find it necessary to push any possibility since they have no experience to speak of. But for the rest of us, we try to match our skills, experience and interests as closely as possible. Really.

Job Seekers: Companies no longer "keep you on file". Don't submit in the hopes that some other opportunity, heretofore unpublished, will be recognized as the Perfect Fit to your resume or that in the near future "something will open up". Won't happen. Employers today want a pre-packaged solution and tightly control resources.

Employers: Please understand that our first experience with you is your statement of need. Help us to know if we have a shot. Our situations vary greatly. Nobody out here is perfect in every way. We know that. You know that. Ambivalence on your part invites us to "peel the onion". There's a correspondence to ambivalence + interest level and the number of resumes you'll receive.

tverbeek: While I agree with most of what you said, an ongoing problem is an indication that there is a false assumption such that the proposed solution is inaccurate.

Re:wasting time

[tverbeek]

If you're getting what you consider an inordinate number of bad submissions, I suggest to you that your statement of requirements might be lacking.

I wish that were it. Our current job posting says that applicants need experience working with Macs (because our users have that, and it doesn't work to have a tech support guy who knows less than they do); we keep getting resumes and cover letters that detail experience with Windows and other software, but don't even contain the 3-letter sequence M-A-C or the word "apple".

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from applying for a job where they're close to the stated requirements, but not quite. I've been on that side of the interview table myself, and if I can make the case that I'm "close enough", I will. It's the people who are obviously not qualified - and don't even bother trying to trick me into thinking they are - that make me wonder why they're even wasting the 39 cents.

Re:wasting time

[rhendershot]

Having never seen the actual job posting, still I'll venture a guess, and I'd suggest that you add:

"ACHDS Certification or similar is required - other candidates will not be considered" ...to your job posting. Assuming, of course, that is relevent.

In any case, the way you phrased this need (says that applicants need experience) seems a little less strict than your intention. That's subjective, but given my years of experience with Windows and Linux (and the similarity of MacOSX to RedHat Linux) I might consider that stated need as met. From your converstation it probably is not ;)

You might also borrow a trick I've seen recruiters use whereby a skills assessment document is submitted along with the resume. I don't know how that would work for you but if it caused that applicant to assert training, experience and/or certification on relevent platforms and with relevent technology you might find applicants begin to self-filter. Or they might just *not* complete the skills assessment and submit anyway. I mean, dude, you're Microsoft :)

Though, I *hate* filling those out. It's all in my resume is how I'm thinking at the time. But then, I don't waste time submitting to too many where my skills aren't a very close match.

fwiw...

Re:wasting time

[tverbeek]

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that we're getting applicants who don't meet our needs; I'm saying we're getting applications who don't even meet what the ad says. Contrary to what cubiclehead keeps whining about, we're not packing the "requirements" list with arbitrary crap we don't actually need. We don't want to put up artificial obstacles. We're just stating in plain English that we need someone who's been doing X for Y-ish years and we still get resumes from people who seemingly have never X'ed in their life. I assume these people are following the "apply for every position you see" advice (a variation on the advice I was responding to), and that's really just a waste of time (theirs and ours), energy (theirs and ours), and stamps (theirs).

Or they might just *not* complete the skills assessment and submit anyway.

I have no doubt that they would. After all, they aren't reading the job requirements, why would they follow the procedure for applying?

P.S. Anybody who thinks that Linux is close enough to OS X that an employer would consider RedHat experience sufficient to do Mac tech support... obviously doesn't know enough about OS X. :)

Re:wasting time

[rhendershot]

>>Linux is close enough to OS X

I would be able to pick it up quickly. I'm a developer not a sysadm. Where I alluded to it being close enough was from that perspective, not from sysadm or helpdesk.

>>don't even meet what the ad says

I maintain it might be useful to be more strict in your job posting.

I think you miss my point. You publicise a resource (the job) and from a high-potent position (Microsoft) so it's my thinking you need to be extra-careful of what signals you send.

