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

Citation needed

[ccguy]

The article says this:

"However, hiring overall will remain soft in coming months, particularly with the presidential election in the United States and economic turmoil in the European Union."

The EU part is obvious, but there's no explanation about why the presidential election would have an impact or where they are getting that data from.

Re:Citation needed

[YrWrstNtmr]

Businesses may be hesitant to make major investments in hiring (or anything) until they know which way the wind will blow after November.

Re:Citation needed

[oztiks]

IT spending would be reduced in preparation to the election because people in govt jobs would be concerned for their own jobs. Plus spending on anything big would be put off until after the election incase a new govt is put in place, the old govt wouldn't want the new govt to get the kudos on anything good and anything bad can easily be blamed on the past govt decision

Re:Citation needed

[vlm]

there's no explanation about why the presidential election would have an impact or where they are getting that data from

We don't live in a free market state. Its assumed that major government provided economic numbers are kind of pencil whipped before the election to support the incumbent. Reality is never completely on display, however, you'll get a much better look at it a couple months after the election, rather than before. You can tell any lie with statistics.

Re:Citation needed

[Sponge Bath]

The current makeup of the US government means cooperation between parties is required to do anything useful. Current political polarization means no cooperation. The election has the possibility of changing this.

Re:Citation needed

[dkleinsc]

It's nonsense, that's what it is. Same as when the business press talks about "uncertainty" - it's always uncertain what's going to happen in business, and what they're really saying is "There's a slight chance that the federal government won't just do exactly what we in industry want, Waaaa!."

Re:Citation needed

[Glock27]

What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now, along with a massive tax hike. The US will likely continue with the Great Depression II in that case.

On the other hand, if Romney is elected, the country has a fighting chance to recover.

Re:Citation needed

[K. S. Kyosuke]

What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now

I'm hardly an expert on US matters, but I've always thought that this "disastrous approach" actually predates the Obama presidency, which is forced to cope with its results. Or is there some hope among the US people that a potential non-Obama future president would be able to solve the economical problems of the US in one swift stroke using his magical superabilities?

Re:Citation needed

[Gorobei]

Businesses may be hesitant to make major investments in hiring (or anything) until they know which way the wind will blow after November.

Businesses hire because they need more people to do the work they have in the pipeline. Outside of a few firms in Washington, presidential elections have about 0% impact on that.

Anyone saying otherwise is has either never run a business or has an agenda to push.

Re:Citation needed

[paiute]

What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now, along with a massive tax hike. The US will likely continue with the Great Depression II in that case.

On the other hand, if Romney is elected, the country has a fighting chance to recover.

Translation: You are in a coma after being shot in the head. Doctor A's treatment of IVs and drugs and stuff isn't having you up and back to work in a week, so your family panics and brings in Doctor B, whose treatment is to shoot you in the head again.

Re:Citation needed

[Short Circuit]

The best thing a government can do for an economy is get out of the way. Even outside of extreme regulation, taxation and foot-dragging bureaucracies, a government that doesn't change is better than a government that changes every six months, and whose leadership announces sweeping new initiatives almost as frequently.

Nobody in their right mind wants Romney to "fix" the economy, they just want him to get out of the way.

Re:Citation needed

[Anonymous Coward]

This was the prevailing ideology leading up to the financial crisis, where drastic deregulation to get government "out of the way" paved the way to disaster.

Any time you can put nine people in a room that are responsible for trashing the world economy, and you have to beg them to let you save them with taxpayer dollars just to avoid a situation worse than the Depression... you've gotten too far out of the way.

This notion that we should be pushing for the mythical laissez-faire sort of capitalism, and that it will naturally evolve into a stable, working system that distributes resources in a reasonable manner, is bullshit. It's an imperfect world filled with imperfect people.

Re:Citation needed

[kubusja]

Oh, yeah, definitely... it's all Bush fault: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Public_Debt_Ceiling_1981-2010.png So Bush is not without guilt but Obama made it much worse...

Re:Citation needed

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP wasn't advocating deregulation, but rather that the government stop changing the rules. Once the rules are established, businesses can adapt and the economy will stabilize. If the rules change every few years, the economy will keep fluctuating.

Re:Citation needed

[CohibaVancouver]

I'm hardly an expert on US matters, but I've always thought that this "disastrous approach" actually predates the Obama presidency

Correct. I'm Canadian, so I'm greatly affected by what goes in the US Economy. What Obama struggles with, and continues to struggle with are largely related to his predecessors and include, but aren't limited to -

1) The "Bush Tax Cut" which ensured the US federal government had insufficient taxes to do their job, combined with the trillions spent on overseas wars.

2) Governments that preceded him being unwilling to regulate the financial sector, resulting in the meltdowns in 2008. (I blame Clinton here too - His presidency is largely to blame for the subprime mortgage mess.)

3) An obstinate congress which blocks anything, regardless of whether or not it is good for the country.

Re:Citation needed

[Surt]

And the point of the response was that we have proof this doesn't work. Disastrous proof.

Re:Citation needed

[Gamer_2k4]

Or is there some hope among the US people that a potential non-Obama future president would be able to solve the economical problems of the US in one swift stroke using his magical superabilities?

Well, it was a similar hope in a magical President that got Obama into office in the first place, so...

Re:Citation needed

[Virtucon]

1) The "Bush Tax Cut" which ensured the US federal government had insufficient taxes to do their job, combined with the trillions spent on overseas wars.

Passed by Both Houses of Congress based on what was thought to be good information at the time.

2) Governments that preceded him being unwilling to regulate the financial sector, resulting in the meltdowns in 2008. (I blame Clinton here too - His presidency is largely to blame for the subprime mortgage mess.)

It's good you mention Bill Clinton's administration on this.

3) An obstinate congress which blocks anything, regardless of whether or not it is good for the country.

Oh Like when Obama's Administration with a Democratic House and Senate majorities failed to pass budgets?

Look, this is Slashdot and Politics aside there's a ton of blame for the mess we have. As Will Rodgers once said "If you find yourself in a hole the first thing you do is stop digging."

The fundamental problems with our government are created by the people who vote for these idiots over and over again. From the people who vote for corrupt politicians to those who vote for people with IQs less than the McDonalds dollar menu prices.

Speaking from direct experience, the leadership we have is no better than what you find in an episode of "The Office", what should we expect? It doesn't matter, Democrat or Republican and there is the problem, there's only two degrees of separation between them. Close your eyes and you get the same turd sandwich, it's all shit just go ahead and take a bite. Both parties have rigged the political processes, the election laws and created a million barriers for qualified people to run for office. What ever happened to write-in candidates? That's a whole other discussion.

Back in Feb. 2009 I flew from DC to RDU and sat behind two congressmen. One was so myopic that even with glasses he had to keep the paper an inch off of his nose. When they boarded they were high-fiving each other saying "We passed it" referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). During the flight they kept passing pieces of paper back and forth, you couldn't help but overhear occasionally even on a noisy plane. One quip was disturbing "I didn't know that was in there" referring to the ARRA
legislation.

So, two congressmen who voted yes on a bill that became law and they didn't read it. Two votes making decisions for you and I. I can't fault their political views or party affiliations but I can fault them for not at least reading the damn legislation that they were voting on. It sounds like they should be part of a human centipad.

True leadership means making the decisions that are best, not politically expedient and not all of them will be popular. Doing your best also means researching the problem and understanding what you're trying to solve. Unfortunately nowadays everybody in this country has the attention span of a 4 year old and now we have an entire generation of adults who grew up not paying attention, barely passed their courses in College and now are running things.

Nobody can fault somebody for serving in public office, but it would be nice if there was at least some brighter individuals who would run. Yeah, you'd get rocks thrown at you but at least you'd be doing the country's business rather than trying to

Re:Citation needed

[FairAndHateful]

The GP wasn't advocating deregulation, but rather that the government stop changing the rules. Once the rules are established, businesses can adapt and the economy will stabilize. If the rules change every few years, the economy will keep fluctuating.

Thank you for stating this. Businesses are not able to act confidently when they are worried that the rules are going to keep changing. It's not like playing a boardgame where it's all part of the fun. Real things are at stake, and people tend to be very cautious and try to remain flexible and not put any chips on the table when the rules keep changing. (apologies for the mixed gaming metaphors)

Also, I think there's a semantic problem between the people that argue against and for "deregulation", as they seem to be using the term differently. Some people view it as a simplification of the rules, and in some cases, a removal of the more expensive and onerous of those rules. Other people view it as a case of simply changing the rules in whatever way is necessary so businesses can maximize profits. I think an argument can be made that the changes to the financial rules that led to the crisis can be fairly classified as the latter.

Re:Citation needed

[Anonymous Coward]

When the economic playing field is young and full of independent entrepreneurs, the "get out of the way" philosophy works well.

Once the economy is mature, and full of monopolies and cartels, government regulation of business is the only thing that can prevent an overwhelming crime wave or outright bloody revolution.

