IT Salaries and Hiring Are Up — But Just To 2008 Levels

tsamsoniw writes "A mid-year salary survey has a mix of good and bad news for IT professionals: The good news, hiring is slowly increasing as companies bring more IT operations back in house and salaries are creeping up a bit. But compensation (including benefits) are just now reaching 2008 levels — and hiring will remain soft, at least until the presidential election is over."

Comments

Re:Citation needed

[roman_mir]

All wrong.

1. The current economic problems are not a result of any tax cuts, they are a result of constant increase in spending without any production behind such spending and spending is the real tax, it's not the rate.

Even with 'Bush tax cuts' (which were not tax cuts, because spending keeps growing, so it's just being put on the tab rather than being paid by taxes) the US gov't still is able to fund itself with borrowed and printed money, so what exactly is it that the government cannot do just because of 'tax cuts'?

When the rate is cut but the spending continues and in fact grows all the time, all that happens is that the payment for the rate cut is deferred into the future and there will be more interest added to it, of-course every politician out there keeps saying that government should be spending more, because it is able to borrow at the lowest interest rates (and with the Fed buying so much of the new Treasury debt it's clear that most of the new spending is just 'financed' by inflation).

2. The financial sector has over 100,000 regulations applied to it on the federal level and there are other regulations too. The number of regulations is constantly increasing, this year there were 0 applications for new banks in USA for example, that's simply because it is no longer possible for any startup to comply with the regulations. All laws are regulations, Patriot Act for example is a huge regulation on the financial sector as well, it turns the entire financial sector into an IRS and CIA agent. To call mortgage crisis 'subprime' only is an understatment by the way, the problem only started with subprime, but it was all throughout the mortgage market because of the government backing all loans, not just subprime, and because of fake interest rates coming down from the Fed more than half mortgages were ARMs (adjustable rate), which had to reset at some point too.

But don't forget, there are people on both sides of the transaction and so with ARMs the banks were getting less and less return with every step that Greenspan and then Bernanke took to lower the rates, which propagated to all markets, including mortgage market. So there was less and less return on every mortgage that was given out.

Less and less return created the same situation that government created in the private equity market, where people are no longer looking for the bonds to get dividend payments, they only trade the stock itself trying to buy low sell high, it was turned into casino.

Same thing with mortgages - they were turned into casino because of low interest rates (fake money). So banks started selling mortgages to each other as if they were stocks, not hoping to live off of the dividend payments (monthly mortgage payments) but instead just hoping to gamble with those. Then came the derivative products, which is to say that bets on mortgages turned into options.

Some would say that repeal of Glass Steagall was the problem, but Glass Steagall didn't create the problem of no returns, it only allowed trading of the options, it didn't actually set the state for not getting returns on the mortgages. This view also overlooks the reason for Glass Steagall, this was introduced as the counterbalance to the FDIC, which is the moral hazard for people not to care about the banks, not caring that some banks maybe riskier than others, you shouldn't care, right, because the government 'guarantees' your deposit.

Well, gov't can't actually guarantee your deposit anymore than it can 'guarantee' your retirement or medical care or anything else, gov't doesn't have money and whatever it collects in taxes it always spends to the last penny leaving behind IOU notes - bonds.

But Clinton and Rubin were responsible for refinancing the US debt at very low rates, same thing that these so called 'home-owners' did every chance they got - refinanced their homes, left no equity in them.

It's funny to hear liberals cry about the poor home owners. Why is anybody crying? The 'home owners' never owned tho