And you can -obviously- automate the scanning of Microsoft Word Documents for the proper keywords, if nothing else.

I have to say I was a little taken aback by your gp posting. Your use of "obviously" signals to me a disconnect somewhere. Obvious to you, but -obviously- not to the applicants.

Again, nobody is motivated to waste even $0.39. Not if it's that obvious. Not even considering you're Microsoft. Not if it's "obvious".

So, it must not be "obvious" to many of the applicants (excepting those who mass-mail to anything which moves, and those you'll not be able to manage no matter what you do)

>>who seemingly have never X'ed in their life.

I think you need to consider X-prime and Y-prime. Those are the subjective interpretations of your (obviously) well thought out statements. There are language, regional and other communications issues whereby X becomes X-prime. My $0.02, ok?

-rsh

Re:wasting time

[tverbeek]

"...Linux is close enough to OS X..." I would be able to pick it up quickly. I'm a developer not a sysadm. Where I alluded to it being close enough was from that perspective, not from sysadm or helpdesk.

Again, only someone who's never developed software for OS X would think that it's fundamentally the same as developing for Linux. OK, they both use GCC on the back end, but OS X has its own proprietary GUI framework and APIs. So FYI: if you see a job posting that asks for for OS X development experience, do yourself and the employer a favor and don't apply until you've actually, say, played with Apple Xcode long enough to know whether your assumption is correct or just charmingly naive.

And the position I'm talking about is of the help-desk variety. I didn't make that completely clear here, perhaps, but the job posting does, so that doesn't excuse the folks who don't know what the Apple-C keystroke does but still think they can do the job.

Your use of "obviously" signals to me a disconnect somewhere. Obvious to you, but -obviously- not to the applicants.

It's obvious to anyone who reads the job description and believes that we actually mean it. Here are a few key excerpts:

"Resonsibilities: Insure smooth operation of Macintosh computers, servers, and printers.... Required Qualifications: ...knowledge of hardware/software installation, Macintosh OS protocols and peripherals..."

I am truly at a loss as to how we can make it any more obvious that we want someone who has experience using Macintoshes.

You publicise a resource (the job) and from a high-potent position (Microsoft)...

Uh, dude...? I'm not Microsoft.

I thought you were kidding about that, which is why I didn't correct you before, but you appear here to be serious. Oops. I work for a university, and that tidbit of information about the employer is included in every job posting the university makes. (We also include the pay scale, so it can't be the dream of riches that leads unqualified people to take a shot at coming to work for us in spite of the long odds against them.)

But perhaps you've made a point here. I assumed it was rather obvious that I am not Microsoft, because the URL of my web site contains the string "toddverbeek" between "microsoft." and ".com", and the content of that site is full of anti-MS propaganda. But if that's not obvious enough, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there are people out there who would fail to make the "obvious" connection that my employer wants to hire a "Macintosh-based Information Systems Technician" who's actually used a Mac before.

So, it must not be "obvious" to many of the applicants (excepting those who mass-mail to anything which moves, and those you'll not be able to manage no matter what you do)

Well, I can try spreading the word that doing that is a waste of everyone's time, and that encouraging people to follow that tactic is just plain bad advice.

Like I did in my initial comment here.

Re:wasting time

[rhendershot]

You have this microsoft url in your postings. Having not been corrected it became concrete in my thinking. thanks for setting me straight. I never went to the url... yeah I know it's not a microsoft domain.

Hey, we're all naive at times, no need to be arrogant. If a developer position asked for Xcode specifically I'd not give the posting another look. If it mentions having skills on windows and macintosh, I might. Even though I haven't sat at a Mac since OS8. Depending on the tools and targets. But that's my point in a nutshell; the more specifics in the posting should weed out those who wouldn't have a chance.