We all know that people are greedy, and accepting that fact is why capitalism shines when the market is actually free. A cartel/monopoly-controlled market is the opposite of free, and the greed of the people at the top of these cartels and monopolies makes them every bit as destructive as a totalitarian dictator, with just as much power to boot. They set up barriers to entry which prevents any new business, even one with a superior offering, from ever getting a foothold, and all the benefits of capitalism go up in smoke. If the government does not keep the megacorporations on a leash, the people wind up largely hopeless and desperate, so they take up arms.

Re:Citation needed

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Um. No. That's how we got a financial crisis in the first place. The repeal of Glass-Steagal during the Clinton administration is how banks in the USA got the ability to gamble with *your* money instead of their own. Building a socio-economic environment without regulation is a bit like building a house without any building codes. Firewalls, plumbing and wiring codes exist for a reason. Ditto for financial regulations. It's to the advantage of the wealthiest gamblers NOT to have regulations. For the rest of us who will never win the capitalist lottery in a big way, the regulations protect us.

Oh, and might I point out that the most successful economy in Europe, is highly regulated AND they have universal health care. Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway aren't doing so poorly either with their regulated economies. Of course, the Swedes were smart enough to let the banks fail and be sold off during their last banking crisis. We, sadly, were not.

Re:Citation needed

[Gorobei]

Really?

So we pull up the non-farm payroll numbers for the past 40 years. Chart the time series. Nothing. Do some stats on the data: nothing significant on a 4 year cycle. Hell, let's do the stats on NFP^2 (maybe there is a volatility effect?) Nope. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

You are wrong.

Re:Citation needed

[ErikZ]

How come none of the other recoveries took this long then?

All that came before, it was blindingly obvious when things are getting better. With Obama, all of a sudden it impossible to fix.

Maybe it's not the economy. Maybe it's him and his policies.

Re:Citation needed

[Anonymous Coward]

And the point of the response was that we have proof this doesn't work. Disastrous proof.

No, that's not the point of the response. The point of the response was to get all butthurt and rant, and he didn't prove dick.

Look, no matter what approach the government takes to business, it needs to maintain some amount of consistency. Even when you change things, you need to have certainty in the Law. Hell, it's a fundamental principle of Law in general, not unique to business.

The responder is correct in general terms, other than kind of missing the point of the post he responded to. That post was trying to say that a big part of the problem with the economy is that the government keeps tinkering around with it when they are either clueless, corrupt, or both. And it's true- a lot of our current financial mess came as a result of both direct and indirect meddling with business, in all the wrong ways.
But I didn't see anything which made me think he was calling for a complete Open Season for business, either. You have to have some rule and regulation, but the government needs to focus on regulation which is more effective and less burdensome.

Re:Citation needed

[Virtucon]

.Businesses hire because they need more people to do the work they have in the pipeline. Outside of a few firms in Washington, presidential elections have about 0% impact on that.

Anyone saying otherwise is has either never run a business or has an agenda to push.

I run a small business and work with other businesses small and large daily. What happens in DC affects every job in this country and the administration is responsible for setting the tone and direction of the nation in terms of it's social and economic agendas. This gets codified into laws on: ... From taxes, regulations, foreign trade the list goes on and on. Have you ever taken a look at the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs)?

Once a law goes on the book it stays there unless somebody passes another act to amend or replace it and they can be used as a carrot or a stick depending on what the administration and the congress is willing to do in terms of establishing those laws. The sad part is that they stay there unless the legislation has a built in clause for termination or it gets amended or repealed.

There's even a great section on the regulation of Steam Train Boiler modifications and repair.

Now, I'll admit that's a bit out of date in terms of relative history, but you know if we keep putting billions in to passenger train service in this country Steam Trains may make a come back with all that Coal that's not being used to generate electricity. You just never know.

Yes, this administration inherited a big mess, but it is their job to get things moving on all fronts. It's a daunting task but they could also be helping businesses in this country using the carrot and stick approach more to give those incentives to businesses to hire more in this country unlike Apple which decided a long time ago to export manufacturing overseas. You see when you create enough sticks in the forms of regulations and taxes, people will take their business overseas where they can get a better return on their investments. Then you get free trade agreements and H1B that allow your now outsourced labor and material to come in as product and you dump it on the market putting more Americans out on the street. You get that by buying lobbyists and contributing to political campaigns and eventually you get a supreme court who then says that your big business can spend whatever it wants on political ads because it's protected as "free speech."

Don't get me wrong, there's too many crybaby billionaires out there who don't want to pay their fare share however the deals they get are also in those CFRs and were legislated by the same guys in DC that seem to not have any affect on business as you say.

Re:Citation needed

[Surt]

How many times does history need to beat us over the head with the untruth of the claim that getting out of the way is the best thing a government can do for the economy before people start from a position of getting regulation right instead of getting regulation gone?

Re:Citation needed

[SaroDarksbane]

The barriers to entry in a market are created by the government in the first place. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Big business uses government regulation to create cartels and monopolies. You're basically saying that we need a government big enough to save us all from destructive influence of big government.

Re:Citation needed

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The "Bush Tax Cut" which ensured the US federal government had insufficient taxes to do their job, combined with the trillions spent on overseas wars.
Passed by Both Houses of Congress based on what was thought to be good information at the time. [wikipedia.org]

It's never that simple and easy, every single vote by every last member is a twisted web of politics and inside deals.

3) An obstinate congress which blocks anything, regardless of whether or not it is good for the country.
Oh Like when Obama's Administration with a Democratic House and Senate majorities failed to pass budgets? [foxnews.com]

Ok, now you're just trolling. But what the hell...

You can replace that with "Oh, Like when Any President with a Either Party House and Senate majorities failed to pass Whatever Legislation . (And then point it to a reputable source such as the Congressional Voting Record instead of a hack of a news channel.)

Re:Citation needed

[Alomex]

Businesses are not able to act confidently when they are worried that the rules are going to keep changing

Another meme courtesy of the republican party. Rules change all the time when you are in business. New competitors arise, trading treaties are signed, programs appear and disappear, new threats appear out of left field. Change is what businesses do best. To think they are sitting on untold monies because they don't know what will come is ridiculous.

Re:Citation needed

[the eric conspiracy]

> What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now

We don't have a disastrous approach to business now. Businesses are enjoying record levels of profitability and have immense amounts of cash on hand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html

"GORMAN: Well, they won't hire more people until they have a business need to do so. And behind your question is the fact that many companies in North America adjusted very quickly to the significant downturn. And what companies I think found is they could get by with fewer people if they used technology in a way that they could really become more and more efficient."

Gorman is the president of KeyBank in Cleveland.

With the EU and China not growing, and the US able to grow worker productivity as fast as the economy there just isn't a need to hire.

What would change this is an increase in demand. But we are in the middle of a credit retrenchment (housing crash) so even near zero interest rates will do squat, and China and Europe demand is declining.

The Republicans are in for a rude shock if they think that they have the ability to change this. Cutting taxes for the wealthy does nothing to increase demand.

Re:Citation needed

[Alomex]

If I burn the house and then let you take over after that, sure you will max out the credit cards buying replacement goods for all the things I destroyed.

Using your twisted logic, you made things much worse by buying replacement underwear, clothing and basic goods.

A mild recession is akin to you losing your job, you cut on expenditures and try to survive until you get a new one.

A depression like the one we are in is like your house burning down. You approach your relatives/friends/bank and ask for a hefty loan which you will pay over the next ten years as insurance monies come in, you get back on your feet, get an extra job, etc.

Re:Citation needed

[Anonymous Coward]

I live here. The "disastrous approach" for an Inforworld article is whatever displeases Infoworld advertisers, particularly major corporate advertisers. It is _not_, by any means, a politically or economically neutral publication, and such advertisers are very unhappy with caps on H1-B visas, enforced health coverage for contractors, or economic oversight by the SEC. They want the business friendly Republicans back in power as quickly as possible, even though the poor Republican handling of extremely speculative investments in housing helped bankrupt the nation.

Re:Citation needed

[Alomex]

None of those need to be refuted. Even if they were true, they in no way would be responsible for the current state of the economy. Even if true they would be minor gaffes in a trillion dollar economy.

What really screwed up this country was two unfunded wars by GWB, financial deregulation starting with Reagan followed by Clinton and GWB, and the original GWB tax cuts at a time where we were waging two wars and more, not less revenues were needed.

Re:Citation needed

[Alomex]

Trust me, I have no love for Romney and his frequent promises of skyrocketing immigration and an obscenely high H1-B cap. But in the long run we're better off with him, no matter what he does, due to the perceptual niche he occupies.

Sorry but the facts are against you. The economy grew faster during the "bad perception" years of Clinton than during the "good perception" years of GWB.

Re:Citation needed

[IANAAC]

What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now, along with a massive tax hike. The US will likely continue with the Great Depression II in that case.

On the other hand, if Romney is elected, the country has a fighting chance to recover.

