Slashdot Mirror


Tech Layoffs More Than Double In Bay Area (mercurynews.com)

An anonymous reader shares an article on Mercury News: In yet another sign of a slowdown in the booming Bay Area economy, tech layoffs more than doubled in the first four months of this year compared to the same period last year (could be paywalled, here's an alternate source). Yahoo's 279 workers let go this year contributed to the 3,135 tech jobs lost in the four-county region of Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda and San Francisco counties from January through April, as did the 50 workers axed at Toshiba America in Livermore and the 71 at Autodesk in San Francisco. In the first four months of last year, just 1,515 Bay Area tech workers were laid off, according to mandatory filings under California's WARN Act. For that period in 2014, the region's tech layoffs numbered 1,330. The jump comes amid a litany of other signs that the tech economy may be taking a breather: disappointing earning reports from stalwarts like Apple, an IPO market that has come to a near standstill, a volatile stock exchange and uncertainty in China.

203 comments

  1. Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Number H1B requests to go up as well.

    1. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would make sense. Laying off expensive tech workers is one way to try to get costs down; replacing them with less expensive H1B workers is another. The end goal is the same in both cases - lower labor costs.

    2. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      A lot of these are companies that shouldn't have nearly as many employees anyway. If the bean-counters have a even half-competent bean-counter-oriented brain (i.e. even looking at things from their .. interesting .. way of seeing things) they're not going to hire replacements, from anywhere.

      Most of these companies, when you look at their products, you know it takes about a dozen developers and testers. Then maybe throw in a hundred salespeople and a couple dozen misc admin people. You still can't get anywhere near the tens-of-thousands figure for what a company like Yahoo employees. WTF could those people be doing, other than playing Clash of Clans at their desks all day?

      Dropbox! Holy shit! I'm not putting the product down, but how the fuck could they possibly employ even ten people full time, unless it's to maintain the infrastructure in the data center. The software was done many years ago and shouldn't need much maintenance. What IS there for them to DO?!? Somehow they're interstate with hundreds. That doesn't any sense, and well over 90% should be laid off and it wouldn't make any difference to the product at all.

    3. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Number H1B requests to go up as well.

      I like how everyone here is a Libertarian until their jobs are at stake. Makes me laugh every time.

      (What should we name these types of hypocrites? I propose Glib-ertarians.)

    4. Re: Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might be an interesting post if it contained actual facts.

    5. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dropbox! Holy shit! I'm not putting the product down, but how the fuck could they possibly employ even ten people full time, unless it's to maintain the infrastructure in the data center. The software was done many years ago and shouldn't need much maintenance. What IS there for them to DO?!? Somehow they're interstate with hundreds. That doesn't any sense, and well over 90% should be laid off and it wouldn't make any difference to the product at all.

      Dropbox doesn't have much infrastructure of their own. They use Amazon corporate cloud services.

    6. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Support. Testing. Maintenance on client code as OSes change. Optimization of backend as userbase grows.

    7. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they have migrated 80+% of their infrastructure to their own private datacenters because Amazon is waaay too expensive to use at that scale.

    8. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Isn't Globalism Great?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans both support H1B visas (immigration in general), for different reasons. Liberal Democrats because those coming tend to vote Democratic, and Conservative Republicans because they provide cheap labor for all their corporate buddies.

      In neither case, are the two major parties actually concerned about Americans first. And that is where the problem arises. And while I am all for Free Enterprise, and Capitalism, this isn't either.

      But when trampling an American Flag is considered "free speech" but doing the same to a Mexican Flag is "hate", "bigotry" and "racism", you have a problem with the narrative. America is screwed.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Maltheus · · Score: 4, Funny

      What IS there for them to DO?!?

      Well look, I already told you! I deal with the goddamn customers so the engineers don't have to! I have people skills! I am good at dealing with people! Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

    11. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      Yes, most grown ups support Hillary and Trump. That's what makes them smart! 8)

    12. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because All You Have To Do Is...

      Here, ladies and gentlemen, we have yet another outstanding example of the user/PHB mentality that software is so simple a child can do it and that once software is written, it lasts forever.

      Pigs now arriving on Runway 9, Unicorn ride-sharing pickup is at the Downstairs Concourse.

    13. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by rockmuelle · · Score: 3, Informative

      Huh? H1-Bs aren't citizens and can't vote. It's only when you get citizenship that you can vote. The number of new citizens nationally is only in the mid hundreds of thousands each year, so not enough to impact elections. (source: https://www.uscis.gov/archive/...)

      Liberal Democrats (at least all that I know, and I live in Austin, so that's pretty much everyone I know) tend to support immigration for humanitarian, not selfish reasons.

      -Chris

    14. Re: Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is just something that happens when there is a risk of Hillary happening.

      In a perfect world neither would exist. But we live in gritty times, and a train wreck is better than arriving at the station we head toward.

    15. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here is a secret kid. There are no grown ups. We are all faking it. We dress up in grown up cloths, drive grown up cars, and live in grown up houses. But its all an act.

    16. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Dropbox! Holy shit! I'm not putting the product down, but how the fuck could they possibly employ even ten people full time, unless it's to maintain the infrastructure in the data center. The software was done many years ago and shouldn't need much maintenance. What IS there for them to DO?!? Somehow they're interstate with hundreds. That doesn't any sense, and well over 90% should be laid off and it wouldn't make any difference to the product at all.

      Sales and support for their enterprise customers, I'd expect. Large customers tend to want a dedicated account manager and support engineer; no matter how reliable the product or service. My own employer for example has a rep from Amazon to "support" us. So far as I can tell, his main function is to pass along the occasional tidbit of NDA'd AWS roadmap to us in case it's something we'd want to be ready to use; and to pass the occasional feature request/suggestion back to Amazon. But we use enough of their services than when one of our own higher-ups said: "We'd like a dedicated account rep whom I can get on the phone any time I think there's an issue.", Amazon was happy to comply (And bill us for his salary, I'm sure.)

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    17. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      Huh? H1-Bs aren't citizens and can't vote.

      At least you'd think so anyway.

    18. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by mattventura · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the worst offender might be GitHub. They didn't even make Git, they just have a fancy frontend and host some servers. What do they possibly need 568 employees for?

    19. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Holi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, someone is going to risk their livelihood and deportation just so they can vote. There is no evidence that H1B visa employees are risking everything to vote in an election that they probably could care nothing about.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    20. Re: Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both political wings for it because, money. NFM

    21. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0, Troll

      H1-Bs aren't citizens and can't vote.

      While technically true, there is this secret thing called Anchor Babies, and pretending they don't exist is a fun game.They come here, have kids and don't ever have to go home. It is a well known secret. Because if you say "Anchor baby" you're a racist! so SHHHHH don't tell anyone about how to stay here forever. SHHH It is a secret only RACIST people know about (never mind that race has nothing to do with it, at all)

      Let me ask you this, what happens when you drop an anchor baby, and your H1B expires and you can't get a job?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    22. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Their American Citizen Babies will vote. It is a long term play.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    23. Re: Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trump happened because Hillary? I think Trump happened because the Republicans blew the dog whistle over and over until a dog showed up.

      The Democrats blew their dog whistle over and over but their dog keepers managed to keep Bernie Sanders on a leash.

    24. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by caferace · · Score: 1

      I live in Austin .... Hey, there's two of us! ;)

    25. Re: Number H1B requests to go up as well. by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you are an investor or consumer or a worker with skills above that of some third worlder.

      You realize that if some guy growing up in mud hut in Bangawhore India can outcompete you, that's not very good?

      Manufacturing isn't coming back to the US unless we let robots do all the work. The only reason China has any jobs is because they are cheaper than robots for now.

      Maybe we should ban computers and email. Think of how many people can have jobs as postal workers if we banned or at least taxed email? Every time you send an email you steal a potential mailman's job.

    26. Re: Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >And while I am all for Free Enterprise, and Capitalism, this isn't either.

      The hell it isn't. This is exactly what it always has been since the dawn of capitalism in the Fifteenth Century. Property owners get powerful enough to run the government and then use said government to devalue labor. Call it business as usual.

    27. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by GodelEscherBlecch · · Score: 1

      Nice false dichotomy there, and an excellent demonstration of why nobody can take you guys seriously. Libertarianism is always defined as what it isn't, what it is a rejection of (except 'freedoms', which doesn't objectively mean anything when you get down to specifics). It's too smart for all the lamestream thinkers out there. It's the 'one weird trick' of political philosophies. And yet, when applied to practical problems it rings naive in the extreme.

      If somebody could explain in practical terms just how the hell you plan on enacting its tenets of libertarianism in laws and government bodies I might stop ignoring the remainder of any sentence that contains it. So far all I see is a political system that relies on each individual being rational, responsible and ethical for it to not come apart at the seams. As much as I would love for that to be the case, it is a reality that only exists in thought experiments, which is pretty much the only appropriate place for libertarianism.

    28. Re: Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Maltheus · · Score: 2

      Well, they were buddies before this all began, so who's to say he didn't happen because of her? We'll have to see how the election plays out. Will he throw it in the 9th round, delivering her a victory, happy to have destroyed the GOP in the process, or will his ego drive him until the end?

    29. Re: Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Tyrannicsupremacy · · Score: 1

      That's why it's in the interests of our government to push trade deals and work visa quotas in a direction that best benefits the citizens of America that they should be serving in the first place.

      --
      http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
    30. Re: Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is disturbing is that highly-skilled waged laborers are progressively becoming less important to the economy. When jobs are simplified to the point that only minimal training is required, professionals become overpriced relics.

    31. Re: Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, neoliberal Democrats and neoliberal Republicans both support them for exactly the same reason: they drive down the labor costs of the people who own them.

    32. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by GodelEscherBlecch · · Score: 2

      Because if you say "Anchor baby" you're a racist!

      No, it is the implication that a person is wielding their child as a tool with criminal intent to defraud a society rather than, you know, being a human being and trying to make a better life for one's self and family that makes you racist. Having a (valid) logistical concern with the amount of immigrants society can bear is one thing, throwing your bigotry on top of that only demonstrates that you are not capable of dealing with the situation rationally.

      drop an anchor baby

      Congratulations, you managed to make an already disgusting term worse.