Perhaps I missed hitting the exact fallacy or problem. I would still think it _obvious_ that a huge number of misguided applicants signals a problem somewhere. Maybe they all wish to work for your employer (the microsoft theory though it *could* apply to a 'popular' university), maybe the local job market is so bad that a lot of folks are trying _anything_, maybe the local education is such that there is a glut of folks qualified to the HelpDesk level, perhaps you have an evil twin murmuring in folks ears at night "apply everywhere, no matter what they're asking for... apply everywhere....".

The only other potentialy helpful thing I have is a question. Is this is from your job posting "Experience with PC-based hardware and software installation, Intel-based hardware installation, and Windows operating system."?

If so then I have to tell you the posting is confusing as to the priority of Mac. Seems to be an IS/IT position that includes some Macs or who use Macs (Macintosh being in parens).

And "Insure smooth operation" and "Knowlege of OS Protocols" are both open ended. Given a chance I could probably insure the smooth operation of a catamaran even though at this particular point I'm not sure I even know how to spell it and I certainly wouldn't be able to identify one. I could read up on the docking and maritime protocols. And I feel capable of doing well because I have drive. Before you start typing let me just clarify this incidence of hyperbole...

I don't in any guise feel *qualified* to maintain or operate a catamaran. Just capable. I'm certain there are many more who are more capable. But if the catamaran has a cousin or two and so I'm considering managing catamaran, row boat and canoe, then I'm even more likely to take a look.

I couldn't imagine what you meant by OS Protocol. That could either be real low level BIOS stuff (yeah that's not MAC, I know) or kernel-level API or -well- I dunno what. A google though brings up networking results (SLP, IP, Kerberos, and such). I'm just pointing out that where you see that as qualifying a requirement, from my perspective it signals some ambivalence about what is wanted. And if your addvert does mention Windows under Preferred, well, I can certainly see why you're getting Windows folks.

But then again, the problem might lie in one of those other things I listed above ;)

Here is another perspective

[earthforce_1]

There was a time when I put tried to save every cent I could - pay down the mortgage, maximize my retirement savings, etc. So what happened? An expensive divorce from a rather greedy ex-wife and most of my savings were depleted. (I was within 2 years of being completely mortgage free at the time) Now I take a more fatalistic attitute - work hard, but live more for today and try to let tomorrow take care of itself, because I may not be around to see it. (I am a type 1 diabetic, which cuts my life expectancy by an average of 15 years anyway) If you die with a million dollars in the bank, you don't get to spend it in the afterlife.

Re:Here is another perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

If you die with a million dollars in the bank, you don't get to spend it in the afterlife.

No, but you can leave it for cancer research... And in some ways, that makes you immortal.

Security

[Anonymous Coward]

The main item you missed here is security.

You can stock up all you like - but it only takes on person with a gun to take it all away from you. This, besides not owning my own home, is the reason I haven't gotten into this type of defensive arrangements. However: I agree with most of what you say. I just won't start down this path fully until I can actually keep what I build.

That's hardly off topic

[Travoltus]

Who gave the Libertarians all the MOD points?

Hell, I've got mucho karma, so I can afford to tell it like it is. :)

The whole reason people have to save up so much money is exactly because of what cubicledrone said.

And to the idiot who said all cubicledrone wants is a Government guaranteed job, that's horse shit. I'm a Reagan Republican, I believe a man should work not live on welfare. You Johnny come lately laissez-faire rabid dogs that call yourselves Republicans today, want to snatch every job known to man away from the hard working AMERICANS who made this world great and whose fathers fought and died to keep the free market alive in the face of the Communist threat.

The evil empire after WW-II was communism. Now the evil empire is rampant corporatism that has fraudulently masked itself as 'capitalism'. It's nothing more than robber baronism and the world owes me profits but I don't owe anyone anything-ism.

I'm sick and tired of you irresponsible "greed is good, social responsibility is communism" anti social hermits living nice and safe and comfortable in your mommy's basement posting these bogus Slashdot armchair cowboy stories about how you save 2/3 of your income to prepare for layoffs. That's hog wash and most of us readers know it.