Which is a really myopic and uninformed way of looking at things.

Business taxes (and incentives) are determined at the state level, not federal level. Companies don't pick up and move to other states or anywhere else because of federal elections.

Re:Citation needed

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's a choice, for example, between a government that doesn't tolerate melamine in the food supply and a government that doesn't care about melamine in food, I'll take the first one.

Crazy thought: there are some good regulations.

Re:Citation needed

[Alomex]

How come none of the other recoveries took this long then?

Except for the great depression or the current Japanese and Irish depression all of which you conveniently forget to mention.

Maybe it's not the economy. Maybe it's him and his policies.

Or maybe all the other recessions were created by tightening of monetary policy and quickly cured as interests rates went down when inflation subsided.

In contrast when recessions are caused by deleveraging they all have in common that they are really hard to solve, like the great depression, like Japan, like Ireland. The only way out we know is massive spending as in the great depression. The republican party is opposed to this always, regardless of how out of the ordinary the circumstances might be, requiring an exception to be made.

Re:Citation needed

[FairAndHateful]

Another meme courtesy of the republican party.

Oh, yeah, because businesses favored by democrats don't hedge the same way. This bullshit cuts both ways. You're thinking with your politics, not your brains.

Re:Citation needed

[DragonWriter]

What these comments are dancing around is that if Obama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now

You mean if Obama is elected the Republicans in Congress will continue their approach of scuttling any proposal that has a chance of helping the economy improve in the hopes that if they make the country collapse badly enough, it will rebound against the party of the incumbent in the next Presidential election?

Plausible, but more of a reason to vote against Republican candidates in the Congressional elections than for their candidate in the Presidential one.

Re:Citation needed

[hoggoth]

> if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach
> On the other hand, if Romney is elected, a different set of businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Citation needed

[ShanghaiBill]

How many times does history need to beat us over the head with the untruth of the claim that getting out of the way is the best thing a government can do for the economy ...

I think the problem is that history doesn't actually teach that. Can you point out some examples in history were free economies did worse than comparable regulated economies at the same time? You may be able to find a few, but there are far more examples of the opposite. Some people have pointed to the Great Depression of the 1930's as something caused by under-regulation in America, but the Great Depression was just as bad or even worse in countries that had more regulation.

Re:Citation needed

[Korin43]

Or is there some hope among the US people that a potential non-Obama future president would be able to solve the economical problems of the US in one swift stroke using his magical superabilities?

Yes, our elections revolve around two people taking turns talking about position X, where they are really pro-X while the other guy is anti-X (or generally "soft on X"). When the election finishes, they basically do the same thing and fail because all they've been thinking about what they think is cool, instead of realistic ways to do it (realistic solutions are a synonym for "soft on X"). Then there's a simple rule: If you voted for him, he did absolutely nothing wrong and in fact Jesus himself said his actions were perfect, and if you didn't vote for him, he's intentionally destroying everything because he's literally Satan.

Re:Citation needed

[phantomfive]

It's been said before, but the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act was probably not responsible for the banking crisis.

We know this because Canada has not had similar regulation for a much longer time, and they were not hit nearly as bad by the crisis.

Re:Citation needed

[Anonymous Coward]

198 of 205 Democratic members of the House voted against the Bush Tax cuts. 46 of 48 Democratic members of the Senate voted against it. The CBO predicted that it would increase the deficit.

It is disgustingly dishonest of you to pretend that this was some sort of bipartisan effort based on best information. There are no economic policies that suggest increasing deficit spending during booms, yet that is exactly the reckless nonsense that was supported by the Republicans. That recklessness meant that when a problem came, we didn't have a nice healthy balance sheet to start with, because you'd already all stolen it.

Only an easily manipulated fool or a sociopath could sit and pretend that GOP economic policy has been wise.

Re:Citation needed

[i286NiNJA]

Point understood. But to be fair most of the excitement with obama was that bush was finally on his way out of office, a magical moment all by itself. On top of it all he was black which made the whole thing seem straight out of a fairy tale.

I voted for and still like Obama, but I was shocked by what I hear people say they thought he was going to do, no wonder so many people call him Bush part II. He surely is closer to Bush and all other mortal humans compared to the man some people were expecting him to be.

Re:Citation needed

[phantomfive]

Nobody can fault somebody for serving in public office, but it would be nice if there was at least some brighter individuals who would run.

This is the problem. Imagine you are an extremely competent, altruistic person, who wants to help the world. Are you going to think, "I know, I'll help the world by spending all my time on the campaign trail, and kissing up to donors, and after all that, I'll be one of 435 representatives who gets to vote or not vote for a bill. If I keep that up for a while, and get lucky, maybe I'll have some real power."

No, you're going to find some way to change the world and help people that is much more effective, and much less miserable.

Re:Citation needed

[dpilot]

OK, I'll bite. I've held off, but hours later this thread is still at less than 200 comments.

> On the other hand, if Romney is elected, the country has a fighting chance to recover.

Right not, the major problem with the country is the degrading fortuntes of the middle and working class. Our economic doldrums are from a lack of demand, and many other places here it has been said that when more is demanded, business will hire to meet the needs, etc. The lack of demand is because of the downward pay pressure on the middle and working class - they have less to spend, and many have fallen out of even that category.

Without any further comment on other aspects, I'll simply say that in this situation supply side economics simply will not work. It's not a supply probem, it's a demand problem

Every Republican proposal I've seen begins with cutting taxes and reducing government spending. (Regulation too, but I'm focusing.) Cutting taxes essentially gives more money to the wealthy. Cutting spending essentially takes money away from the non-wealthy. Right or wrong, this will do nothing positive for demand.

I'm sure someone will tell me how stupid and simplistic I am with this opinion, how I'm deluded and that by simply letting excessively greedy people do whatever they want, everything will get better for everyone. Ponies too, no doubt. The specifics might be interesting. Maybe not.

Re:Citation needed

[McGruber]

The GP wasn't advocating deregulation, but rather that the government stop changing the rules. Once the rules are established, businesses can adapt and the economy will stabilize. If the rules change every few years, the economy will keep fluctuating.

If businesses really want stable regulation, then they need to stop lobbying to have those regulations changed.

Re:Citation needed

[Kohath]

And what if businesses believe this "meme" and don't hire? You'll tell them they're wrong. They won't listen. No one will be hired. So what's the point exactly?

Your failing to understand business concerns doesn't make them magically go away.

Why should people risk their money, their current position, their efforts and their time to hire people to make a profit when the government is trying to increase the risks and take most the profits? (And don't argue that the government is not doing that. Even if you were right, it doesn't make any difference unless you are the one hiring.)

Re:Citation needed

[C3ntaur]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Shame you posted this AC but I think I understand why you did.

Re:Citation needed

[mjwalshe]

err you know it was the main steam banks that messed up with mortgage lending not investment banks

Re:Citation needed

[geekoid]

Wrong.

If you actually bother to get off your fat ass an look into economic histry, you would realize that h\increasing government programs for infrastructure has always gotten a country out of similar economic situations.

The pubs cut that actual amount of money needed for those programs, but even still, the economy is a lot better now then it was in 08. Cut it after they agreed to it, btw.

Romney's "Plan" has never, ever not once gotten any country out of a similar economic situation in all of history. It took the Japanese 10 years to get to the level of recovery we have in 4. Because they took the same flawed approach as Romney.

After words we begin deleveraging.

It's trivial to look up the recovery numbers. Every time the pubs say the economy is Obama's fault, they are lying. Plain and simple. Look at the numbers.

Re:Citation needed

[geekoid]

No he isn't. The pubs are always saying that shit. trying to freeze regulation in a place so when companies find loop holes and abuse them they can do so without consequences.

I am unaware of any democrat that says:
"Businesses are not able to act confidently when they are worried that the rules are going to keep changing"
If there are, then they are wrong as well.

Re:Citation needed

[geekoid]

"And what if businesses believe this "meme" and don't hire?"
they don't. No one in business does, becasue they would go out of business if they assumes all the properties of business where static.

"Your failing to understand business concerns doesn't make them magically go away."
it's not an actual business concern.

"Why should people risk their money, their current position, their efforts and their time to hire people to make a profit when the government is trying to increase the risks and take most the profits?"
the government doesn't do that, and in some case the regualtions decrease the risk.

" (And don't argue that the government is not doing that. Even if you were right, it doesn't make any difference unless you are the one hiring.)"
so you make a provable incorrect statement, and then make a statement saying the shit you made up doesn't matter in the argument? are you stupid?

Re:Citation needed

[Rinikusu]

Doesn't matter to the Austrians. In fact, I'm frequently surprised when I hear people who demand empirical proof for everything else in the world (science, climate change, evolution, where my fucking car keys are) will throw it all out because some Austrian dude said that empirical proof means nothing for his particular pet subject, so let's stop trying. So, in short, your "disastrous proof" means nothing, but god help you if you have evidence to the contrary because they'll foist it all over youtube and write a dozen books on it.