    33. Re: Number H1B requests to go up as well. by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      Artificially reducing the need to compete isn't a good strategy. First off, we are ripping off China by going into debt to buy their crap. I mean, how does it benefit China to have a pile of IOUs. I mean if they keep lending to us deadbeats its not gonna turn out well. We get our cheap iPhones and laptops and whatever and they get a pile of paper? How is that good?
      Germany has no tariffs on China, yet they have a trade surplus with China. Germans buy (per person) more stuff from China than we do yet they actually SELL stuff to China more than they buy. How is that possible? China buys all their industrial equipment to build their roads and factories from Germany. Why is it that we aren't selling anything useful to China? Why aren't we bothering to make anything the Chinese want?

      If we force manufacturing back to the US it will make us worse off in the long term. We won't have as many things as we have today. Are you going to give up your iPhone and cheap long distance calls so that your neighbor can be on corporation sponsored welfare pressing a button over and over in a factory? Better off letting companies make products the way they want and then tax them so that you can give people welfare. It will be a win win. People get to have income without having to work plus the stuff they can buy will be cheaper.

    34. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Here, let me help. You seem to be confused. When somebody is arguing for the R team, illegal immigrants and visa holders can a.) vote b.) enroll in social safety net programs. They can never quite tell us how people who aren't citizens pull this off, but all of their arguments as concerns immigration seem to rest on that being true.

    35. Re: Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Number H1B requests to go up as well.

      >I like how everyone here is a Libertarian until their jobs are at stake. Makes me laugh every time.
      (What should we name these types of hypocrites? I propose Glib-ertarians.)

      I'm assuming someone pro liberal wants less government interface. Less government means no h1b visas. So where is the hypocrisy?

    36. Re: Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To the point of us potentially having fewer things, all we have now is a shitload of debt. We could use less of that.

    37. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      I'll help you with how B happens. Technically illegal aliens cannot receive welfare. However their anchor baby is a legal citizen and they get free money plus lots of other services due to the anchor baby. Mostly the mom actually, in the US we really don't provide much for men. That's how illegal aliens get welfare. Indeed, they get more money than a fully legal US family on average as shown here: http://www.washingtonexaminer....

    38. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right, and everyone is communist until they run out of toilet paper.

    39. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... their jobs are at stake.

      It's only Libertarian if companies have more rights than employees; which itself, is not a Libertarian policy. Companies don't have to be ethical, by their own admission; can't ever suffer imprisonment or starvation, making disobeying the law is just another cost of business; contribute little goodwill to society, such as paying taxes.

    40. Re: Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Isn't Globalism Great?
      Yes, if is. Without it you'd have to wait for Americans to manufacture screwdrivers, which will happen... never.

    41. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Yes, you use emotionally charged terms like "disgusting" while not actually answering the question I posed. I know why.

      No, it is the implication that a person is wielding their child as a tool with criminal intent to defraud a society rather than, you know, being a human being and trying to make a better life for one's self and family that makes you racist.

      Which "race" am I talking about here? Exactly? If you can't tell, that is just an empty throwaway phrase designed to be dismissive without any facts to back it up. You walked right into that one.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    42. Re:Number H1B requests to go up as well. by GodelEscherBlecch · · Score: 1

      Yes, you use emotionally charged terms like "disgusting"

      'Anchor baby' is the emotionally charged term that reveals your irrational bias on this topic. 'Disgusting' is the word I use to describe irrational, emotional thoughts injected into debates to rationalize arguments for the dehumanization of groups of people. I think it fits quite nicely. 'Disappointing' is the word I use to describe people who's rhetorical skills are so poor that they need to resort to emotionally charged, irrational statements in a 'reasoned' argument.

      Which "race" am I talking about here? Exactly? If you can't tell, that is just an empty throwaway phrase designed to be dismissive without any facts to back it up. You walked right into that one.

      Nice word salad. Get back to me when you are ready to decide whether an 'anchor baby' and its parents are valid human beings with feelings, desires and a right to humane treatment. No statement about whether they deserve to be in this country, just are they deserving of our respect and compassion. At that point, one of 2 things will be proven:

      1) The term is dehumanizing (which is disgusting), and should not be used in rational discourse. You are not a racist, but you regret the use of this slur because it has no place in a topical debate if you want your views to be taken seriously.

      2) You are indeed a racist. In fact, as you say, you did not specify the race, so you are actually a meta-racist, the abstract superclass of all racists. Congratulations?

  2. H1-B's by rgbscan · · Score: 1

    Congress and Zuck will still call for more H1-B's and STEM education in schools, because there's not enough tech talent out there /rollseyes

  3. Is it a slowdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just looking at layoffs only shows half the equation. How many jobs were added during the same period?

    From TFA:
    "Today the Bay Area's total employment of 3,353,600 as of the end of March still reflects job growth, with102,600 workers added from March 2015 through March 2016."

    1. Re:Is it a slowdown? by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      What the hell is wrong with you? Stop with your facts. We need clicks!

    2. Re:Is it a slowdown? by svendsen · · Score: 1

      And you need to throw in the type of jobs created vs. lost. Having a 100k job replaced by another 100k job is ok (even if the jobs are 100% different). Having a 100k job replaced with a 30k job is NOT ok.

    3. Re: Is it a slowdown? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Sure it is, depending on pay.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re: Is it a slowdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My thoughts exactly. Given the robustness of the Bay area, an increase in job losses almost certainly suggest an overall growth in the number of jobs.

    5. Re: Is it a slowdown? by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      No facts. Just speculation. These tech workers had the wrong tech skills

  4. Companies are Starting to do it the GE Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are not layoffs. They're firings. They just get to call them layoffs because it's more than one person at a time.

    But, the GE way is to "lay off" the bottom 10% performing workers every year, regardless of whether they actually meet their goals. If you're in the bottom 10% of ratings, you're gone. You just do it and either replace them with college grads or just shift the work to the remaining higher performers.

    Companies large and small are adopting this approach to commodity resource management.

    1. Re:Companies are Starting to do it the GE Way by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I had a manager who thought of himself as the next Jack Welch, implemented a bottom 10% firing policy, and drove out the top 10% out of the company. I was the third out of a dozen senior lead testers who responded to the manager's "his way or the highway" speech by submitting my resignation. He drove the company all the way into bankruptcy. Not surprisingly, he blamed other people for that disaster.

    2. Re:Companies are Starting to do it the GE Way by mlts · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this actually helps things. Does the churn of employees every year actually beat dealing with someone who might be unlucky to not make the cut? It might not be their fault. I've seen sales managers get handed dud employees, just so the manager gets booted come the next mass firing. If someone is already underperforming, shouldn't it be caught by the normal performance review process which is part of HR's job?

      I know it is cool to pretend to be the head honcho on the Apprentice and yell, "you're fired" to people, but does this make actual business sense, with regards to morale and such? That ill will can last a long time. I have personally seen contracts lost when someone from company "A" gets fired, starts at company "B" who is company "A"'s main customer, and then changes from company "A" to company "C" just out of spite... and those contracts mean a lot more money than just a salary or two.

    3. Re:Companies are Starting to do it the GE Way by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      So which "lucky" company hired him after that?

      That *is* the usual pattern I've found. Take high level position and mismanage business into the ground. Get hired someplace else to rinse and repeat, because your connections at that level "look out for each other".

    4. Re:Companies are Starting to do it the GE Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the first companies I worked for, had management to hit the self destruct button. One of their sales people had worked hard to win a multi-million government contract (previously, they just went for the small business market). Next thing, our two architects were recruited by an American company. The government bureaucrats then told management to "not promote anyone else, and bring a fresh talent initiative from abroad". At this point, all the senior engineers started leaving if not emigrating altogether. The company was then sold off to the scavengers.

    5. Re:Companies are Starting to do it the GE Way by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      So which "lucky" company hired him after that?

      Customer support at a car rental company. Not everyone who burns down the company gets a promotion with the next job.

  5. It's election season by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gotta keep everybody on pins and needles to scramble their brains when they go out to vote.

  6. The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Informative
    In other news from TFA, big companies are still adding workers while other companies are laying off workers:

    The Bay Area's skyrocketing tech layoffs reflect a transformation in the sector, said Stephen Levy, director of the Palo Alto-based Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy.

    "We are being increasingly driven by the growth of the large companies," Levy said. "What you did not see on the list is layoffs from Apple or Google or Facebook or LinkedIn ... which are all expanding. This is the era of the large companies."

    In short, it's not all doom-and-gloom in the Valley.

    1. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is the era of the large companies

      Sounds like gloom and doom to me.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      all large companies in the bay area abuse the h1b program.

      when I go for an interview, many times I'm the only caucasion there; and everyone else is indian.

      does this fairly represent the locale? does this give fair chance to those born and raised here?

      I've been out of work since march of this year.

      I'm really tired of this shit. work a job for a bit, then get laid off and be off for months if not longer. for now until I die, it will probably be like this.

      its a wonder tech ceo's have not been targets of violence. just give it time, though. to create local 'terrorists' all you need is to push people to the edge where they think they have nothing left.

      tech ceo's: see the writing on the wall, PLEASE, before its too late.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know those Indians? They may smell worse, but they probably write better than you.

    4. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Sounds like gloom and doom to me.

      I've been working for Fortune 500 companies for the last 20+ years. Since I'm pegged as a "enterprise" tech, it's often difficult for me to find work in medium- or small-sized companies. Probably because I can easily replace five people by myself because I know how to juggle multiple tasks and priorities under pressure.

    5. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well at least you are modest...

    6. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I wonder why he can't keep a job? Sounds like a wonderful fellow. Must be because he is "caucasion".

    7. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by swb · · Score: 5, Informative

      its a wonder tech ceo's have not been targets of violence. just give it time, though. to create local 'terrorists' all you need is to push people to the edge where they think they have nothing left.

      If you look at the history of labor conflict in the US, it's often staggering how much violence there was. And not just sticks and stones conflict between police and pickets, but armed conflict waged more like a militia battle where it took Federal troops to impose order.

