Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds (mercurynews.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the perspective-is-everything dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Mercury News: Nine out of every 10 Silicon Valley jobs pays less now than when Netflix first launched in 1997, despite one of the nation's strongest economic booms and a historically low unemployment rate that outpaces the national average. While tech workers have thrived, employees in the middle of Silicon Valley's income ladder have been hit hardest as their inflation-adjusted wages declined between 12 and 14 percent over the past 20 years, according to a study from UC Santa Cruz's Everett Program for Technology and Social Change and the labor think tank Working Partnership USA, which examined the economic impact of technology companies.

Technology workers saw a median wage increase of 32 percent over the past 20 years, the study found. But Silicon Valley workers in virtually all other areas lost ground during that time. Across all jobs, wages for even the highest-paid 10 percent increased just under 1 percent, the study found. Meanwhile, the region's economy has been booming. Since 2001, the amount of money generated per Silicon Valley resident -- the area's per person GDP -- has grown 74 percent, the study found. That's more than five times faster than the equivalent national growth. Also, a smaller percentage of wealth is going to workers. "In 2001, about 64 percent of the money generated in Silicon Valley went to workers," reports Mercury News. "By 2016, that was down to 60 percent. The drop translated to $9.6 billion -- about $8,480 in potential pay and benefits per worker -- that instead went to investors and owners, according to the study."

65 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. I bet "landlord" isn't one of them by grungeman · · Score: 5, Funny

    nuff said

    --

    Signature deleted by lameness filter.
    1. Re:I bet "landlord" isn't one of them by jythie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, gentrification is a major boon for landlords, and since they tend to live far away from the property they own, the rent paid doesn't really cycle back into the local economy very well.

    2. Re:I bet "landlord" isn't one of them by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gentrification:  Turning a slum into a desirable area one house at a time.

    3. Re:I bet "landlord" isn't one of them by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, no. Closer to 'Gentrification : Hey, that is a really nice community you have there, I think we can get the owners to kick you out and give it to us'.

      All these gendrified areas tend to be places where the locals have built something appealing enough that wealthier people want it for themselves, now that it is built.

    4. Re:I bet "landlord" isn't one of them by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Walk the Tenderloin and tell me what wealthier people want that was built there. Is it the tents and sleeping bags on the corners? Or perhaps the piles of feces in doorways? The scattered needles under the trees? Oh, I know, the stolen grocery carts piled by the parking meters!

      The only good thing about the Tenderloin is that it is walking distance to a lot of the tech jobs in Civic Center and SOMA. Walk Nob Hill or Hayes Valley and compare...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:I bet "landlord" isn't one of them by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All these gendrified areas tend to be places where the locals have built something appealing enough that wealthier people want it for themselves, now that it is built.

      That's the key flaw in blaming it on the wealthy people. The locals willingly sold the properties to the wealthy people. If you sell something, of course you don't get a say in what happens to it anymore (political machinations to pass zoning ordinances and rent controls aside). If you don't like what they're gonna do after they buy it, don't sell it to them in the first place.

    6. Re:I bet "landlord" isn't one of them by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Gentrification" is just an attempt to create a pejorative that describes what society actually wants to happen; desirable areas have increasing value.

      If you have no "gentrification" it means that everything is getting worse or staying the same, nothing is getting better. That isn't how progress works.

    7. Re: I bet "landlord" isn't one of them by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      In most places they can just pay the Sheriff to do the "throw out on the street" part, they don't even need to come to town to have that done.

      But OTOH, they do own the land.

      If you want to fight gentrification, the first thing to do is figure out what your position on "private property" is, and then get the necessary changes made to that system in the US. Then you can hope to fight gentrification. With current property rights, most land owners hear "gentrification" and think "increasing land value, yay!" And most middle class people hear, "That neighborhood is turning around, maybe we should try out that new restaurant over there?"

    8. Re:I bet "landlord" isn't one of them by hackertourist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, that's not all it is. Gentrification happens when house values increase at a (much) higher rate than inflation. Houses become less affordable, meaning another area is created where people with lower incomes can't live.