Re:Citation needed

[Kohath]

Since your statement that "no one in business does" is obvious to everyone as a false statement, there's no need for anyone to address (or even read) anything else you've written. People "in business" have diverse opinions and various guesses about the future. What's the point in asserting that they don't?

Re:Citation needed

[Maxo-Texas]

Well, you see if Obama is selected there is uncertainty over what the future holds, while if Romney is selected there is uncertainty over what the future holds.

I hope that clears up the question for everybody.

Re:Citation needed

[strikethree]

Meh. The only businesses that I can think of that would need to plan directly around a presidential election are companies that contract with the government. To all other businesses not involved in any type of corruption, republican or democrat makes zero difference.

Re:Citation needed

[Richard Dick Head]

I'm not trying to argue something inane like "GWB is gr8 and Clinton sux0rs!!11", as you seem to be suggesting.

Remember, we don't have much to compare the current situation here. The heath care reform is the most shocking thing ever done in the US since the New Deal.

There was no recession during either of Clinton's, and either of Bush's election campaigns. The first of these cases was the 91/92 recession, which was mild, wasn't talked much about, and was pretty much already over by the time the election was in full swing. So, that would be a bad comparison.

You have to be careful when looking at the 90's as a shining example of what is awesome. The initial benefits of globalization rushed up on us like a ocean wave, and in the 2000's settled back to whence it came. Then another wave came back to us in the form of international loans. The current recession is a push-back from that. I don't think any other industry felt that initial motion of capital so clearly as those in IT.

But, back to my point. The fact that there are billions in capital and millions of jobs waiting on this election is real. You can't wish it away, you can't make it irrelevant by getting angry about it, and you can't make it not true by modding it -1 if it is discussed on Slashdot. That is the quiet reality going on behind the scenes, and you'd be a fool to ignore it.

Re:Citation needed

[thoth]

The best thing a government can do for an economy is get out of the way.

That's what conservatives did: weaken financial regulations, lower taxes, etc. The result was the disaster of the Bush presidency culminating in the financial crisis of 2008, which we are still feeling the effects of.

Sorry, but this mantra conservatives keep preaching is demonstrably false.

Re:Citation needed

[thoth]

Businesses are not able to act confidently when they are worried that the rules are going to keep changing.

More BS courtesy conservatives/republican/folks with their head shoved up their ass.
Business aren't worried about "rules" that "change"... they are sitting around because of low demand (due to other massive problems with the economy and how the middle class is doing). Business WANT rules changes all the damn time - check out the lobbying budget for various industries. They just want all changes in their favor, everything to benefit them, without any longer term outlook.

Re:Citation needed

[thoth]

Passed by Both Houses of Congress based on what was thought to be good information at the time.

Yeah, passed by both houses... why don't you look at how the actual voting split down? To imply it was fully supported by both parties is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

But in case you do lie to yourself like that - how about holding Republicans to this same standard as far as the Affordable Health Care Act? You know, legit legislation passed by both houses, etc?

Re:Citation needed

[Archangel Michael]

All the regulations in the world didn't stop the crooks, and never will. That is why idiots like you don't and will never understand. Nobody could have regulations on something that never existed prior (derivative loan securities). The reason why this failed, is because (hindsight being 20/20) it was nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme among banks.

It wasn't lack of regulation or lowered regulations that created Derivatives, it was creative crooks that created them, and nobody was smart enough to NOT bite, except perhaps some credit unions. The real crime was caused by people not doing their homework, and betting the farm on a gamble. Those people got a bailout by Obama and Bush, and are STILL making crappy decisions.

You want to fix the problem? Make CEO's take their pay in cash. Period. If they take anything in Stock or other securities as compensation, put it into a trust, which they cannot touch for 15 years or 10 years after their last day on the job. They will look out for the long term and stop betting on short term thinking. No CEO worth their salt is gonna risk short term profits so they can sell their options and get out before the bottom drops out.

Two Wars are bad, but three wars are worse. And we are probably going to be involved in Syria and or Iran (or both) by the end of this summer. Call it the Obama Re Election wars. And what will be your excuse for another one or two unfunded wars and Obama? Seriously, I'm asking.

The whole idea the (D) good (R) bad is just a load of crap. Both are bad, and not doing anyone any favors. And the crises in thee world are not going away because Obama is the Messiah. Oh, and if Obama is not responsible for what is going on right now, then Clinton is responsible for 9/11 and the economic crisis that Bush inherited. But that doesn't sit will with the idiots. (and Visa Versa, btw).

Re:Citation needed

[Alomex]

I'm not trying to argue something inane like "GWB is gr8 and Clinton sux0rs!!11", as you seem to be suggesting.

No. You are drawing a caricature of my argument.

The fact that there are billions in capital and millions of jobs waiting on this election is real.

This is a made up fact. People are sitting on capital because they are afraid of the economic conditions worldwide. If the only problem were the US elections they would take their money and invest it elsewhere.

You can't wish it away,

Neither can you just make up imaginary reasons as to why this is so, reasons which defy the facts. Businesses have never talked about "holding back until the elections" and even today the only ones saying this are republican talking heads. The Fortune 500 companies have not stepped forward and said "yeah, we are waiting for the elections".

It's simply a republican meme, with no foundation in reality.

Re:Citation needed

[rollingcalf]

Investment banks were a big part of the problem, as they were buying the mortgages that were being packaged up and sold by regular banks.

Re:Citation needed

[luis_a_espinal]

The GP wasn't advocating deregulation, but rather that the government stop changing the rules.

Rules sometimes changes for a reason. Think SOX compliance regulations for example. As imperfect these regulations might be, the rules that preceded them, though in place, were not sufficient to prevent some major shenanigans which SOX tries to prevent (however, imperfectly the try-out might be.)

Go further back in time and remember Standard Oil. Rules had to change to cope with it.

Rules are not panacea fixed in the sky around which the clouds of business arrange themselves in cooperative harmony. And an economy, however free it might be, it should operate within the context of national interest.

The day you can iron-out rules that can remain unchanged forever while being capable of handling every economic evolutionary twist (and/or new organized fraud/criminal schemes), then your argument will be a good one.

Re:Citation needed

[luis_a_espinal]

The barriers to entry in a market are created by the government in the first place.

Should I quote recent software history (in slashdot of all places) as a counter-example against your statement?

Re:Citation needed

[Loki_1929]

This was the prevailing ideology leading up to the financial crisis, where drastic deregulation to get government "out of the way" paved the way to disaster.

Funny, and here I thought that the amended Community Reinvestment Act (as amended in 1991 and 1994, and heavily enforced by regulators beginning in 1994) forced banks to relax lending standards to such an extent that they had to find new and exciting (read: untested and dangerous) ways to get said loans off their books. I was under the impression that this began the rapidly snowballing practice of handing out loans to people who weren't the least bit qualified (from a strictly financial perspective) and that it was heavily encouraged by both President Clinton and (far moreso) by President George W. Bush via Housing and Urban Development.

Further, I kinda figured that several years of practically free money flowing from the quasi-government entity known as the Federal Reserve fueled all kinds of terrible investments (like a housing bubble?). And you know, I didn't think it was helpful that a pair of government-sponsored entities (who were under the direction of the US Congress, had the implicit backing of the Full Faith and Credit of the United States, and who've been taken into conservatorship by the US Federal government) kept prices and rates artificially low at great cost to the US taxpayer and who - together - account for about 60% of the US mortgage market. Doesn't that sort of thing usually spawn... a bubble?

Not really sure what led me to believe all of that stuff. Does the narrative even make sense? Congress changes an existing law and the President changes enforcement to pressure those who give mortgages to hand out more loans to the "economically disadvantaged" in their communities in the mid-1990s which causes lenders to put a ton of loans on their books that don't look very good? I mean, I guess the banks and such would already be lending to people who were qualified for loans; there's no reason not to, right? If you're qualified, the bank makes money through the life of the loan, you get a house, and everybody wins, yeah? So I suppose if Congress had to force banks to make a bunch of loans, it'd probably mean that those loans weren't so great. Now from what I know of banks, they've got to answer to the bean counters and stock holders and all sorts of other people who get fussy when the books start looking scary. I guess if that started to happen, "the government made me do it" probably wouldn't cut it for very long. So on the one side, you've got the government pressuring the lenders to create loans they wouldn't normally create, and on the other hand, you've got people who are like "hey, if you go out of business, I lose a lot of money, so don't do that!" After a little while of that and not seeing things get any better, I know I'd be looking for another way out. Which is interesting, because the US government invented a neat way to get loans off your books back in 1970 with what are called "Mortgage-backed securities" (courtesy of Ginnie Mae). More than half the mortgages in the US have been turned into those, (including $3 Trillion worth in 2003 alone in a $12 Trillion total market) so that's pretty neat.