What some readers do not know is if most of us saved the way the author of this story saves, there is an economic consequence to this that is very well demonstrated in economics and is a mathematical certainty. Saving a huge portion of your money means, typically, you're putting it in a bank. That means you're not buying anything. That means businesses are making less money because of lower sales. Your bank is investing that money overseas, no longer investing in the US, but even if they were investing in a US company, you aren't buying anything from that company so their sales are going down. When millions of Americans are saving for a rainy day, that means the company inevitably feels the loss in sales tangibly, and that means they will start closing stores and laying off. That is a mathematical certainty in economics. Again, what bank is going to take your savings and invest in them when their market is shrinking and consumers are saving and not buying?

Such large numbers of people saving for a rainy day will create a mathematically certain problem - businesses will close due to depressed consumer spending. (Consumer spending is over 60% of the economy's vitality, folks.)

This is not exactly like people stuffing money into their mattresses in the Great Depression, but the effect will still be the same: consumers save like mad, businesses close due to the inevitable collapse in spending, more jobs are lost, more people stop spending, and a death spiral occurs. A depression is then very hard to avoid.

What America needs is a lot of increased savings, but what we REALLY need the most is to grow our way out of this mess. We need more jobs, and higher paying jobs, and more stable job security for people with children to look after. No, you free market drones living in your mommy's basement, chasing the moving cheese is NOT good for a person with a family. It results in kids having to move away from their friends, and a gypsy lifestyle that no street grunt or child psychologist alike will ever say is a good thing. You may think job security is evil but that just tells me you do not have children whose constantly changing needs forces you to need a job that is always there so you can concentrate on being a good parent and not have to go to your do-it-yourself 'extreme skills upgrade 101' class every night. Ever wonder why all those punk assed rich kids out there are doing drugs and getting themselves into trouble (often at the expense of others)? It's because of their absent parents that are living the dream world you anti job stability people envision: working constantly and paying more attention to their job competitiveness than to their kids. Go ahead and argue with me about it - I just hope you don't run into one of these people's neglected brats and learn the hard way what I'm telling you now.

Re:That's hardly off topic

[ultranova]

I'm sick and tired of you irresponsible "greed is good, social responsibility is communism" anti social hermits living nice and safe and comfortable in your mommy's basement posting these bogus Slashdot armchair cowboy stories about how you save 2/3 of your income to prepare for layoffs. That's hog wash and most of us readers know it.

Social responsibility is communism, or at the very least socialism. Communism and socialism are not evil, some of the regimes that were/are or claim(ed) to be communistic or socialistic were/are evil.

But it's understandable that some people think differently; delusions of grandieur are quite common among human race. It is never nice to admit that you might need a social safety net someday; it's much easier to keep on thinking that you can take on any challenge by yourself and win. You can't, and you will learn that when you lie dying from a heart attack caused by constant stress if not before. For your own sake it would be better to learn it before.

Such large numbers of people saving for a rainy day will create a mathematically certain problem - businesses will close due to depressed consumer spending. (Consumer spending is over 60% of the economy's vitality, folks.)

Consumer spending is 100% of the economy's vitality, period. Every business transaction has getting goods or services to you as its ultimate cause and goal. A new factory gets built because people are buying more than the existing ones can output; a new mine gets opened and a new power plant built so that the factory can get the raw materials and electricity it needs; a new highway gets built so that the goods produced by the factory can be taken to the consumers.

Remove the consumers, and all financial activity ceases. Not 60% of it, not 70%, nor 80% or 90%, but 100%.

Of course, 100% is over 60%, but 60% is somewhat misleading in this case.

It's because of their absent parents that are living the dream world you anti job stability people envision: working constantly and paying more attention to their job competitiveness than to their kids.

As a side note, this lifestyle is very stressing, and will propably kill you young from a heart attack. Which, from the businesses point of view is a good thing, since it means that there is no need to take care of you in your old days, and the money needed for that can therefore be used to buy the products of that business.

Isn't it heartwarming that some entity can find the good side of dying from a heart attack ?-).