      And the ugly side of it was sometimes racially motivated, with groups killing Chinese or other ethnic groups wholesale, believing their lower wages were stealing jobs.

      It's hard to see that happening these days, but I'm not entirely sure why. Maybe we're better people, maybe because the economics of it aren't as dire as being an unemployed miner in Montana in 1880.

    8. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      when I go for an interview, many times I'm the only caucasion there; and everyone else is indian.

      So what? California is minority-majority state, where minorities outnumbered white people. Get used to it.

      does this fairly represent the locale? does this give fair chance to those born and raised here?

      I live in the middle of Silicon Valley. At my apartment complex, I'm the only white person who lives there. Everyone else is Asian, Indians, and Latinos (i.e., the melting pot of America).

      I've been out of work since march of this year.

      You're two months into your six month vacation. Sheesh... I was out of work for two years (2009-10), underemployed for six months (working 20 hours per month), and filed for Chapter Seven bankruptcy in 2011. I was out of work for eight months in 2013-2014. It goes with the territory.

      I'm really tired of this shit. work a job for a bit, then get laid off and be off for months if not longer. for now until I die, it will probably be like this.

      Done that for 12+ years as an IT support contractor.

    9. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It goes: Layoffs, price reductions, new products, new jobs. The price reductions come from paying fewer peoples's wages per product sold.

    10. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should do stand-up! That's funny!

    11. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I got laid off because I was too productive at one job. My manager had to decide between laying off five people or me. He found it easier to tell one person than five people that they were being laid off. Didn't do him any good. Six months later, he had laid off a third of the department (including the five people he didn't want to lay off) and he got laid off shortly after that.

    12. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep talking about this and how you are so experienced, you got a personal offer from some freebsd person about a month ago in a /. thread. Maybe you need to set your goals and expectations a little lower. I cannot imagine that it's that hard to find work with your experience.

      Not being harsh, just seen your comments.

    13. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should do stand-up! That's funny too! Too productive... Lol

    14. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just wrote that you do the work of 5 people, yet you can't hold a job. I see the problem.

    15. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I am sure that is the reason.

    16. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm really tired of this shit. work a job for a bit, then get laid off and be off for months if not longer. for now until I die, it will probably be like this.

      FFS, isn't it obvious: Leave Sillicon Valley and run for your life! The obscene cost of living leads to sky-high wages which means that when a small company hits a speed bump, mathematics requires them to dump staff much much faster than it would in a market where, say, a VMware admin (not architect, but admin) makes a salary more reasonable than the $140k that seems to be the floor for that role out there. For much of the United States, that's like 35-40% premium.

      Move someplace less "trendy," and more "stable," and you'll find your job disappearing far less often. Besides the dot-com bust, I've never once lost a job I didn't want to lose. And even that dot-com situation wasn't really my fault: Our company restated earnings and laid off thousands at the same time Arthur Andersen went under in Chicago, so I was competing with people 20 years older than me with 20 years more experience, and the only offer I fielded was for like $25k--take it or leave it!--so I left. Moved to less trendy, less exciting Indianapolis, and have been employed ever since. Cost of living is low, and I still make a good six figure salary--which goes a helluva lot further than $140k goes in the Valley.

      --
      Who did what now?
    17. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You just wrote that you do the work of 5 people, yet you can't hold a job. I see the problem.

      Being the most productive worker doesn't make you immune from the vagaries of the job market when working for Fortune 500 companies. Especially in the aftermath of the Great Recession in 2009, when no was hiring help desk technicians, and the Government Shutdown in 2013, where the corporations were taking a wait-and-see attitude towards Republican obstruction.

    18. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I am sure it is their fault, not you.

    19. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you written your resume and cover letters with the same English quality level?

    20. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The immodest and humorous claim to replace 5 people notwithstanding, being pegged as an "Enterprise Level" anything in IT does change the way companies look at you, and in my personal experience makes non-Enterprise companies view you as "more than we really need", with the frequent result being either no interest or a reduced wage offer.

      Experienced enterprise techs are almost always able to deal with enormous amounts of pressure, or they would never last long enough to become experienced. I've seen highly skilled folks simply crack under the strain.

    21. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Why would it be my fault? Sometimes circumstances are beyond our control.

      After the Great Recession was "officially" over, there were seven applicants for every job opening in 2009 and 2010. During those two years I was told by recruiters that I was "unemployable" for anything. I had 20 interviews during that time. The day after my bankruptcy got finalized in 2011, I had a full-time job as there were three applicants for every job opening.

      I was informed by my manager that I was being laid off because of the government shutdown in 2013. During those eight months I was unemployed, I had 60 job interviews and had three job offers at the end before selecting my current job.

    22. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me, a useful analogy is College football vs NFL. The determining factor in NFL success is often NOT talent or skill, but the ability to handle pressure. As a recent example, Johnny Manziel, by almost all accounts extremely skilled and talented, but a train wreck of sorts at the NFL level, in my mind due to an Inability to deal with the non-athletic pressures of the NFL.

    23. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you weren't laid off because you're a giant douche? I mean, most managers are OK with that, but some managers unreasonably demand that their staff not be total cock swingers.

    24. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not so much "more than we need" but "enterprise" level techs tend to outsource everything to India and eastern Europe, meaning while "they do the work of 5 people" they're actually just giving status reports on the actual workers spread around the globe.

    25. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I'm generally in the top three of any job with a 98% SLA (service level agreement) completion rate. I would be number one but the telephone guys have a surplus of five minute tickets. My manager tried restricting me to one ticket per day that requires four to five hours to fix. But we ran out of those. Hence, I got laid off for being too productive.

    26. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more you write, the more I understand why you're mostly unemployed.

    27. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      No, I'm an asshole. I wouldn't be in IT if I wasn't. Douche bags are failed IT techs who got promoted into management.

    28. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Also, the vast majority of all businesses fail. And that's no less true in tech. Failing businesses mean layoffs. And a lot of businesses being started means a lot of businesses failing. What would be more illuminating would be data as to how long the laid-off workers stay out of work, vs. bouncing into another startup or, as you mention, one of the larger companies.

      Personally, I'm not going to start worrying until the contacts from recruiters trying to lure me out of my current job falls below a dull roar.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    29. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Don't sell yourself short. I consider you an asshole AND a douche. Management material for sure!

    30. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Totally. Managers hate productive people. They also hate closing tickets. They don't like bonuses either.

    31. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I have considered taking project management classes and certification for my next career change. ;)

    32. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your ex co-workers, who are still employed where you've been fired, probably refer to you as a giant bag of dicks.

    33. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enron or Lehman Bros. are looking for people just like you.

    34. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen, multiple tasks doesn't include Jira, git commits, Chef, and Agile stand ups.
      You gotta do designing, real-world programming and code reviews to be "Enterprise" level.

      Also, I've _never_ heard of the term enterprise level applied to a qualification!

      Just sayin' what everybody is thinkin' anyway.

      CAP === 'insect'

    35. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. That would be the manager.

    36. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe it's because you think you are hot shit, have a huge salary expectation and when they do bring you in for an interview, they get the impression that you're an asshole

    37. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      You are funny.

      Larger companies tend to have specialists. They may have multiple tasks, but the kinds of tasks they do are pretty much all the same.

      Smaller companies often don't have the budget to hire specialists. The people they employ often have to do a myriad of very different tasks.

      Your problem in getting work in smaller companies is probably because they've got you pegged as a big-company bureaucrat and not up to doing anything outside a fixed domain.

    38. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm SUPER happy that I don't work for your company. I'm also glad I don't work with you. In the world of "do more with less", you really think that managers don't like increased productivity? I find that hard to believe.

      That's not the been the case in my 40 year career. Not even close.

      I think I'll just count my lucky stars, my raises and bonuses based on my productivity, and be thankful my manager closes tickets on occasion.

      There are actually a number of companies that don't like managers like that. I've worked for a few, and have friends at a number of others.

    39. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have. 3 times this month, on every job we interviewed applicants for.

    40. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Also, I've _never_ heard of the term enterprise level applied to a qualification!

      If you're working for a large company, check the system properties for Windows. It should Windows 7 Enterprise. Enterprise IT is a different ballgame than IT for medium- or small-sized companies.

    41. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by serbanp · · Score: 1

      There is no correlation between the four events you're listing.

      Oftentimes layoffs are done to prop up the stock value or to move more money towards the top.

      A price reduction has no positive influence on the development of new products. Maybe the last one (if you swap it) may make any sense.

      The truth is that in the vast majority of situations where a company does deep layoffs the outcome is even worse in the longer term. Low morale and extra stress, productive time lost due to re-arranging the company's structure, reduced capacity to react to new opportunities, they all add up but don't show in a simplistic spreadsheet.

    42. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by avandesande · · Score: 1

      This is true- the only time I have been laid off was for a California company...

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    43. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Your coworkers have had enough of correcting your errors and we're tired of your attitude. I think they probably referred to you as, Douche McFartyStink.

    44. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I can reassure that I have never worked with your mother.

    45. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe it's because you think you are hot shit, have a huge salary expectation and when they do bring you in for an interview, they get the impression that you're an asshole

      Well he does have a five page resume.

    46. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume that no one but you have worked for a large corporation. Assuming to much is another reason you were fired. You know what they say, "You are an ass."

    47. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Your problem in getting work in smaller companies is probably because they've got you pegged as a big-company bureaucrat and not up to doing anything outside a fixed domain.

      My domain is cleaning up messes. I did a PC refresh project at a local hospital several years ago. Contract was for one-year, I got it done in nine months. Besides unboxing, reimaging and deploying 1,500 PCs and 3,000 monitors, I also cleaned up a storage room filled with so much old IT equipment that no one had seen the floor in eight years. It took me six weeks in between tickets to empty out the storage room and send everything off to the recycler. No one asked me to do this. This was a mess waiting for someone to clean it up. The IT manager waved about me when recruiters called to check out my references because I solved an unsolvable problem.

    48. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to me /. Is the wrong place for you. You'd be smart to be on Careerbuilder right now. With your skills and attitude, you'll be out of work in no time.

    49. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You know what they say, "You are an ass."