Ok, so the lenders have a good way move the bad loans off their books, and by all accounts, they start doing just that. By 2002, President Bush was

Re:Citation needed

[Virtucon]

Blah Blah Blah Tax Cuts. Shit, there was pork in that legislation for everybody even the bottom two brackets 10 and 15% got something. Most of us got a 2% reduction in our rates. WHooopity shit.
For those who have a lot of money and those like CEOs who take their money in terms of stock options, they're paying a much lower capital gains tax. For a lot of us, that doesn't really take a bite out of my tax bill.

I did look at the 2003 vote and it was a tight vote with Cheney breaking the tie in the Senate. That's how a democracy works. And since you bring up the ACA, and it is a piece of shit in terms of legislative triumph, it was passed and now affirmed by the Supreme Court. So, it's like the old adage: garbage in, garbage out. I don't think there was one congressman or senator that put in the work to write the legislation. It came, as usual, from lobbyists and was cobbled together by staff. The folks on the hill have a way of doing things and mostly, it's not their own work.

Oh and check your facts, the grand poobah of the democrats, nancy pelosi, proposed extending the tax cuts for people making up to $1,000,000. Strangely enough, It's about the most intelligent thing I've heard her say and it shows something that we haven't seen in a long time, compromise. Or maybe it's the fact that her personal finances would be negatively impacted or her husbands?

I hold both Republicans and Democrats with the same contempt. They're incompetent at doing what's best for the country and they put their own agendas before the public agenda. Frankly they are irresponsible when it comes to money matters and I doubt most of them could pass a simple economics 101 class. You can't keep spending more than you have. If you keep taking money in taxes, you dry up capital and that's what fuels job creation. No Money = No Jobs and the biggest employer in this country is the Federal Government. Your tax dollars going to paper pushers and bureaucrats and the pork keeps going on and on. I'm not advocating giving the rich people a break, far from it but you can't keep expecting to have a fair tax system when half of the people in this country don't pay federal income taxes. So, if you earn money and pay federal income tax, you may not be a 99% you're a 50%... Oh yeah, the 1% get most of the breaks too so as they say them that has the gold, makes the rules.

But this is Slashdot again, so I'm still amazed at why this has become a political discussion on which party will lead us of the cliff quicker. The way I see it, we're getting pushed along just fine so vote whoever you want into office, it won't make much difference. I do know however that I wouldn't trust anybody in congress to hold my wallet or my checkbook for that matter.

Re:Citation needed

[Short Circuit]

Thank you. You had all the links and citations I never bothered to save links for. Bookmarking your comment.

Re:Citation needed

[Z34107]

Really? Unemployment seems to have an inflection point every election. Source: BLS.

Re:Citation needed

[Alomex]

All the regulations in the world didn't stop the crooks, and never will.

Actually, they did. Canada did not roll back regulations like USA and the European Union and guess what? Canadian banks are doing just fine. Seriously, look it up.

That is why idiots like you don't and will never understand.

Oops, who is the idiot now?

Nobody could have regulations on something that never existed prior (derivative loan securities).

How come not? Certainly Warren Buffet identified the risk and called for regulations. He called "weapons of mass destruction".

And what will be your excuse for another one or two unfunded wars and Obama? Seriously, I'm asking.

Those wars exist only in your head.

The whole idea the (D) good (R) bad is just a load of crap.

Again that is just a caricature of what is being said.

then Clinton is responsible for 9/11 and the economic crisis that Bush inherited.

Nope. Clinton bombed Al-Qaida several times. In contrast, Bush received a warning by his own security council in August. He ignored it.

To be clear, both democrats and republicans have their faults, but for the last twelve years republican policies have been much worse than anything the democrats have devised since Carter lost the White House.

Re:Citation needed

[AlienIntelligence]

Or is there some hope among the US people that a potential non-Obama future president would be able to solve the economical problems of the US in one swift stroke using his magical superabilities?

Yep

-AI

*edited to avoid too much brevity, (I do not hold that belief)

Re:Citation needed

[Gorobei]

Maybe you'd like to mark your "inflection points" on that chart. We'll give you bonus points if you can ascribe meaning to them without laughing.

My seven year old does better charting hot temperatures to why she really needs an ice cream.

Re:Citation needed

[Beeftopia]

The problem is not bank failure. The FDIC regularly seizes banks on Bank Failure Friday. Banks fail all the time:

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

The problem is the complete lack of any serious reform. Too Big To Fail, a major issue, is even worse today than it was in 2008. The failed banks are merged with larger banks with the government absorbing significant losses.

Basically, the current system uses tax money to fund Wall Street profits. Bad loans which the government insures or buys means tax money goes to make the loan good, making the lender whole, and leaves the taxpayer on the hook. With government debt at 100% GDP, the government should not be funneling money to Wall Street for pure profit, and getting nothing in return.

Tax money should be used for public goods, not Wall Street profits. That system has not changed in any significant way. The Too Big To Fail banks are completely and totally backstopped by the government. And that means these entities have a direct line to the public treasury.

Creative destruction is desperately necessary at the top. The people who orchestrated this debacle are still in power, both in finance and politics. They rose to the top because of their ability to create and prosper in this terribly flawed system. To think they'll voluntarily change it when it rewards them so handsomely is completely unrealistic.

Re:Citation needed

[codepunk]

You are kind of correct, two of our very large .com customers put a halt to all US FTE hires the day after the Supreme Court Ruling. Offshore and or Contractors are still ok.

Re:Citation needed

[Richard Dick Head]

I can understand your frustration with the concept, but these are what real PHB's out there in the field feel...its not the same as what you or I would feel, so you can't apply the same rules or the same logic, nor do they really care much about the world economy, since the general perception is that where the US goes, the world goes, and that pretty much holds. US Exports to Spain were 10 billion last year, the bulk of which were inelastics like food and medicine. Greece 1 billion, Italy 16 billion. Its a small amount in the big picture. Whether or not the reasons are out to lunch or not, they are quite real to business people out there.

Businesses have never talked about "holding back until the elections" and even today the only ones saying this are republican talking heads.

Never say never: There is at least one disgruntled small businessment that has spoken out. Of course few businesses are going to publicize their fears of the future, that would be bad for investors. Personally I've met with enough C-level people to claim a decent statistical sample. They and many they've talked to expresses the same exact concerns, and about 50% of that sample have admitted to taking at least some small action on those concerns. The only notable exception are left on the political spectrum, although the feeling there tends to be less positive and more neutral and dismissive. Sounds like its not a big deal on the surface, but it is similar to how a 1 degree change in the Earth's average temperature works. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but the impact is huge.

Since the attitude is so prevalent, I understand why it looks like some kind of Republican talking point, and that may be part of it. Some Tea Partiers are encouraging the practice of hampering the economy by avoiding hiring until November. Yet, I've never heard of anyone who matters taking the Tea Party in general seriously other than a few specific candidates who are simply trying to court that particular vote... so I doubt that is the cause.

But, it doesn't matter now, because now the idea has taken hold, and there is nobody credible (aka without a political agenda) saying "hey! everything is A-OK! start spending!"

Re:Citation needed

[codepunk]

So you are telling us that it makes no difference to hiring decisions? No you are a idiot, it is "the decision". Most business expense, usually higher than 60% of income, is in the form of payroll and benefits to say it is not a concern is absurd.

Re:Citation needed

[NicBenjamin]

You know what I hate about third-parties?

They have absolutely no idea how actual power works. They have all these theories, which they think about a lot, but they have no practical experience.

Here's why people who actually run things are surprised when they read the bills they just voted on: those bills are complicated as hell, and they change up to the last minute. You probably know Johnson from Kansas really wants to change some regulation, but a) unless you are actually the Speaker you have no way of knowing whether Johnson got enough votes together to force the change through at the last minute and b) unless you are very knowledgeable about the regulation in question you have no idea whether it's a good idea or not.

It is physically impossible to become very knowledgeable about every issue that will ever come up for a vote. Defense, the EPA, HUD, etc. are all very different. And you have to learn all this shit every year or you won't be able to vote on the departmental budgets, much less Joe Wilson's quixotic Crusade to strengthen State Defense Forces.

Moreover you're ignoring half a legislators job: constituent service. If somebody has an idea they want to turn into a law, or thinks they deserve SSI: Disability but got denied, etc. it's his Congressman's job to check that shit out. In a lot of ways this part of a Congressman's job is more important then the actual votes he makes, because his vote is only one of 435. OTOH the guy depending on him to get the Social Security Administration to reconsider doesn't have a lot of other options.

Re:Citation needed

[Taevin]

I'm not advocating giving the rich people a break, far from it but you can't keep expecting to have a fair tax system when half of the people in this country don't pay federal income taxes.

Wow really? Did you even read the article you linked to? Hell, even the title? Here let me help: "The 50% Of Americans Who Don't Pay Income Tax Will NEVER Be A Good Revenue Source"

It's hard to not just copy and paste the whole thing but here are a couple points:

"It’s wrong to rail on the 46 percent of people who don't pay income tax," said Paul Caron, a tax professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law. "A fairer analysis takes into account all taxes paid—and by this measure, everyone has tax skin in the game," he said.