Re:That's hardly off topic

[Travoltus]

Well said.

But one thing you may not know is that in Europe - Poland, I believe - cigarette manufacturers were encouraged by the Government to drag down people's health to soften the blow of a retiree explosion crisis: by killing them off.

By God I wish I had that news article.

Been there, done that

[rlp]

I learned a few things from my last lay off. I was out of work for about six months. Fortunately I had savings to get through it. Always keep at least six months of savings available. I had a lot of stock in the company that layed me off. The layoff was a mass layoff due to the company experiencing financial problems. Needless to say, the value of the stock had dropped considerably. The stock options I'd been 'saving' were worthless. Lesson two - don't invest heavily in your employer, and cash in any options as soon as they vest.

When you're unemployed, you need to lower your (cash) burn rate. We reduced unnecessary car trips, eating at restaurants, and most entertainment. We also shopped for food bargains and used coupons. We had several services we subscribed to on a monthly basis. Only those that were absolutely neccessary stayed. We kept internet access, as that was needed for my job search.

We substituted free entertainment for the movies, trips, etc. That included bicycling, local parks, and books and DVD's from the library. One unpleasant surprise expense was health insurance. Companies are required to offer COBRA coverage (i.e. you get company health insurance for 18 months, but your pay. They set the price). Family coverage cost $900 per month! Had I continued to be unemployed, we would have had to switch to a (non-employer) cheaper 'hospital only' plan.

I'm working now (ironically at the place that layed me off). My wife has re-trained (outside of IT) to provide some employment diversification. My daughter has changed her career objectives to avoid IT.

If you're in IT, accumulate sufficient savings, prepare a contingency plan, keep your resume up to date, monitor your cash burn rate. Don't over-invest in your company's stock. Don't live beyond your means, or paycheck to paycheck. If you're thinking about entering the IT field - don't do it.

I keep my resume up to date

[josepha48]

always keep your resume up to date. In case the place that you are working at lays you off or fires you. Right now, the company I work at has been acquired, and so I am wondering when the layoffs will begin. There are a few people I could see getting rid of.

Don't enter IT?

[Cybert8]

Do you really think being among those that constantly say this will reduce your competition?

Re:Don't enter IT?

[rlp]

Do you really think being among those that constantly say this will reduce your competition?

Yup, you found me out. All that news about foreign outsourcing, H-1B's, downsizing, etc. is propaganda designed to reduce competition in the IT field. Feel free to ignore it.

[OT] your sig

[cerberusss]

You have a nice sig, T-shirts of Famous Women Engineers [cafepress.com]. However, I am a bit disappointed. When I visited the site, I learned that they are new. Had they been worn, I'd have ordered a few.

Cynicism, meet reality

[danaris]

Hi, my name is Dan, and I'm a programmer and sysadmin.

Right out of college, I got myself hired by an insurance company--yeah, laugh, it's not exactly what I wanted, either. But y'know what? It's been nearly 2 years, I'm making $40k, I've got great health insurance, and they still need me--in fact, they need me even more now that they know what I can do for them. I've seen a bunch of people leave this company--a couple were fired for incompetence, a few left for greener pastures, and one or 2 retired--and I've seen several more hired, but it's not like there's massive turnover here.

I suspect that, while your experience is far from typical, it's more typical of large companies. The company I work for has less than 100 employees, and I speak with the owner/CEO on a regular basis. He likes me. I think he likes all his employees, as a matter of fact, or at least manages to make it look very much like he does; he's a very personable guy, for all that he's a lawyer.

So your experience, while it may not be unique, is also far from ubiquitous. Maybe you need to move, or maybe you need to change your expectations, or maybe you just need to not be such a cynical jerk. No one wants to hire a cynical jerk, and if they find out that they have, they're much more likely to fire you after 6 months.

The real lesson? Just because you've had bad experiences doesn't mean that's the way the whole world is. Learn not to generalize from yourself to the world, because I hate to break it to you, but the world ain't you, dude.