      You're correct that I'm assuming that you're an ass.

    50. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Seems to me /. Is the wrong place for you.

      Slashdot exists to keep me amused at work while I wait for a script to finish.

      With your skills and attitude, you'll be out of work in no time.

      I'm trying very hard not to put humanity out of work. Utopia would be very boring without anything to do.

    51. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The more you write, the more I understand why you're mostly employed.

      FTFY

    52. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to observe that not everyone I know in IT is an asshole. I'm saying you AREN'T, so stay proud of your asshole-ness if that makes you feel better/smarter/more IT-y...

    53. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You mean corporations keep people employed when they don't make a profit, and lay off people who produce a profit for the business even though this means they'll be made poorer?

      Maybe the last one (if you swap it) may make any sense.

      The last two are kind of tandem. To produce a new product, you need consumer buying power. You don't go out and say, "I have invented SMART PHONES! Buy them!" and consumers just buy them. Either the consumer stops buying something else (and some people over there lose their jobs) or the consumer had a wad of cash unspent and now spends that.

      For the consumer to get an additional wad of cash, the things he buys have to cost less than his income. As product costs are from labor, the lowest price is dictated by the lowest labor costs. By reducing labor time, you lower these costs--and create unemployment. The consumer is paying fewer wages, and buying the same amount of stuff; then he has additional money to buy new things.

      None of this works if you examine one company and one person's income and disconnect the two. That is to say: if you assume a business acts in a bubble, that jobs are created by businesses, and that consumer income comes out of a magical hole disconnected from the magical hole consumers shovel their wages into when they buy shit, none of the stuff I said makes any sense. If you've connected the selling of a product to the buying of a product, and the wages of a worker to the income from the selling of a product, all the stuff I've said makes sense. Most people aren't really putting all the blocks together; they have a blue lego and a red lego and are screaming something about how they're supposed to be a tower, but they haven't plugged them together to build said tower.

    54. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 1

      I've been working for Fortune 500 companies for the last 20+ years. Since I'm pegged as a "enterprise" tech, it's often difficult for me to find work in medium- or small-sized companies. Probably because I can easily replace five people by myself because I'm single and have no friends.

      FTFY

    55. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction:

      I'm not saying you AREN'T an asshole.

      You make a good case to support your asshole nature.

    56. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I'm single and have no friends.

      My employment contracts for the last 12 years has prohibited me from working over 40 hours per week. None of the Fortune 500 companies want to pay overtime anymore. The last time I worked overtime was when I was a lead video game tester, working 60 hours per week, taking two classes at the community college to learn computer programming, and teaching Sunday school at church.

    57. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You make a good case to support your asshole nature.

      Eli The Computer Guy on YouTube makes a good argument as to why IT techs should be assholes.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_YaNGzplbE

    58. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Well he does have a five page resume.

      The master resume that list all my jobs is ten pages long. The five-page resume is for the job search websites. I have a two-page resume for recruiters and hiring managers.

    59. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by serbanp · · Score: 1

      Apparently you too haven't played with Legos in a long time. How much is the buying power of the newly laid-off people? The race to the bottom has short-term benefits (cheaper products means more consumers can afford them) and long-term downsides (lower profits, smaller real-money wages, fewer employed, fewer having the income to spend on things); it's a vicious positive-feedback loop that plays out in decades, that's why the frogs don't jump out of the pot - the thermal gradient is too small.

      Regarding the first point, layoffs are happening even at companies posting profits, it's just that these profits are smaller than what they could be (short-term at least) and the investors could sue...

    60. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should do stand-up! That's funny too! Too productive... Lol

      Now if we laid off all the Agile conslutants and Certified(TM) Scrum(R) masters, we might be getting somewhere!

    61. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot exists to keep me amused at work while I wait for a script to finish.

      If you could program, your script would be finished before Slashdot page could open.

    62. Re: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      If you could program, your script would be finished before Slashdot page could open.

      A script that query 80,000 systems before the Slashdot page could open would be quite impressive. Unfortunately, I'm dealing with Windows and PowerShell. It takes forever.

    63. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Regarding the first point, layoffs are happening even at companies posting profits,

      I was unclear: I meant "They" as in the employees. If laying off an employee reduces your net profit, you don't do it. Someone had asserted that companies were laying off employees out of spite or some shit, as if they made $10 million in profits and then fired a bunch of people so they could make $8 million instead.

      How much is the buying power of the newly laid-off people?

      So we invented new technology in agriculture. Agricultural workers make up 2% of America's workforce (it was over 60% in 1900). This new technology reduces the number of Ag workers required by 5%; and the number of people required to provide supporting infrastructure (production, maintenance, fuel, etc.) for this technology is equivalent to 2% of our agricultural workforce. That means we just laid off a net 3% of America's agricultural workforce, or 3% of 2% of the workforce, or 0.06%.

      Because 3% less labor goes into food, food is 3% cheaper. 99.94% of Americans, on average spending 11.5% of their income on food, now spend 11.155% of their income on food, and have 0.345% of their income as unspent income. This gives American's total consumer base 100.285% as much buying power--that includes the 99.94% who have 100.345% as much buying power and the 0.06% who have 0% as much buying power.

      With this increase in buying power, most Americans buy more stuff. To make this additional stuff, to ship it, to market it, to sell it... all of that requires labor somewhere--if it didn't it'd be free plus margin, and any cost above pennies would be easily undercut by a new competitor magicking up the product for free. In essence, it either requires labor or you're trying to sell bottled outside air (which you can sell for the cost of the bottle).

      That's how those lost jobs get replaced. Because of inflation, it's not dollar-for-dollar more buying power; that's never going to be a thing. Per proportion of *all* *income*, however, the buying power is greater: if your personal income is 1/180,000,000th of the total income in the United States, that 1/180Mth is now buying more stuff--it's also probably a higher number of absolute dollars, due to never-ending inflation (this is NOT a bad thing, unless it's fast inflation).

      In the end, with the same number of people working the same number of hours, more stuff is made. 100% of all the money buys, in our example, 100.345% as much stuff. That means everyone can be a bit richer. It also means the rich can be 0.450% richer and the middle-class and poor can be 0.200% richer--that's how you get an ever-growing income gap even as the poor and middle-class get richer, lead more stable lives, get access to more and better healthcare, and load up on what used to be rich-people luxuries all while lagging behind the hyper-rich forever. This income gap is a huge boon: if you set the top income tax bracket higher than the effective flat tax rate, you can continuously lower the income taxes on the middle and lower classes, increasing consumer buying power and strengthening (stabilizing) the job market.

      If you don't believe that, trace all of economic history. Why was agriculture such a huge step forward for mankind? Why did clothing used to require 479 labor-hours for a shirt (at $8.25 minimum wage, $4,000), but now costs $15? Why do developed countries have far fewer agricultural workers per output of food, and why is their food cheaper? How does the shrinking proportion of agricultural workers relate to the shrinking cost of food--43% of the median family's income in 1900, 30% in 1950, 13% in 2003, and 11.5% in 2010? Why do new technologies come out expensive as hell, but then become cheap; what happens during their lifecycle?

      These aren't just patterns I noticed; the whole concept of technical growth is foundational to modern economics. The Solow-Swan model attempts to measure economic growth in terms

    64. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by serbanp · · Score: 1

      The overall improvements in the past do not guarantee the same in the future and I'm sure that you're aware of the fact that the golden era of productivity increase is over. To expect that, no matter which challenge, there will always be a technology around the corner to obliterate it is, imho, wishful thinking.

      Given that there are fewer and fewer jobs in farming and manufacturing (due to big technology advances) and that the service economy is not working for the large majority of our co-nationals (exactly because there is no intrinsic technology innovation solving their issues), I agree 100% with your sig.

    65. Re:The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Given that there are fewer and fewer jobs in farming and manufacturing (due to big technology advances)

      Yeah, there's this chart, and it looks startlingly familiar if you were around circa 1840-1920 with factories replacing good old American farming.

      The overall improvements in the past do not guarantee the same in the future and I'm sure that you're aware of the fact that the golden era of productivity increase is over.

      We are not The Enlightened, and we do not have the end-all of all technology. We can manufacture gold from lead, but it's more expensive than digging it out of the ground; we make cesium and molybdenum by converting other elements using what's essentially a coat hanger stuffed in a glass jar. When our energy-production technology improves (e.g. more efficient nuclear, space solar, or quantum tunneling junctions used for geothermal energy production at 55% efficiency), the labor cost of creating gold from base matter will move downward toward the labor cost of digging it out of the ground. A dyson sphere would quickly make all material concerns moot, but there's no way we're building one in the foreseeable future--it's economically and technologically unfeasible.

      Given that there are fewer and fewer jobs in farming and manufacturing (due to big technology advances) and that the service economy is not working for the large majority of our co-nationals (exactly because there is no intrinsic technology innovation solving their issues), I agree 100% with your sig.

      Any form of basic income relies on productivity and production. All taxes take a percentage of the total income for a period, which represents the total production for that period. That is to say: all income (business and personal) represents everything produced and sold (even strategic reserves get turned over--their sale is *delayed*--and things produced and ultimately unsold represent a waste cost contributing zero productivity), and we take a portion of that wealth in the form of a portion of the money paid for it. A Basic Income levies a tax to capture a proportion of that wealth and redistribute it to provide everyone with a minimum standard of living (i.e. the capability to buy a minimum amount of stuff).

      A Citizen's Dividend as I describe is essentially the pure form: I levy a flat income tax on all income to fund the Dividend, thus directly and stably collecting a percentage of the per-capita income (or GDP or whatever measure you want to use). If you require 1/n of the per-capita income to live at the intended minimum standard-of-living, then the percentage is 1/n--in 2013, that's 17%; in 1950, it's 32% and doesn't fucking work. This dedicated tax operates alongside a general fund tax: I slash the tax brackets so the rich are paying 26% instead of 39.6% (hence the disconcerting 43% upper tax bracket), and the rest of the classes down are paying something equal to or less than their current tax bracket minus 17%, thus retaining a progressive tax system.