"It’s going to hurt the economy more if you raise taxes on the poor than the rich, because the poor spend every penny they’ve got," Williams said. "If you take a dollar away from them in tax credits, that’s a dollar they don’t spend."

Point is, there's absolutely nothing fair about wealth distribution or pay in this country so why should there be a "fair" tax system? Not only is it not going to help the economy or deficit in any way, it's just cruel.

Re:Citation needed

[jsepeta]

Iceland is doing quite well precisely because they ALLOWED THE BANKS TO FAIL. The banks were more responsible for the economic collapse than consumers, yet we've been hung out to dry by both the GOP and the Dumbocrats.

Re:Citation needed

[Alomex]

But, it doesn't matter now, because now the idea has taken hold,

You might be right about this. However the best proof that is a republican meme is that you never heard businesses say anything like this before the Obama re-election campaign.

Contrast this to their constant griping about unions or environmental regulations. I might (or might not) disagree with them on that, but at least they have a consistent record on it, whereas the current "we are not investing because we are uncertain, hence vote for our guy (Romney)" is a new thing.

More importantly, it means corporations are trying to hold us hostage as to whom to vote for. You should refuse to engage on that on the very principle of preserving your free vote, rather than repeating the meme around. Really, think about it, if you value democracy and freedom.

Re:Citation needed

[Alomex]

After three years, you think he could have done SOMETHING to improve things,

He has, the Obama administration has created more jobs in the last two years than Bush did in his entire eight years in government. Seriously, look it up.

Who is refusing to acknowledge reality, were you saying?

Re:Citation needed

[Duhavid]

Yes, big business uses government regulation to create and maintain cartels and monopolies.

In the absence of big government, big business will use whatever comes to hand to get what it wants.

And no, the saying is that we need government powerful enough ( not necessarily big ) enough to save us from big business.

Re:Citation needed

[Alomex]

It was WWII that got the country out of the great depression.

Let's concede this point for the sake of the argument. Isn't WWII the biggest increase in spending that the government can make? Let's have a look at the figures. From 1939 to 1942 as the threat of war loomed, government expenditures went up by a factor of four and by 1945 they were ten times what they were in 1939 and thirty times what they were in 1929. Notice that the country survived just fine this massive increase in expenditure.

In contrast Obama's last budget is only 20% larger than Bush's last budget. No wonder Paul Krugman claims, jokingly, that the only way out of this depression is to declare war on someone since there is no other way to create consensus around the massive increase of expenditures that is needed.

Hey how about those Australians, with their Mel Gibsons and Nicole Kidmans and Russell Crowes, and their nice beaches. What's up with them? why do they hate freedom so much? let's go get 'em!

Re:Citation needed

[Tamerlin]

"I'm hardly an expert on US matters, but I've always thought that this "disastrous approach" actually predates the Obama presidency, which is forced to cope with its results." You're correct. Obama didn't cause the current problems, but he hasn't done much to help, either. Romney getting elected would almost certainly push the country into a deep depression.

Re:Citation needed

[shutdown -p now]

Canada had (and retains) different banking regulations, though. In particular, they have fairly strict limits on how banks can hand out mortgages - minimum downpayment, for example, and other ways of ensuring that the person taking the loan will actually be able repay it.

Re:Citation needed

[shutdown -p now]

Can you point out some examples in history were free economies did worse than comparable regulated economies at the same time?

I don't see how it can be done, given that free and regulated economies, for the most part, didn't share the same timeframe (pretty much everywhere they started more free and trended towards more regulated). Unless you go for meaningless extremes, such as comparing, say, China under Mao with US...

Re:Citation needed

[phantomfive]

Indeed, I would not dare say that one single thing 'caused' the housing crisis, there are certainly many factors involved, and many potential ways to solve the problem (others have suggested that Canadian bankers are more conservative, and didn't go after the sub-prime loans the way American banks did. This certainly is a factor to consider).

I was merely pointing out that if you think reinstating Glass-Steagal will fix all the problems, and that if you think the repeal caused all the problems, then you are probably mistaken.

Re:Citation needed

[Richard Dick Head]

Last word!

In seriousness, there are many people that feel that "this was coming", or "it was going to happen eventually", and discounts the costs involved, since it has been done in many other developed nations with varying levels of success, generally positive.

But, our particular situation is unique. The US carries much more than our fair share of medical research and investment, and it comes out in our costs. Medicine is many, many times more expensive here than anywhere else, and our system encourages it...there is so much profit to be made, that investors will nod to controversial or even small quality-of-life items, and very talented individuals will opt for medicine as a career choice. And what comes to the top is the very best, because everything must be thoroughly vetted by the FDA, and the medical community in general. The that is why people are screaming bloody murder, because something will have to collapse...either the best-of-the-best research institutions and physicians...or the businessman. So you have our current situation...physicians feeling the pain and looking at bailing out, and 72% of businesses have been forced to limit hiring.

It is what it is.

This article gives you an idea of where we are at. Reading the numbers that Europe contributes can give you an idea where we are going.

Your progressive radio host of choice may be dismissing this, but there is a little more to the business side of the story than mere Republican posturing.

political uncertainty?

[khallow]

However, hiring overall will remain soft in coming months, particularly with the presidential election in the United States and economic turmoil in the European Union.

It'll be interesting to see if this really is perceived as the problem. At least with the US, we'll see or not see big shifts in the markets after election day which is a means to test that particular part of the claim.

Re:political uncertainty?

[Kergan]

However, hiring overall will remain soft in coming months, particularly with the presidential election in the United States and economic turmoil in the European Union.

It'll be interesting to see if this really is perceived as the problem. At least with the US, we'll see or not see big shifts in the markets after election day which is a means to test that particular part of the claim.

Alternatively, shit hits the fan in financial institutions, and it'll be 2008 all over again before the elections.

Re:political uncertainty?

[Kergan]

Whoever wins the next presidential elections in the US, it will make no difference.

Sure, but keep in mind that with large businesses and financial institutions, which puppet gets elected matters less than the uncertainty of not knowing which puppet gets elected. Mr Market hates uncertainty.

Re:political uncertainty?

[Yvan256]

Damn you, time paradoxes!

Entitlement problems

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the biggest problems that I see with people who are still without jobs is that they wouldn't accept anything less than what they were making before. I know plenty of contractors from AT&T who were making $45/hr in 2006 with only Network+ and Security+ certification and a little bit of vim experience. Since the market reset itself, a couple of those guys simply refuse to take anything less than their pre-recession salaries, but they will complain to high heaven about not being able to find a job.

On the other side of the spectrum, I know plenty of kids straight out of college who expect to make $45k/year with their fresh MIS degree, and won't accept anything less. One example--it's been two years since a guy at my gym graduated college--he's still working at the same gym as a personal trainer--and won't even get his foot in the door by taking a job in the industry because they won't pay him (as an entry-level worker) what he "expects" to get paid.

Finally, and this is not a knock on our military IT people, but a lot of guys who are getting out expect to make $100k+ just because they had a high-tech job and were making $50k as an E5 (that includes a housing allowance). IMO--and I did eight years in the USMC--most of the military has a very comfortable life in terms of benefits and pay compared to the civilian world. Simply put, a lot of military IT jobs have no direct equivalent in the civilian sector unless you are willing to stay on base as a contractor, or move to DC.

My advice to these three groups: take whatever job can get. At least you will be working, and will remain marketable. The industry--hell, the entire marketplace in general--is still re-adjusting after the crash. There will likely be another crash + recession very soon. Don't expect to be flying high like we were in the Web 2.0 crash.

Re:Entitlement problems

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a flipside to this. IT workers *have* been traditionally underpaid since around 1995 and the first wave of large-scale internet boom. Our salaries gained a bit and almost approached "worth it" around 1999-2000, but then the big dotcom bubble hit in 2001 (the people I'm talking about worked for real businesses, not stupididea.com, but were all still affected). From then on as the markets have gone through periodic mini-recession cycles and layoff seasons, the net result has been no raises. Most people I know in the IT industry are making today roughly what they made in Y2K. On average, they missed years of their expected ~5% raises per year for performance/tenure/whatever, and never really got adjusted for inflation. Sometimes it's because the layoff cycle had them switching jobs too often with every company's policy being to wait on raises for a full calendar year. More often it's just that businesses keep telling even their long term It employees things like "The economy sucked and our business is down a bit, so no raises this year".

It is complete horse-shit, and it won't turn around until people who deserve better start demanding it. If you were a productive IT employee making, for example $80K in salaried spot at a mid-large company in 2000, and you've stuck with your career and performed well and not made too many unnecessary changes of employment, and grown in responsibilities as appropriate, you *should* be making ~$130K+ today. But you're probably making $90K. They screwed you, the whole industry...