Dan Aris

Re:Cynicism, meet reality

[ErikZ]

The real lesson? Just because you've had bad experiences doesn't mean that's the way the whole world is.

Facinating.

So would you agree the opposite is true? That you got a good job right out of college working for a good company doesn't mean that's the way the whole world is?

Re:Cynicism, meet reality

[danaris]

So would you agree the opposite is true? That you got a good job right out of college working for a good company doesn't mean that's the way the whole world is?

Absolutely; I'll be the first to admit that I was lucky to get this so quickly.

But cubicledrone seems hellbent on insisting that no one in the world *actually* gets to keep a job longer than 6 months. If he weren't such a total jerk, I would feel sorry for him, but his attitude does not inspire sympathy.

I just thought I'd provide a counterexample, that's all.

Dan Aris

I've been retrenched 3 times in 3 years...

[bonezed]

now I save every penny and invest it, soon I'll only work for the fun of it

ps. job loyalty is non existent

Ditch the materialism

[aws910]

It sounds like you're a sort of workaholic, among other things. I'm sure you've accumulated quite a nice stack of cash, but consider this: When you die, you can't take it with you. What really matters are the things that can't pull out at any atm.

Consider this: you wake up one day, you're 38 years old, and all alone. No family, few friends, but you have stacks of cash. Does that sound like fun? I don't think so. Take a pay-cut, hire a middle-manager, and spend sime time out of the office. Your life is waiting for you out there.

If you're self-employed, you should be able to tell when the business is going south. Assuming you've still got marketable skills, finding a job shouldn't be hard. If you're good at living lean, there's always a way out. I don't keep hardly any money in savings. I just keep one of those "zero percent for a year" credit card apps. Those things are a godsend, as long as you're responsible about it.

Re:Ditch the materialism

[heinousjay]

Why am I a materialist?

Consider this: you wake up one day, you're 38 years old, and your shrew of a wife has chopped off your penis and thrown it out of her moving car window. Does that sound like fun? I don't think so.

It's not really a reply to you, but then again, your post wasn't really a reply to mine either.

Re:Ditch the materialism

[aws910]

Well, that's certainly a possibility. It's just depressing to see my geek brethren concentrate so much on money and not on the finer things in life. Yeah, they always have the alize, but no-one to share it with. That being said, your comment was definitely better than mine and I wasn't trying to diss. Rock on, brotha.

Trust in W.

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys are making it way too difficult. W. will keep this economy rolling. Why I expect that he will be around another 10 years. Of course, some here will be upset about the military rule, But I am sure that heinousjay and others will be excited by this turn of events.

A warning to investors ......

[Ex-MislTech]

Some countries in the middle east intend to no longer take the USD
as the standard currency for oil . The intend to switch away from
fiat currency, aka monopoly money for lack of a better analogy to gold .

If they switch to gold it will seriously impact the US .

The USD is not backed by anything of physical value .

Some members of OPEC have come to realize this, an plan to
take advantage of the vulnerability .

It reminds me of my time in the military in Italy buying a beer for $10,000 Lira .

Ex-MislTech

Re:A warning to investors ......

[DerekLyons]

Some countries in the middle east intend to no longer take the USD
as the standard currency for oil . The intend to switch away from
fiat currency, aka monopoly money for lack of a better analogy to gold .

A scaremongering claim that's been bandied about since the Oil Crisis - over thirty years ago. (Mostly because switching to a currency your customers don't use is generally a bad idea. OPEC is vain, self centered, etc... etc... - but they aren't stupid.)

OTOH - they is the very real possibility that they may switch from one fiat currency (U$D) to another (Euros).

If they switch to gold it will seriously impact the US .

It'll play king hell with economy of the whole world - decidely not in OPEC's interest.

Keep your skills up-to-date

[GWBasic]

The best thing you can do is keep your skills up-to-date.