      If the economy collapses because we have tons of people but no jobs for them, the percentage required becomes *extremely* high. The amount of income is only what the employed labor force makes: 17% of the total income of 64% of the population (that's the 68% labor force minus UE4) can pay for 74% of the population (all adults), plus 1.4% for family welfare (children, from the general fund, on a sharply-reduced public aid system); but if it's only 32% employed, you need a 34% dividend tax, plus you have a *lot* more children needing welfare (bump that figure about 7-10 times--maybe 8% to 14%), plus you need to pretty much double the government's general fund taxes to keep shi

  7. Jobs moving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So where are the jobs going? Some of it may be due to downsizing, but I bet mostly the jobs are simply moving. Actually, moving jobs out of the bay area is a no-brainer because there are better job markets elsewhere in the country. It used to be that you had to go to the bay area to find people to fill certain tech jobs, but that just isn't the case anymore, but I wonder if the bulk of these jobs are staying within the country or going to Asia.

  8. BS reasons by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    All those reasons are nonsense. The real reasons are a destroyed economy with no hope of getting from under the crashing debt, taxes, regulations, laws, the insane levels of inflation (money creation by the Fed and banks lending for consumption due to government guarantees).

    USA economy is a walking talking zombie. It is unfortunate bit it will get much worse before restructuring of the debts and massive reduction of government spending and thus massive reduction in taxes and regulations will let it get any better.

    Oh, by the way, China does not have economic problems at all compared to the USA compared to what is being 'reported'. China'd only problem is subsidising USA consumption and creating its own inflation for that purpose. USD collapsed will fix that.

    1. Re:BS reasons by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, by the way, China does not have economic problems at all compared to the USA compared to what is being 'reported'. China'd only problem is subsidising USA consumption and creating its own inflation for that purpose. USD collapsed will fix that.

      Yeah, you're right. Billions spent constructing whole cities that sit empty, large drops in the stock market (to the point where trading has to be halted on multiple occasions), houses and apartments sitting empty because they were purchased as investments and have driven up the cost of rent/real estate, and significant drops in demand for raw materials such as steel or other goods such as construction materials aren't major economic problems.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:BS reasons by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      If you believe that you will make a fortune in Futures. Oh wait, you are just an idiot on the Internet who won't do anything.

    3. Re: BS reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good god. You fucking right wing nut jobs are trolling /. And other sites. Go back to the front of kock Bros and just do not get your head rammed against the wall.

    4. Re:BS reasons by netsavior · · Score: 1

      don't forget ecological disasters in ALL cities, created by unchecked, unregulated manufacturing pollution. You can't see the sky, but you can touch it.

    5. Re: BS reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your clearly an economist. While I agree the US is overburdened with rules. If you think China is all good, then you don't understand simple economics.

    6. Re:BS reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox News called, and want their BS back. Inflation is actually lower than normal, unless you use the Nut Metrics. And most of the silly regulations are state-level regulations, not Federal. If you want to clean up over-regulation, state-level is the lower-hanging fruit. Except perhaps for military bloat, like the lame F35.

    7. Re:BS reasons by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Ha, billions spent but so what? Where is the debt? There is no debt, there is huge surplus and a gigantic (biggest in the world now) manufacturing sector and output. Give me these problems - a huge productive output and a bunch of empty cities that could in principle be populated once prices drop due to the dollar collapse. OMG, humanity!

    8. Re: BS reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor little prog needs to stomp off to his safe space and take a timeout.

    9. Re:BS reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the debt? There is no debt

      China is running at 43% Debt-to-GDP ratio. Only about half as bad as the US's 100%.

      once prices drop due to the dollar collapse

      Can you point to a single economy whose prices dropped when the currency "collapsed"? Weimar? Zimbabwe? If the US dollar "collapsed" do you think China's not going to finish cutting the yuan free to save itself (a process they've already started)?

    10. Re:BS reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unchecked, unregulated

      Surely some kind of libertarian paradise?

  9. Net number of tech jobs actually increased by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article:

    "Today the Bay Area's total employment of 3,353,600 as of the end of March still reflects job growth, with102,600 workers added from March 2015 through March 2016."

    In other words, the tech job market is healthy as ever, which includes a natural migration of jobs away from unproductive and unsuccessful companies to those which are better managed.

    1. Re:Net number of tech jobs actually increased by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How dare you inject facts into this discussion!

    2. Re:Net number of tech jobs actually increased by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Please don't have this discussion. People discussing economics online overloads my circuits. It's cringeworthy. Folks tell me I need to not worry about idiots, but then you see people raising minimum wages and all this economic fall-out and the slow recovery *because* of the higher wages, while people ignore newer-style policies which accomplish more, create more jobs, and actually reduce poverty, and you can't really pretend the loud voice of people who don't know what in the fuck they're babbling about isn't destroying the world around you.

    3. Re:Net number of tech jobs actually increased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it concave up or concave down?

    4. Re:Net number of tech jobs actually increased by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Slow recovery because burger flippers are earning an extra $5 per hour? Fascinating. I didn't know the US economy depended so much on $5.

    5. Re:Net number of tech jobs actually increased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What newer style policies? Tax inversions don't help out many people. Additional H-1Bs don't help with employment numbers. Offshoring doesn't help employment numbers. Allowing money to be shipped overseas so it isn't taxed doesn't help employment numbers.

      Going back to a Gilded Age with government being a lapdog for trusts isn't going to help much. I know a lot of people like the idea of a few nobles and the rest peasants being ground into the dirt, but those types of nations don't build much, compared to more egalitarian societies where individual basic needs are met, so people can do something other than chasing down their next meal.

      I just don't understand this fetish that an entity whose sole purpose is to make money, by any means allowed, is such a good thing. These are the guys who pollute your water, lobby for more people in prison (so they can make money from them), destroy your way of life, take your house, and replace what you eat with crappier stuff. People talk about 1984, but I swear a lot of people want to dine on sausage and live in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" in the good ol' summertime.

    6. Re:Net number of tech jobs actually increased by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's more abstract than that. Not exactly a false analogy, but not quite straight on.

      People are all invested in trickle-down economics: money is economy, and the jobs come from businesses or from your hard-work. In other words: either a business sells something or a person gets themselves a job; the rich are greedy and the poor are lazy. This leads them to the belief that higher wages are paid by businesses.

      The truth is wages are paid by consumers. Consumers spend their income on goods until they run out of spendable income (any taxes or desire to save money reduces this spendable income). The wage-labor cost of a good is the roll-up of all labor time invested in that good at the price of that labor; that price includes things like benefits and (importantly) payroll taxes. When you put the wage-labor cost together, that's your minimum price: no amount of volume purchase deals, corporate agreements, market competition, or other profit-margin-trimming activity will push the on-the-shelf price of that product below those costs. In short: You have to price your product high enough to pay the wages associated with each unit.

      Higher product prices mean consumers have less buying power: their spendable income buys fewer things. Fewer things means fewer jobs to make those things.

      Slower recovery isn't about burger flippers. It's about replacing 100,000 people with machines, waiting a while for the market to somehow drag prices down, and then trying to re-employ those 100,000 people. With higher wages, the amount of unspent consumer buying power required to create 100,000 replacement jobs is higher; and the time required for the reduction in wage-labor costs (by using machines which incur total wage-labor costs below the wage-labor cost of the old method) to pad out the consumer's pocket so far increases, simply because "so far" is a bigger number and the rate at which you approach that number isn't bigger.

      In wage-driven technological unemployment, the wage worker costs less than the machine *until* wages are raised. For example: $8/hr human, $11/hr machine, minimum wage raised to $13/hr. You've just raised wages to $11/hr, unemployed a bunch of people who were making $13/hr, and now you're waiting for the price gap to close on an $11/hr wage basis. Problem: the people you just unemployed were making $8/hr, and recovery of their jobs requires reaching a point where consumers have the money left over to buy into things which require those $8/hr jobs; all the current products are based on $11/hr wage-labor costs, and employment is based on $13/hr wages, so your economy's going to need a *long* time to re-employ that displaced labor force.

      This is all swept up in a complex system where the above basically amounts to "some number of people are now unsustainable," while technological growth (without these kinds of wage raises) tends to *increase* the sustainable population, and also leads to a larger middle- and upper-class population. That means an economy can recover from the above--the Industrial Revolution took around a century to recover from its extremely-high unemployment, though, so what kind of victory do you want?

      There's a different model we saw in the information age: rather than moving linear labor (2x the product means 2x the labor) to machines, we moved superlinear labor to machines (2x the product means 3x or 5x or 10x the human labor). Computers made a huge array of products and services possible, creating opportunities for new, low-cost consumer goods. That caused massive technological growth and a large downward movement of income into a growing middle class and an enriched lower class. If you're replacing McDonalds burger flippers, you're not eliminating a growth bottleneck, and that kind of growth won't follow.

      It's damned easy to find a job when you're only asking for $3/hr; and it's easy to sell a product to consumers when you only have to pay your workers $3/hr. Conversely, it's really hard to find jobs and make produ

    7. Re:Net number of tech jobs actually increased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slow recovery because burger flippers are earning an extra $5 per hour? Fascinating. I didn't know the US economy depended so much on $5.

      You know the saying about losing a kingdom for want of a nail? Well, $5 is a lot more than a nail!!

    8. Re:Net number of tech jobs actually increased by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Baloney. I didn't even bother to read past the first paragraph of your treatise. You need to travel a bit more and see the real world. There is a big world out there where real poverty exists and people would be glad to get jobs that pay a pittance, even compared to the median salary in their region. They don't find jobs "easy to get". An extra $4 for a low wage American worker isn't going to collapse the economy. The American economy is massive, it doesn't depend on what we are paying for minimum wage. Get a grip.

    9. Re:Net number of tech jobs actually increased by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      That isn't what the saying refers to. If the American economy collapses because we start paying some people $5 more we are in bigger trouble.

    10. Re:Net number of tech jobs actually increased by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      So you're proud of your ignorance, and then attacking me for what you assert is mine?

      Maybe you're just wrong. You're also still arguing trickle-down economics and haven't actually addressed any point I made.

    11. Re:Net number of tech jobs actually increased by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I am just not going to read every Keynesian rant online. Ridiculous. Go to India and see how people live. Come back and revise your rant.