Re:Entitlement problems

[DaMattster]

I'm not so sure. Some companies are loathe to hire people when they know it will be a cut in pay for the job candidate they are considering. I've had this happen to me. The potential employer assumed that I would be uninterested and not motivated when all they had to do is ask. Then, some employers have opined that new employees that have taken a pay cut from a previous job will only stay a short while. This is also flawed thinking because most people change jobs every 3-4 years nowadays anyway. In fact, I've found diminishing returns to stay with a company longer than four years because they hire new people in at higher salaries than they are willing to pay to promote within. For just one second, get off of your moral high horse and consider what it must be like to have worked hard to obtain a good salary only to get laid off. It's understandable that someone earning 45.00 per hour for a skilled position is not immediately willing to go to 20.00 per hour. I'm sure if you were in that position, you might have an ounce of understanding but, alas, I make an assumption.

Re:Entitlement problems

[Short Circuit]

Mod parent up. I've seen this pattern so many times, it's ridiculous. I've walked friends through the process of finding places to work, but they feel it's undignified to be paid less than the guy who's been there for a while.

Re:Entitlement problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people I know in the IT industry are making today roughly what they made in Y2K

Uh, welcome to the real world.

It is complete horse-shit

The idea that there's supposed to be a magical fountain of never-ending salary increases? Yeah, that is complete horse shit.

Re:Entitlement problems

[staticneuron]

I am one of those techs that does not settle and it simply for one reason. Cost of living. If I am forced to suffer a tech job that will pay me 20k a a year or less for my abilities and experience, why bother put up with the stress. I could simply go work commission based retail or go back into the catering business. I have been in the workforce for so long and worked in so many different fields that I find that it is just plain silly to "accept" what they are offering. IMO all techs that see jobs that underpay for experience and knowledge should just avoid applying for that position because that is a trend that needs to be curbed.

Entitlement is one thing, but estimating your own worth is another. No one can tell you what you are worth (even if it is an inflated estimation) these companies are the ones that will have to make a sacrifice or simply not be able to fill a need that will only grow worse.

Re:Entitlement problems

[i286NiNJA]

There are three Computer Science jobs for every computer science graduate. We're not getting paid enough. I also note that the military worked hard to give you low expectations, lose that attitude quick, it was just them trying to scare you into staying in. Also the pay in the military is sort of ok but not really great. A civilian who works as hard and plays the game as well as anyone in the military will go far just as long as they know where they should be expending their effort.

Re:Entitlement problems

[twisted_pare]

I don't mean to offend, but I think we need to make some differentiation between the levels of "IT." To the lay person IT might mean someone that works with computers. However, as the TFA points out, there are many levels of IT from the person that installs desktops and support desk, to the application developers, to the datacenter operations technicians, to the CIO. The compensation varies wildly for these roles as does the level of education and demand. Personally, I'm an app dev at for a financial institution that has specialized in some Java technologies over the last several years. Our devs make well more than TFA figures and where we are located (RTP in Raleigh,NC) IT unemployment is 3%. It is very difficult to even find skilled devs before someone else hires them. What's more, our devs are flocking to SF in droves too for even higher pay. So yes, specialize and learn more. Become a Java/Compiler/OO/UML guru. Then you'll certainly be able to earn more. And, if you want better pay, go somewhere where you'll be in demand like SF, DC, RPT, etc.

Re:Entitlement problems

[martin_b1sh0p]

If only I had mod points I'd mod you up. I work for a medical device company in Colorado and we have a tough time finding software devs. Why? Because we're looking for devs with RTOS and C++. Not a super common combination. RTOS and C is a lot more common. So yes, specializing can and does have its benefits. And I agree, there is a big difference (skills, salary, etc) between the various "IT" jobs.

Re:Entitlement problems

[Guppy06]

On the other side of the spectrum, I know plenty of kids straight out of college who expect to make $45k/year with their fresh MIS degree, and won't accept anything less.

Nor should they. According to the Office of Personnel Management (the agency in charge of hiring for the US government), "shiny new MS = grade 9" ($41k-$53k, before locality adjustment), regardless of field. It's only natural to expect at least as much in the private sector.

Hirring for IT has always been strong.

[NetNinja]

This is dependant for certain areas in the U.S.
You need to go to where the IT jobs are at, if you think your dirt water town is going to have an IT hirring binge you are misinformed and dilussional.

However I have seen IT salaries stay within year 1998 ranges and they never recovered after the Dot bomb crash. They have never kept pace.

Also a lot of small companies (less than 100 people) hire one IT person to be Head Chef, Bottle washer and waiter and the pay is 25% less of an expert in thier particular discipline.

The only way you are ever going to go over the 100k mark and above you need to specialize in an area that is hot and always remain hot.

1.CTO
2. Management
3. CCIE
4. CISSP
5. Oracle DBA
6. Government contract

I am sure there are others but as I have been in the job market for the past year companies are hiring at bargin prices.
If this current president is voted out we will see empolyeers start to hire and wages will go up and those employers who thought they got such a great deal hirring IT man because of a "Weak Economy" will find themselves scrambling to keep thier bargin basement IT man.

But then I have seen IT people put up with a lot of B.S. for the scrap they are managing. I have been in 3 IT compaines in the past year and to see how they manage thier infrastructure is amazing.

Low priorites
No security or lack of it
Outdated equipment including the software that should have been updated as part of the original maintenance plan.

Re:Hirring for IT has always been strong.

[DaMattster]

Some of the parent's advice might be good. Particularly the part about specializing. While it can be reasonably concluded that being a jack of all trades when it comes to IT might actually be advantageous, actually the opposite is true. Being a jack of all trades means you can be utterly abused for 30% less money per year. Specialize! A quick glimpse at the IT jobs on craigslist want SAN, NAS, DBA, and Windows Server Administration and Engineering and then the salary they are willing to pay is 45 - 50K. To keep all this running, you would be driven mad but then you are a dime a dozen. If you are truly specialized in one or two aspects of IT you are better off.

Re:Hirring for IT has always been strong.

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't go into management, and I didn't corner myself into a braindead corporate bullshit thing like CCIE, CISSP, being an Oracle DBA, etc. I've remained a *nix hacker doing cool things with a variety of good tools. Some days I'm writing infrastructure code in C and Perl, or helping developers scale application server code. Or maintaining Linux systems with automated deployment tools, or working on network infrastructure issues.

And I'm making well over the $100K mark. Salaried, full time, F1000 company, liberal-but-optional work-from-home policy. You don't have to sell out.

Re:Hirring for IT has always been strong.

[Shados]

I'm confused. On one side you tell people to go where the jobs are and on the other side you say that the only way to get over 100k is to go in specific roles. You do realize that in the big zones (California, Massachusetts and new york come to mind) , if you have over 5 or 6 year experience, don't completely suck and make under 100k you are getting screwed even if you're a code monkey, right?

Re:Hirring for IT has always been strong.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way you are ever going to go over the 100k mark and above you need to specialize in an area that is hot and always remain hot.

This just isn't true. Here, for example, in the Bay Area, salaries for mid-level-and-above developers of all types are higher than $95K/year. People with 5+ years of experience have no trouble finding jobs $100K/yr. And for those of you thinking that it's merely a cost-of-living adjustment, I can tell you it's not. I lived in Ohio for 7 years and the cost-of-living differential is somewhere between 10% and 15% but the salary differential is between 30% and 80% (or more).

The issue is, as one poster above put it, that Silicon Valley and the Bay Area are where the jobs are and if you're in IT and want good pay, this (and some parts of NY) are the place to be.

Re:Hirring for IT has always been strong.

[Anonymous Coward]

you really need to be both. Being too specialized puts you at risk at suddenly becoming irrelevant. Being too general means you can't compete effectively with specialists for salary. Being a generalist with a specialty gives you options + some salary punching power

well IT does not need college / the loans that

[Joe_Dragon]

well IT does not need college / the loans that come with it.

It need a trades / apprenticeship system that no only is quicker then a 2/4 year college it also give people real job skills.

I have seen JR / level 1 / entry-level jobs that w

[Joe_Dragon]

I have seen JR / level 1 / entry-level jobs that want a lot of experience so are there even real entry-level jobs out there.

Re:im making more than i did in 2008

[Bigbutt]

Congratulations on your first job.

[John]

Presidential factors

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Here's a few things I hear about when I talk to business owners. 1) bush tax cut - hopefully it stands 2) buffet tax increase - hopefully it just stays a gimmick 3) estate taxes - should I divest now and drop the cash in a trust or can I wait a few years 4) h1b - how many more Indians can we get

Re:Presidential factors

[Anarchduke]

Really. You say the business owners you talk to are worried about estate taxes. Well, since the Obama's current proposal has a bult in $3.5 million dollar exemption and would be taxed at 45%, I find it very hard to sympathize with your business owners.
I am assuming you are relaying this story in an attempt to paint Obama in a bad light? If he's really after estate taxes, all Obama has to do is nothing. Because in 2013 the tax rate will automatically change to a 1 million dollar exemption with a tax rate of 55%.
Yes, I know. Its shocking. Apparently Obama wants a lower estate tax rate than Congress already has in place. I think your business owners might want to call their congressmen and ask them why they aren't pushing Obama's estate tax proposal through Congress.