It also doesn't hurt to have a hobby that you can turn into a job. An old manager of mine used to do woodworking as a hobby. When he got laid off from a 200k/year job, he decided to retire from tech and be a professional woodworker. Needless to say, he's quite happy.

What is your real savings?

[N3Bruce]

If you expect the axe to fall in a few months, you might have time to fatten up the checking account by cutting back or delaying expenditures but certain things will always get you, as certain as the grass will grow, such as:

Car Expenses: Waiting to get that odd noise or that check engine light dealt with can leave you stranded on the way to a job interview, and stuck with a big towing and repair bill. Learn to do your own car maintenance, and have some basic tools. Fixing worn stuff before it leaves you stranded will save you lots of money and grief in the long run. The last 10 percent of the tread of a tire is worth about the cost of a McDonald's lunch, but a flat on the side of I-695 at rush hour with a busted jack and a flat spare will cost you more than a brand new set of tires. Same goes for brakes, belts, hoses, and driveline stuff like U-joints and CV Axles.

Getting Car Stuff fixed in a timely manner is good, but being able to do it yourself is even better. You often get the "mechanic's price" for the part, but for repairs that can be done in your driveway or garage in an afternoon or less, you also avoid the hassle of having to drop off, wait for, or lose the use of your car for the day. In tough times, a reliable car that is in good repair is an asset, even if it is older, a car prone to breakdown is a potential liability.

The same principle goes with stuff around the house. A drip around the water heater will soon turn into a flooded basement if not dealt with in a timely manner. Some basic plumbing and electrical knowledge and a $200 water heater from Lowes can hold off a $500 plumbers bill and thousands of dollars worth of ruined carpets and appliances from a flooded basement.

Don't forget to consider your own skills and talents as assets to be built up. Investing all your time and energy in uber-specialized skills might make you a highly sought-after guru for a while, that is, until that uber-specialty is rendered obsolete, or a whole bunch of people get the certification in that specialty. I've seen the hot specialty in IT go from FORTRAN/COBOL to PASCAL to System Analyst to Novell to MCSE to Java, etc. I have certainly missed a few other hot IT careers that have come and gone, but I am stll about only midway through my working life. Having a variety of skills gives you vocational alternatives, but makes you a more interesting person besides, which leads to my final point:

Perhaps your greatest asset of all, but perhaps the most intangible as well, is your relationships with your friends, family, and coworkers. The isolated workaholic has to buy everything he needs from the "regular" economy at list price. For example, he has to store his extra stuff at Public Storage for $100 a month for a closet-sized warehouse. A person who is well connected will have friends or family with extra space in their attic who will store it for free, in exchange for help fixing their motorcycle, computer, or painting their bedroom. It is best to build up these favors in advance by giving freely of yourself, and expecting no immediate and specific return. By being willing to store a friend's stuff if you have the room, he will probably find some way to return the favor, such as an enjoyable evening out, an extra ticket to a sold-out concert, or maybe an introduction to a wonderful young lady to which you might cultivate a long and mutually beneficial relationship with.

wasting time, indeed

[tverbeek]

If it mentions having skills on windows and macintosh, I might [consider applying for it]. Even though I haven't sat at a Mac since OS8.

You probably shouldn't. About all OS X has in common with OS 8 are a few GUI design standards, some shortcut keys, and an emulator built into the former that runs the few remaining apps coded for the latter. Very little of what you might know about OS 8 will be of use today, whether the job involves programming, operations, or even helpdesk.

...perhaps you have an evil twin murmuring in folks ears at night...

Impossible. I'm the evil twin; my doppelganger is the good one. >:)

The only other potentialy helpful thing I have is a question. Is this is from your job posting "Experience with PC-based hardware and software installation, Intel-based hardware installation, and Windows operating system."? If so then I have to tell you the posting is confusing as to the priority of Mac.