    12. Re:Net number of tech jobs actually increased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total employment number != tech employment numbers.

    13. Re:Net number of tech jobs actually increased by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Solow would be closer than Keynes. Keynes suggests the Government should spend more and tax less in hard economic times; I'm talking about economics in a general sense, which includes fair-weather markets as well as foul, rather than Keynesian "what do we do to fix our now-broken economy?" approach to economic downturns.

      You're also making an emotional appeal talking about "how people live", rather than "how economies function."

      In India, circa 1970, they were producing 2 tonnes of rice per hectare at cost of $550/tonne. With inflation, that's over $3,000/tonne in 2000; however, in the year 2000, they were producing 6 tonnes of rice per hectare at a cost of under $200/tonne. This happened via an increase in technological development of Indian agricultural practice. The same happened in America, where circa 1900 around 60% of Americans were agricultural workers, while in 2010 around 2% are agricultural workers *and* they produce food, fiber (clothing feed stock), and biofuel feed stock, with 50% of their output exported. The displaced farmers first fed the labor force of the manufacture industry; now the proportion of Americans working in manufacture is dropping (the total number is increasing), diverting to IT services, retail services, and healthcare services.

      In other words: both India and America are doing exactly what I described. They always have. That's why Americans in 1950 spent 30% of their income on food and 13% on clothing, while in 2010 they spend 11.5% of their income on food and 4% on clothing. In India, rice hits store shelves for 6% of its 1970 price, adjusted for inflation. Indians, like Americans are providing more tech services and even manufacture services, where 40 years ago these people would have been obligate farmers.

      So... I've looked at India and how people live in India. India was part of my initial research which lead me to the conclusions I've drawn. What's your point?

      Are you going to take an actual position on economics, or just claim that I'm wrong and offer no counter-arguments of your own?

    14. Re:Net number of tech jobs actually increased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that 100k mc'ds jobs or 100k tech jobs?

    15. Re: Net number of tech jobs actually increased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have read past the first paragraph, as that was a critical illustration of the bullshit that is supply side economics.

  10. Or... put another way. by mark-t · · Score: 1

    "As job growth slows and the cost of living remains as high as it is, that's going to put many people in a difficult position"

    "Expect the crime rate to go up."

    The single most pronounced governing factor for crime rate is unemployment. As the weeks of unemployment drag into months, people get desperate, and do stuff they would never otherwise even dream of.

    1. Re:Or... put another way. by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      You mean like working for Microsoft?

    2. Re:Or... put another way. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Even working at a company you dislike is better than losing your home, or not being able to eat if your employment insurance runs out before you find other work.

    3. Re:Or... put another way. by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Interesting
      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    4. Re:Or... put another way. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Right. That happens a lot of tech workers. They can't eat. You guys need to get out more. A bunch of spoiled punks.

    5. Re:Or... put another way. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Hey buddy, we don't need no facts here. This is a slashdot discussion!

    6. Re:Or... put another way. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Yes, crime rate has been steadily decreasing, but the rate at which it decreases varies. In fact the very graphs that you link to illustrate the point. At each peak of unemployment, there is a rise (or at least a reduced rate of reduction) in the crime rate as well. The correlation between is quite hight between the two, probably nearly 80% on just the data points on those two graphs alone.

      Now I'm aware that correlation is not necessarily indicative of causation, but the strength of the correlation is still impossible to statistically ignore.

  11. Watch the next tech cycle start by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    It's going to be in some location where the cost of living is lower and the local public doesn't treat the industry with contempt.

    1. Re:Watch the next tech cycle start by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

      As someone who grew up in one of those lower-cost-of-living places, the problem is getting a critical mass of smart people to move there. It's absolutely insane that every startup feels they need to be in the Bay Area, especially in 2015. However, let's say you start up a software company in Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, or any other Rust Belt place. Unless you have a diverse economy and/or big university with good academic programs (and yes, that's not just CS...) getting talent to move there is going to be a tough sell. It won't be to rational people -- but in my opinion the rational ones have corporate-style jobs and want stability more than the chance to play the startup lottery. You need a large number of young, inexperienced people who think it's perfectly normal to pay $4500 a month for a 2 bedroom apartment.

      Seriously, most of the old-school industrial cities have anchored their hopes to things like medical research and academics for a reason -- they produce stable, well paying jobs. Well paid people who aren't constantly looking over their shoulder for the axe-men spend money and invigorate the local economy. They buy property and pay property taxes into the system. As a result, the local government can invest more in schools, public works, etc. I can't see a purely startup-fueled resurgance in some of these places.

    2. Re:Watch the next tech cycle start by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      Bingo. The businesses see the critical mass of necessary talent in SV and just go there because. But the reality is that there's a critical mass of people willing to work at startups there, not overall talent.

      I did a stint in SV, got pitched at by lots of startups and refused some jobs at some pretty big name companies. It was definitely an eye opener of expected long droughts of no pay, low pay, really long hours, super high cost of living, etc. I have an exciting, yet stable job with lots of hours, but a manageable work/.life balance, good salary in a low cost of living place. No one could give me a good reason why I'd go to SV or be in a startup. You don't get many startups here because we don't have a huge pool of people looking to work 80 hours/week for peanuts and the hope of a lottery payout. We have stable family people that just want to be productive and have a good work-life balance. Stable, solid businesses.

      One employer's pitch was that I'd be the first person on earth to see another person on Mars, being the lead of the group that handled the mission downlinks. Pretty damn good job incentive. For a while there I was really pumped about the possibility. But you know what's cooler than that? Seeing my daughter's face every morning when I get her up for school, and enjoying my wife's company while we hang out in the evening. Being able to kick off work in the afternoon because it's a beautiful day to go to the lake or for a hike. Why would I give that up just for that one bragging right? I know some people would, just not me and honestly not a lot of other people. If that job could offer a balance between the two, I'd be there in a heartbeat and do a kick-ass job, likely better than the person willing to work 80 hours/week....but that's not the culture, so I'm off enjoying stability, nature and family instead.

    3. Re:Watch the next tech cycle start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem is getting a critical mass of smart people to move there.

      That's part of the problem. Some employers are looking to college towns where they have a pool of young energetic (and desperate) folks with FRESH skills. We could use Provo UT as an example, and a few others. Hell; this is how Silicon Valley got started in the first place. More mature talent is attracted to these areas because; it looks like a stable job, there's a vital ecosystem there (in case it isn't), and it's a lower cost of living, and you can raise your kids there, and send them to the local university that has a good job-placement record (self-fulfilling prophecy).

      This causes another problem, however. Unless the company at this location can grow big enough to compete with the Cisco's, Microsoft's, and Oracle's of the world, these companies will usually be bought up by the big players. Over a period of about 5 years after the purchase, the remote office's staff is undermined, redundancies like phone support, HR, Sales, and upper-management are eliminated, and slowly, the political connections that the staff at the MAIN office have, will direct work to the main office, leaving the remote office dry, and overstaffed (which leads to reductions in technical staff). It usually triggers a death-spiral. ending with the remote office getting closed during a downturn, and the newly-unemployed left competing against eachother for whatever jobs are left in the local economy (or having to relocate).

      This is why it is SO much more attractive to live in the Bay Area; because any other remote location can not compete, and you end up in this cycle of unstable jobs. I've been through this cycle 3 times, in three different non-Bay Area cities. And I've watched this happen throughout my industry, and you can actually see it in other industries:

      Provo, UT
      San Luis Obispo, CA
      San Diego, CA
      Naperville, IL
      Tampa, FL
      Orlando, FL
      Austin, TX (currently on the upswing, however)
      Dallas, TX (more related to the Chemical industry)
      Minneapolis, MN
      College Park, PA
      Portland, OR
      Colorado Springs, CO
      Albuquerque, NM

      The only "stable" locations I can see, for Technology, are Washington DC area (defense-related stuff), and Seattle WA (Microsoft, Amazon, Symantec, but even the Boeing people get focked over every 5 years or so). Everybody else seems to get the shaft on a regular basis.

      The alternative is to move to one of the "stable" areas, and get fucked over by high cost-of-living.

    4. Re:Watch the next tech cycle start by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much accurate. However, there actually is another alternative, if you're starting a company: Locate yourself in one of the suburbs where workers fleeing the high cost of living relocate. For example, near the Silicon Valley, you have at least four areas to consider:

      • Santa Cruz/Watsonville
      • Monterey/Salinas
      • Sacramento/Elk Grove
      • Morgan Hill/Gilroy

      These areas have lots of tech workers who commute into the valley every day. Most of these areas have almost no tech companies. That means that these areas are extremely viable as locations for tech companies, because you have pent-up demand for tech employment, and in the unlikely event that you exhaust the local workforce, you're close enough to draw in commuters from SV.

      Watsonville is a particularly good location, because you get reverse commutes from SV and Santa Cruz, and a shorter commute for people in Watsonville, Salinas, Monterey, Gilroy, or Morgan Hill. If more companies would locate/relocate there, traffic on Bay Area freeways would diminish considerably. Also, land is relatively cheap.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Watch the next tech cycle start by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Based on your list, my money would be on San Diego, Colorado Springs, Austin, Minneapolis. These places are diverse in climate and amenities, but what they have in common is educational climate and (except for housing in San Diego), tech workers, and reasonable cost of living.

  12. WARN Act by tsqr · · Score: 1

    WARN Act numbers only tell part of the story, as they only reflect mass layoffs. And even then, there are reporting exemptions. For example, "California WARN does not apply when the closing or layoff is the result of the completion of a particular project or undertaking of an employer". And then, there's this loophole: "Notice of a relocation or termination is not required where, under multiple and specific conditions, the employer submits documents to the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and the DIR determines that the employer was actively seeking capital or business, and a WARN notice would have precluded the employer from obtaining the capital or business."

  13. Startups not delivering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the bay area startups need to actually start producing products instead of ping-pong players.