Re:Presidential factors

[Kohath]

What's the point of this post? You aren't fooling anyone. It's so shallow, you don't seem to even be trying. So what's the point?

Uncertainty is a conservative talking point

[gestalt_n_pepper]

It's the gut-level certainty of most small business owners that things will get worse that's keeping them from hiring.

Re:im making more than i did in 2008

[pijokela]

You now are not you five years ago. I think they mean that someone with X years of experience got $Y in 2008 and now they can expect about the same.

The powers that be

[rsilvergun]

would prefer Romney get elected. This isn't wacko conspiracy theory either. You need only look at the fact that Romney is the first challenger in history to out-raise and out-spend an incumbent president. That money isn't coming from the rank and file after all (they don't have it).

It's not hard to see why the ruling class prefers Romney. He's one of them (Desert Bagels anyone?) and he's made it very clear he will cut taxes on high income earners and slash government spending to make up the difference (going so far as to cut funding for police & fire departments).

Basically, we're got a ruling class that is actively crashing our economy....

Re:The powers that be

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Actually, I doubt this. I think that Romney is being set up by the RNC to fail. Look, the RNC leadership knows what's coming. The economy isn't going to get magically "better" or start to grow in any *significant* way, ever. By the time we get to either debt forgiveness, or debt payback, the energy resource problem starts rearing it's ugly little head (i.e. ever declining energy return - not quantity), energy prices rise globally, and down the world's economies go again.

Who the hell wants to be the party in power as all *that* happens? Better to let the lobbyist checks keep rolling into campaign coffers and the numbered anonymous accounts offshore and let the Democrats take the hits.

Actually.

[publiclurker]

he was just pointing out that the parent post is nothing but regurgitated corporate whoring from the republican platform. What you are doing is acting like a young child trying to deflect responsibility by claiming that the other kids did the same thing.

Re:Actually.

[Yakasha]

he was just pointing out that the parent post is nothing but regurgitated corporate whoring from the republican platform. What you are doing is acting like a young child trying to deflect responsibility by claiming that the other kids did the same thing.

Thanks for reminding me we're on /. and not CEO Weekly by getting modded insightful with that junk. There is no deflecting of responsibility. The article claimed hiring would slow due to the Presidential election coming up, the poster explained why. That is absolutely true and has nothing to do with Republican vs. Democrat ideology. It is not a "republican meme". It is simply a matter of businesses being able to predict what the market & rules will allow them to do.

Businesses rely on predictability. Stock prices rely on predictability. If a company makes less money in a quarter than they predict, their stock slides down. If a company makes more money in a quarter than they predict, their stock also slides down. The only way to raise your stock price is to accurately predict your company will grow and by how much.

Since President changes also bring about major policy shifts that affect businesses significantly, businesses wait until after the election to make major hiring decisions. We're not talking about filling existing holes in known needed positions, the front desk needs a person there to answer the phones regardless of H1B approval rates or federal enforcement of immigration laws, we're talking about new projects or departments, new endeavors that can be completed destroyed by a single policy shift: Do you open your new call center in Nebraska or India; H1Bs, contractors, or full-time; will oil exploration be profitable under Obama or Romney?

Neither you, nor the person you're defending seem to have any clue about how this works or you wouldn't be claiming it is a "republican meme".

You don't understand.

[publiclurker]

scapegoating (especially if you have a minority as a target) is the only thing people like the parent poster have. well, there is accepting responsibility, but you know how bad children are at doing that.

which fox site did you cut and paste this BS from

[publiclurker]

it has to be someone that pathetic, since no-one else would debase themselves to the point of claiming that lowering taxes is not a tax cut. Face it boy, the bill for your self-serving sense of entitlement came due earlier than you thought. now you cry like a spoiled four-year old at the thought of having to clean up your own mess. how about you just go to your room and the grownups will call you when we have decided your punishment.

analogy does not mean blatent lie.

[publiclurker]

so how can your BS be better?

Expectations

[billybob_jcv]

I had an employee recently come to me and say that he wanted his title changed to "VMware Administrator" and that he deserved a 35% increase in pay. We are a small shop and his job is about 60% PC technician, 20% network admin and 20% server admin. We have 2 ESX servers and about 10 VMs. VMware administration is about 10% of his job. He looked at me like I was crazy when I told him that if he wanted to be a VMware specialist, he probably needed to find a job at a larger company that could afford to let him be a specialist, and that at *this* company, the role I needed was the role he holds, and that he is fairly compensated for this role. I then showed him the competitive salary information for our area for his role and that he is above the midpoint for similar jobs.

He did not understand the sad truth of corporate salaries today: It no longer matters how long you have been with the company, or how long it has been since you last had a raise - the only thing that matters is what is on your job description and what other companies are willing to pay for that role in your area. If you want a raise, then you have to get your job description changed to represent a larger scope of responsibility and a role that is worth more money. My employee was on the right track - he wanted to change his job title - but he failed to understand that it isn't the title - it is the job description and the scope of the role that matters.

Corporate life sucks. We are all replaceable, and we are only worth whatever it would take to replace us with some poor, unemployed worker that would take anything as long as it provides benefits and pay better than COBRA and unemployment.

Re:Expectations

[Mr.CRC]

Bingo! And if he is good enough to be a full-time specialist VMware Admin paying 35% more, then he should be able to find such a job and come back to give you a resignation letter. And if not,..., well I know that in my position I am fairly compensated so I am just grateful for my job and try to do as best I can to keep improving myself and contributing to my company's viability.

Re:Expectations

[Rinikusu]

Weird. Out here in SoCal, I was bluntly told by a recruiter that they look strictly at "title" and "pay history" to make those sorts of decisions, but only if you get through the skills filter first. "Yeah, so what you spent the last 5 years writing perl, python, and java applications, your job title doesn't reflect that and neither does your salary. So, we're going to offer you a jr. programming position at bottom market rates because that's a raise from your current salary, and you're going to like it, despite 8 years of solid programming experience." For those of you telling people to just take a job, I just took a job and it came back to bite me in the ass when it came time to find another job.

Re:Expectations

[strikethree]

He did not understand the sad truth of corporate salaries today: It no longer matters how long you have been with the company, or how long it has been since you last had a raise - the only thing that matters is what is on your job description and what other companies are willing to pay for that role in your area.

Weird. I do not think I would run a business like that... but that may be why I am not a wealthy business owner. Why would a person's salary at YOUR company depend on what other companies are paying? What if they were overpaying? I guess you would be forced to overpay too or else do without help.

I guess what I am saying is that a business should offer what it is worth to them. The only time they should be looking at what other companies pay is when they can not figure out why they are not getting the help they need. If that means my network admin is making $100k MORE than what everyone else is, then fine. I am getting my money's worth out of the person and I have someone I can trust when things are going badly.

Re:It will get worse

[Skapare]

While some business do care (they want Romney so he will either shift tax burdens back to the poor, or screw the poor by making the country focus on onepercenters like himself), many others really do not care which party and policy comes into power. They just want to KNOW which so they know how to structure their moving forward positions.

Re:So move to Somalia

[Mr.CRC]

Once again, the predictable pea-brained "so move to Somalia" false dichotomy.

The alternative to a completely regulated economy is not only Somalia. The fact is, that the vast majority of business people would do honest business and not try to screw anyone, even in the complete absence of government. Government is justifiable only to prosecute crime. That has nothing to do with "regulation", which is administering essentially political privileges which favor one industry over another, or big players over small. You know, the kind of setup that I hear people complaining about all the time here on Slashdot.

Yet why is it that people keep thinking that "if we just get OUR people in charge" then the regulation will somehow work and produce only "socially just" outcomes?

Answer that and you know the real reason why things are the way they are...

Re:So move to Somalia

[gestalt_n_pepper]

The fact is, that the vast majority of business people would do honest business and not try to screw anyone, even in the complete absence of government.
Kid, have you ever actually *worked* anywhere? Most of the business owners I've known or worked for would have sold mud as peanut butter and had their employees pay *them* if they had any chance of getting away with it.

Sociopathic tendencies increase as you ascend in management. If you don't know it yet, you'll find out.

That's not good

[WeeBit]

Considering the stock market crash of 2008.

Re:So move to Somalia

[geekoid]

"The fact is, that the vast majority of business people would do honest business and not try to screw anyone, even in the complete absence of government"
That's contrary to the entire history of business since the industrial age.

Private Hiring Back to 2008 Levels

[twoallbeefpatties]

It's not just IT. This link is a graph of all reported employees in America over the past four years: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-chart-public-sector-vs-private-sector-employment-2012-6 In summary, the number of workers in the private sector is back up to about where it was in 2008 (which is still too small for a growing economy). It's the lagging public sector that's keeping overall employment rates below where they were before the recession.