(So you tracked down the job posting on our web site?) The posting is only confusing because you apparently have the same perplexing difficulty understanding written English as several of the people who applied for the job. Some of the phrasing in the job posting is kinda weird, I admit; I wish they'd let me write it instead of letting HR set the final wording. ("O/S" as shorthand for "operating system"? Puhleaze!) But it's still clear enough: Mac skills are labeled "Required qualifications"; Wintel skills are labeled "Preferred qualifications". This is Job Specs 101 stuff. It means that you must know Macs, and we'd like it if you knew PCs. If that isn't clear enough, then... hell, I give up. Sorry, but your reading comprehension and/or grasp of how "job requirements" are structured sucks. (God help you if you read programming specs this poorly.)

I would still think it _obvious_ that a huge number of misguided applicants signals a problem somewhere.

I think you've cleared that up for me. Evidently there really are people out there who were never taught how to read and comprehend a help-wanted ad.

Re:wasting time, indeed

[rhendershot]

>>I might [consider applying for it].
You misquoted me.

>>I'd not give the posting another look. If it mentions having skills on windows and macintosh, I might.
The active verb was look not apply. All I meant in everything I said about this contrived example is that having lateral skills might sometimes draw someone into looking at a posting that didn't strictly eliminate him. My experience was just an example, but to set your mind at ease I have never applied, nor do I anticipate applying, where Mac skills are a priority since I know my background is -at best- weak in this.

>>And if your addvert does mention Windows under Preferred,
My language skills are better than most. As you can see, I got the placement of windows as "desired" not "required". You passed completely on my suggestions that having Macintosh parenthasized in the job title was suboptimal, and that the core macintosh skills you desire are both indefinate. I contrived another example to illustrate.

>>Mac skills are labeled "Required qualifications
Macintosh O/S Protocols are labeled as required. Does that really say to you macintosh skills? As I pointed out, googling that phrase brought me networking hits and, I should add for clarity, *nothing* Mac specific. Such imprecision from an edu really makes the reader wonder if they actually have any idea what they need, specifically, or if they need a generalist to cover "whatever comes up".

You admit that the "phrasing is weird" yet you seem wholly incapable of accepting friendly advice to wit: your job posting is confusing and does not assert the primary position of macintosh.

I don't mean, even though I used me as an example, that it is confusing to me. I wouldn't apply if I had no Mac experience at all, unless I met all of the following:
- significant Windows exprerience
- networking expertise
- graphics design either in school, as intern or on the job (ie. reasonable exposure to their tools)
- experience managing networked devices (servers, printers, workstations)
- experience supporting users

You know, I get that you need someone who can hit the ground running as to supporting a primarily macintosh-based network. Ad Hominems aside, that is not conveyed -in strong terms- in the posting. Do you notice that it asks the applicant to support, generically, "computer hardware"... and only implies a secondary need to manage macintosh's specifically? If you can't see that, then I'm done here.

I also get that you believe "Insure smooth operation of Macintosh computers" spells it out cleanly and completely. It doesn't, not even when listed as the first Responsibility. I know enough to do that (don't even bother ;), especially at an edu. If these are mission-critical, 24/7/365, 5-nines machines then add "mission-critical macintosh". Being an edu, I doubt they are. I'm guessing you've got these as resources to graphics art students and faculty. But -hold on a minute- that's something your applicants also will wonder about; What Kind of Users? If you do have more than a couple of dozen macintosh's for this person to handle, a number would also be useful to that applicant. Scope. Requirements 101...

Drop the "OS Protocols" bit and say you need someone with networking of macintosh computers as well as other OS's if appropriate. Ask the applicant to insure operation of heterogenous networking environment and to provide first-tier support of macintosh (specify included OS versions) workstations (and servers if appropriate). If you don't have Windows, drop that bit. Suggest to the applicant that certification like ACHDS is desired (maybe in lieu of the AS degree though I understand being an edu that's probably not going to be acceptable to HR). List or exemplify key applications. Clarify user base.

If you still get primarily windows folks, then I was wrong ;)

hahah

[lorcha]

I would love to see the look on my neighbors' face if I got a milk cow and some chickens. Hahaha.