  14. Re:Watch the next tech cycle start (Utah) by clifwlkr · · Score: 1

    Yup, it seems to be happening here in Utah. The amount of growth is pretty crazy. Unfortunately they treat a lot of us like H1B workers but onshore, so a lot of not so great development is 'outsourced' here. That said, the pay is finally starting to catch up to reality. A lot of the local companies have had a hard time adjusting in that they used to be able to pay very little, so they are having to realize you can't get a senior programmer with lots of experience for the salaries they used to offer anymore. Some are finally starting to pay up, others are just complaining about 'no available workers'. We are probably still on the upswing, but will probably be peaking soon.

    Housing is still relatively cheap and if you can deal with the local politics (i.e. ignore most of it) the outdoor opportunities are amazing. Quality of life is so much better than living in Silicon Valley.

  15. Melbourne, FL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Already has the foundation in place with a concentration of defense, aerospace, and semiconductor companies. Nice area, good options for housing, international airport, watersports paradise, hot summers (but cold A/C everywhere), delightful winters, close to Orlando attractions and Kennedy Space Center. Bring it on, tech moguls!

  16. Not economic slowdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is offspring due to nations like India manipulating their money.

  17. It's 1999/2000 again by ErichTheRed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This Internet bubble has lasted a little longer than the last one, and there isn't any one thing you can point to that's absolutely ridiculous this time (pets.com sock puppet, theglobe.com IPO, etc.) But, the VC money has been drying up again, and this forces startups to get rid of staff. There was an article a couple of days ago on Slashdot about Dropbox cutting some of the crazy perks they've been giving out to attract "the best and the brightest" like free meals and laundry.

    This is the natural cycle of things, even in big companies. Some places I've worked for routinely over-hire or have staff doing jobs that don't really need to be done during the good times. When things turn bad, bloodbath city. Look at HP cutting 30,000 employees lately - i guarantee that was them finally digesting the last of EDS and dumping the random redundant assistant account liaison executives, etc. The place I currently work for is majority-owned by Europeans, so the opposite is true. You have to prove completely the demonstrated need for a new position, partially because it's harder to just dump people on the street in Europe than it is here. As a result, there are layoffs but they're much smaller and require a bigger downturn than most medium-ish companies would to start hauling out the axe. Length of service around here is pretty long as a result, because people are doing more work than the average IT person stuck in a very narrow silo of activity.

    It will be interesting to see what happens, especially in San Francisco and Silicon Valley. I would never move there because of housing costs (and this is coming from a New Yorker...) I can definitely see bigger companies with deeper pockets scooping up the actual smart people, and a huge unemployment nightmare for the hangers-on. Remember how many paper MCSEs and HTML "programmers" there were out of work in 2001!

  18. And the # of "talent shortage" articles goes up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The non-stop whining about the "talent shortage" will continue to increase, while they announce layoffs.

    Hypocrites.

    1. Re:And the # of "talent shortage" articles goes up by WizMorgan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why hypocrites? A shortage of talent AND layoffs can actually coexist within the same company. If you need Linux Developers and you've just dropped your unsuccessful Mac or Windows product and laid off the entire devision, how does that suddenly add to the pool of Linux Developers? The folks being laid off are picked over for talent worth retaining in light of current company needs. The ones whose jobs are eliminated but are not sufficiently skilled to be deployed elsewhere within the company are let go.

      My questions are:

      * Should companies continue to make products no one wants in order to avoid layoffs?

      * Should they retain employees who used to support Windows but cannot support Linux (or vice versa) and call them Talented on the new platform?

      Thanks,

      - Wiz

    2. Re:And the # of "talent shortage" articles goes up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why hypocrites?

      A shortage of talent AND layoffs can actually coexist within the same company.

      If you need Linux Developers and you've just dropped your unsuccessful Mac or Windows product and laid off the entire devision, how does that suddenly add to the pool of Linux Developers?

      The folks being laid off are picked over for talent worth retaining in light of current company needs. The ones whose jobs are eliminated but are not sufficiently skilled to be deployed elsewhere within the company are let go.

      My questions are:

      * Should companies continue to make products no one wants in order to avoid layoffs?

      * Should they retain employees who used to support Windows but cannot support Linux (or vice versa) and call them Talented on the new platform?

      Thanks,

      - Wiz

      Answer: The employer should offer retraining to the affected employees so they can transition from software development for Microsoft Windows and Apple Mac OS X, to use your example, to GNU/Linux. Some employees will refuse retraining and prefer to be laid-off - fine. However, I dare say many of the existing software developers will opt for retraining. The fundamental skills remain the same although the operating system specific aspects should be the focus of the transition.

    3. Re:And the # of "talent shortage" articles goes up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You've worked at a company where they actually move people instead of doing a dump and hire? Can you hear me all the way back in the 1950s?

    4. Re:And the # of "talent shortage" articles goes up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that would only make sense in a company that valued the employee's accumulated knowledge of how the company and its customers operate to make them more effective and to build a sense of stability where a customer could expect to deal with well-known associates instead of a different person with a bad accent every time.

      That sort of valuation died when "perma-temping" became the norm somewhere around 1980-1984.

    5. Re:And the # of "talent shortage" articles goes up by WizMorgan · · Score: 1

      I wasn't intending to refer to what is essentially (as you pointed out), a lateral move, but I see that I could have done much better in framing my question. I was attempting to refer to the issue of a whole new skill set needing to be acquired in order to provide value to the company in a new role.

      For example, I haven't seen a majority of sys admins who can successfully transition from Tech Support to Developer in a short enough period of time with enough skill as a developer to qualify as "Talented" in software development. There's a difference between the two skill sets/ways of thinking that are not necessarily trainable. If they were, then I would expect good software developers to be plentiful and demand much lower salaries. They honestly don't appear to be. I've done both jobs, and I personally don't think I use the same skills in both tasks.

      I'll rephrase the question, with perhaps a more apropos (to my point) example:

      * Should companies retain employees who are incapable of transitioning from their previous job (let's say Phone Support for a discontinued product) to a new role (say Enterprise Linux Administration) where the current need is?

      In my experience, good in one IT role doesn't mean good in ANY IT role.

      - Wiz

    6. Re:And the # of "talent shortage" articles goes up by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Should companies retain employees who are incapable of transitioning"

      Of course not, they are business, not charities.

      "(let's say Phone Support for a discontinued product) to a new role (say Enterprise Linux Administration) "

      Why not going from janitor to CFO instead?

      Or, wait, why not going from Phone Support for a discontinued product to Phone Support for the new product line?

      There will always be people that won't retrain but, for the vast majority it is that the company won't train -at all. What you'll see is not trying to make a borderliner telephone operator into a network engineer; what you see is a senior sysadmin with deep knowledge being fired because he's not been exposed to, say, Ansible or Amazon and a youngster with minimal knowledge of those tools and null knowledge about what to really do with them being hired insted (if IT doesn't get just outsourced, that is).

  19. To be fair to Welch by monkeyxpress · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Jack Welch only did this for management staff. I think most people who have had to deal with idiot managers stuck at the level of their incompetence (the Peter Principle) and clogging up the system for everyone under them, won't find this such a terrible idea. However, it also only really worked for GE because it was an exceptional company, so the bottom 10% of managers there were still in the upper levels of management experience/ability in general. I have heard (from someone who used a recruiter who worked with Welch) that they didn't even need to fire the bottom managers. They just passed their details along to the headhunters circling the company and those people had a new job within a week.

    It sounds like your manager was like those little Steve Jobs' that populate the tech industry and believe they can have world class design on third world budgets.

    1. Re:To be fair to Welch by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      It sounds like your manager was like those little Steve Jobs' that populate the tech industry and believe they can have world class design on third world budgets.

      No, just a douche bag who got promoted into management and thought he was better than anyone else because he was in management.

  20. California is bad by dragon-file · · Score: 1

    This is just another sign that California is circling the drain. For example, my last job in the state I was doing IT Admin work for a decently sized company and was making $11 and hour. In addition to this I was told they only wanted me to work 35 hours a week so that they wouldn't have to pay me any benefits. At the end of my first year when I found that the company as a whole had made 752 Million, a whopping 89 Million more than the previous year and 149 more than the year before that, I asked for a 25 cent raise and was laughed at. Seriously. I was then asked if I thought I was worth that much of a raise to which I responded: yes. yes I am. I got that raise after my third year with the company but by then I didn't care anymore. The problem is that shit rolls down hill. California as a state imposes way to many taxes and regulations on business. If you decided you were going to try and start a business in California you might as well just flush your money down the toilet instead. It's a quicker way to get rid of it. All of these restrictions hurt the companies bottom line and they have to make that up somewhere and that means either paying you minimum wage instead of what everyone else makes for your job, or finding someone from from out of country who will do the job for minimum wage. Thankfully I moved to Washington and within 5 months got a contract job paying literally twice as much per hour and at 40 hours a week no less. And to top that off the job was actually easier. I swear the only reason people live in Cali is for the weather. If you can count perpetual sun and annual forest fires as "weather"

    --
    Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
    1. Re:California is bad by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      California as a state imposes way to many taxes and regulations on business. If you decided you were going to try and start a business in California you might as well just flush your money down the toilet instead.

      I left California for Oregon in '95, since it was apparent even back then which direction it was headed. There is a very good reason why even California businesses are moving employees out of California, and your analysis of the problems is spot on.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:California is bad by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      If you are making $11 "and hour" in IT in California there is something wrong with YOU.

    3. Re:California is bad by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yet the article saying 165,000 jobs were added in the Bay area during that same time period. It is amazing how facts contradict your "analysis".

    4. Re:California is bad by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That would be the Dell Techs, the new Geek Squad. I've seen job listings for $11 to $17 per hour and $0.35 to $0.50 per mile reimbursement.

    5. Re:California is bad by dragon-file · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the problem was I wasn't getting paid enough to get the fuck out. Thankfully and sadly a family member died. I was able to pay off my debts and move. Best decision I ever made in my entire 30 year life. I now have a 45k salary job with full benefits, payed time off the works. The company isn't huge, the employees are friendly and my commute into work is 30 minutes from the house I bought outright for $85,500. Good luck doing that in Cali.

      --
      Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
  21. Dragging down the stats by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Yahoo shouldn't be counted in the statistics; they don't have a viable business plan or even a clue (which won't keep Marissa Meyer from getting her $55 million golden parachute.) All Yahoo jobs should just be written off. On the bright side, if this keeps up, people in the Bay Area might someday actually be able to afford housing again! Or at least, the few who still have jobs...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  22. Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, it should probably be pointed out that Intel is laying off 12,000 around the world and is headquartered in Santa Clara.

  23. Automating Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most reports say that 50% of all jobs will be automated by 2030. You want job security? Get into the business of automating everyone else's job.

  24. Re:Watch the next tech cycle start (Utah) by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    The problems I can see with living in Utah are 1) the air pollution in SLC is reportedly awful, the worst in the nation in fact, 2) if you're a single guy, there's probably no single women there who aren't religious (and most likely Mormon, even worse), and 3) the local culture is probably rather conservative. There is some really amazing outdoor stuff in Utah, but that's all in *southern* Utah, which is not a close drive from the SLC area. Utah is a huge state, like most western states, but all the population is in the north.

    So I don't really see how that's a better quality-of-life than Silicon Valley:
          pollution: advantage SV
          singles scene: both bad (but at least what few single women exist in SV are probably not religious or Mormon)
          outdoor stuff: a long drive from either place
          local politics: advantage SV (not great, but at least not LDS-dominated)
          local culture: advantage SV (again, not dominated by conservative religious nuts; I'll take annoying Fedora-wearing hipsters over religious loons any day)
          housing costs: advantage SLC

    Sorry, but there's a lot more to life than housing cost. If you want cheap housing, I can find you lots of places across the country, particularly in the rural Midwest, where housing is dirt cheap. There's no work and almost no local economy and very few people, but hey! housing is cheap!

  25. re: Leave the Valley by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    I totally agree, except I think many of the people trying to hang on out there are still living the dream / fantasy that they've got a shot at being one of the tech "elite".

    It's not unlike Hollywood. If you're an aspiring actor, actress or filmmaker, you can practice your craft ANYWHERE in the country, and nearly anywhere for less money than it would cost you to try to live near or in Hollywood. But chances are, you'll need to get out there to meet face-to-face with other big players you need to know in order to make it onto the big screen via any of the major production companies.

    (If you just want to do independent film? Then yeah, who cares? You'll have a less stress-filled life doing that elsewhere.)

    Personally, I quit aspiring to be the next mover and shaker of the tech world sometime in my late 20's. I still love doing I.T. but I prefer my current situation where I live in a small town where you get a 2,200 sq. foot house for a little over $200,000, there's beautiful scenery, historical places to see nearby, and a sub 6-figure salary as a network/system admin. is enough to get by and raise a family. No prestige of working for a Google, an Apple or a Facebook -- but the job is stable and I even wound up working with a couple of long-time friends.

  26. Oxymoron by postmortem · · Score: 1

    Real oxymoron here is "H1B layoff"

  27. No, it is not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is NOT 1999. People could get big raises back then by changing jobs and they did this many times.

    That is not happening now, pay is stagnating.

    1. Re:No, it is not by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That is not happening now, pay is stagnating.

      Speak for yourself. Unemployment in Silicon Valley is quite low. I got recruiters offering 40% more in pay to jump ship.

  28. Re:Watch the next tech cycle start (Utah) by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

    The problems I can see with living in Utah are 1) the air pollution in SLC is reportedly awful, the worst in the nation in fact, 2) if you're a single guy, there's probably no single women there who aren't religious (and most likely Mormon, even worse), and 3) the local culture is probably rather conservative. There is some really amazing outdoor stuff in Utah, but that's all in *southern* Utah, which is not a close drive from the SLC area. Utah is a huge state, like most western states, but all the population is in the north.

    So I don't really see how that's a better quality-of-life than Silicon Valley:

    I have lived in SLC and I don't think your view of the place matches reality.

    pollution: advantage SV

    SLC has a pollution problem but it is a seasonal problem, it only happens in the winter and only happens when weather conditions are correct (temperature inversion). SV also has a pollution problem but it is year-round, although somewhat mitigated by the sea/land breeze effect.

    singles scene: both bad (but at least what few single women exist in SV are probably not religious or Mormon)

    There are plenty of women in SLC who are not mormon, when I lived there I believe the city was about 50% mormon. That doesn't mean that all 50% are practicing mormons. It shouldn't be too hard to avoid religious people if that is what you want.

    outdoor stuff: a long drive from either place

    Southern Utah is not the only place with outdoor activities. Northern Utah's metro areas are built in the valleys of the Wasatch Mountains which provide a ton of outdoor recreational opportunities like hiking, rock climbing, mountain or road biking, hunting, fishing, boating and some of the world's top ski resorts. All within 1/2-1 hour of SLC.

    local politics: advantage SV (not great, but at least not LDS-dominated)

    SLC is quite liberal, according to Wikipedia 5 of 7 city council members are democrats as well as the mayor. You are correct on the state level, overall the politics are quite conservative. This is good in some ways - state and local taxes are much lower than SV and if you are running your own business you will have less regulation but if you are pretty liberal you might find state politics in Utah not to your liking.

    local culture: advantage SV (again, not dominated by conservative religious nuts; I'll take annoying Fedora-wearing hipsters over religious loons any day)

    I agree, fedora'd hipsters are preferred to religious loons, but what makes you think that the religious loons have anything to do with "local culture"? I'm not sure what you are talking about here, is it plays and operas or is it bars and clubs? Like I mentioned above, the city itself is pretty liberal and offers a variety of entertainment, but being a smaller metro area than SF there probably won't be the huge breadth of options that SV has.

    housing costs: advantage SLC

    Sorry, but there's a lot more to life than housing cost. If you want cheap housing, I can find you lots of places across the country, particularly in the rural Midwest, where housing is dirt cheap. There's no work and almost no local economy and very few people, but hey! housing is cheap!

    Indeed. The trick is to find somewhere with relatively cheap housing combined with a decent local economy. SLC fits the bill somewhat. It is attractive to tech companies, particularly for satellite sites, because of the low costs (rents, utilities, taxes, etc.) and high level of education in relation to the rest of the USA. There are many SV-based companies that have offices in the SLC metro area like Google, eBay, Symantec and EMC.

    Overall, SLC has its good points and bad points but overall it isn't a terrible place to live. If you are looking for somewhere to work a decent tech job without having to pay more than $1 million for a house than you can do worse.

    --

    Enigma

  29. In other news by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    Executive compensation continues its stellar climb unabated.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  30. MCM, CMC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello there

    If you're reading this, it means you've loaded all the comments, probably browsing at a threshold of 0 which means you are intellectually curious and intelligent enough not to freak out the moment Karl Marx is mentioned

    You may have noticed the funny acronyms in the subject. They respectively stand for Money Commodities Money, and Commodities, Money, Commodities

    Capitalist accumulation operates on the MCM cycle, which is to say Money to buy Commodities, the use and sale of which makes more Money

    Proles live by the CMC cycle, to whit that a prole sells their labor which is a Commodity to make Money, in order to buy the Commodities they need to survive

    The point here being that even with a six figure salary in the bay area, the people who just lost their jobs (and also the people who were fortunate enough to keep them) are still proles within capitalism and are treated as such

    The MCM, CMC cycles are mentioned in Volume 1 of Marx's Das Kapital if I remember correctly

    But that's a thick slog, if you're just curious stuff in general and the way things are going in this world, you might want to google "The Fragment on Machines"

  31. Re:Watch the next tech cycle start (Utah) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Utah is a place that rises slowly with the overall tide, but it doesn't really have a solid local economy for tech workers to keep them employed long-term. It has always been an onshoring place like some spots in the south. Historically, it was also a center of telemarketing.

    The problem is that when the Bay Area's tech sector catches a cold, the Utah market flatlines. I should know, I suffered through marginal employment from the burst of the dot-com bubble through 2005 there, then left the state with no intention of ever returning in 2007. It was the best move I ever made because when the housing bubble burst in 2007-2008 the economy there tanked and my friends were back to where we were in the early 00s. The only thing they have going for them is a huge number of young workers willing to work for peanuts that don't have the experience to know how fragile the tech sector is there.

    You're right about the pay situation, too. I noticed that they only pay a good amount for people they bring in, while they refuse to pay locals a decent amount. It's just the local mentality there. If you're there, they know a large fraction of the population would never move, so they can't demand decent pay because the next applicant will gladly take anything to stay there.

  32. What do they need 568 employees for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To act as policemen for the code of conduct, of course. We can't have people creating master / slave architectures, or using heteronormative variable names, can we?

  33. What Bay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You self-absorbed jackholes know that there's more than one bay in the fucking world, right? Quit being so damned arrogant.

  34. You're the one who's messed up here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's nothing wrong with Americans wanting to be Libertarian WITHIN the US Market and society.

    The inconsistent jerks are the ones who want [1] the US Taxpayer and voter provided system of laws and courts, [2] the US intellectual property rights system, [3] the stable economic system and marketplace of the US based on US currency, [4] the US consumer base which includes a huge reasonably stable middle class and, [5] the benefits of supply-and-demand within the US marketplace when it works in their favor (i.e. when they can use shortages to justify price increases) BUT then when those same rules of supply-and-demand mean labor prices should rise, they run-off to communist totalitarian nations to use slave labor to escape capitalism.

    The people who want open borders and unlimited work visas are the worst scum in American politics; They want the system to work in a stable manner when it works for them, and they demand the consumers obey ALL the rules of the system - but then THEY demand the government grant them a special escape hatch so they can avoid their share of the burdens of that very same marketplace and they only experience the "upside". They demand the right to spend unlimited cash and tech resources intervening in politics to put in place the politicians who will enable their cronyism, and they are in bed with the leaders of BOTH parties (Google and Apple: I'm looking at YOU and Obama and Clinton, as much as as the Telcos and the GOPe, or Facebook and Marco Rubio).

  35. Impose tax on corporate revenues by NewYork · · Score: 1

    To promote Entrepreneurs/Startups
    1. Impose tax on corporate revenues, not profits
    2. Regulate market capitalization of corporations
    http://wh.gov/iojPx