      Gentrification has other drawbacks too, as seen in e.g. San Francisco. Rich people move in, and start using their financial and political clout to shape the neighborhood to their wishes at the expense of the pre-gentrification inhabitants. Sometimes at the expense of the city as a whole too (e.g. the impossibility of building higher-density housing in SF).

  2. All a scam by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2

    Maybe because it is all a big Ponzi scheme?

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:All a scam by Major+Blud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hate being a grammar nazi, but that article in the link looks like it was written by a third grader. There's enough misspellings to make an editor want to kill himself.

      “High prices, which out to be a cost of doing business for them, are actually a key revenue driver,”

      "is telling clients that the start-up economy is has turned into a sophisticated"

      Makes it hard to take seriously.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
  3. Tell me again how controlling immigration is bad ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I never get tired of hearing people say that stuff.

  4. Lessons learned the hard way... by Pollux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know there are a lot of "elementary rules" when it comes to running a business. "Location, location, location", "law of supply and demand", etc. But one corporations in today's day and age just don't seem to get is this one:

    Invest in your employees, and your employees invest in you.

    Modern corporations continue to fester this flawed mentality that every employee is just a cog in the machine; if one breaks, replace it with another. But humans aren't machinery. We have this subconscious that interferes with our ability to work at a constant rate of speed and productivity; it requires sleep for one thing, and it distracts our ability to focus continuously due to emotions which interrupt our concentration. Emotions, including feeling jaded by our employer who decided to give all the new employees a raise, but cut veteran employee bonuses and benefits. Or feeling depressed, because your employer is continually threaten to cut your position and move it to another part of the country if you fail to meet your quota. Et cetera, et cetera.

    Most employers have forgotten now that when employees feel -valued-, their emotion doesn't impede their production, but rather boosts it.

    1. Re:Lessons learned the hard way... by El+Cubano · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Modern corporations continue to fester this flawed mentality that every employee is just a cog in the machine; if one breaks, replace it with another. But humans aren't machinery.

      Not just modern companies. In a graduate software engineering class I took (mumble mumble) years ago we had a rather vigorous discussion about people versus process. That is, if you have a sufficiently sophisticated and well implemented process, do the people matter that much? And the reverse, if you have sufficiently excellent people, does the process matter that much?

      Big companies seem to tilt heavily toward the process side, while small companies and especially start ups seem to tilt heavily toward the people side. Interestingly, start up that get big enough eventually succumb to the sirens of process over people.

      Sadly, none of this is new, nor does it show any real signs of changing.

    2. Re:Lessons learned the hard way... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Employers are not there to coddle employees or provide mental health services to them. It is not a charity and it is most certainly not a hospital or some type of support system. Employers are there to earn a profit on someone's investment, and that is their sole and only function. If you need a support animal to function or constant ego stroking to feel important, consider that perhaps you belong in academia not the private sector.

      Honestly, the idea that corporations exist solely to make a profit is part of what leads to this psychopathy. Corporations should exist to serve the public through the goods and services they can provide, making a profit in the process. If they exist solely to make a profit, or generate value for their shareholders, then they really serve no purpose.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    3. Re:Lessons learned the hard way... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you deliberately break a machine that you bought for a lot of money by skimping on cheap maintenance, you're too dumb to deserve profits.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Lessons learned the hard way... by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a reason for that. People are fundamentally fallible, processes are designed to overcome these problems.

    5. Re:Lessons learned the hard way... by Zak3056 · · Score: 2

      Big companies seem to tilt heavily toward the process side, while small companies and especially start ups seem to tilt heavily toward the people side. Interestingly, start up that get big enough eventually succumb to the sirens of process over people.

      It's not really that interesting.

      When a company is small, "key people" have huge impact--they will literally make or break the business. As a company grows, key people have less of an impact (because the amount of work that they do shrinks relative to the whole amount of work) and the need for consistency drives the company from "El Cubano will have it done by monday" to "All work needs to be executed according to the standard, which is defined by process X."

      Small organizations that are defined by process will die because they will be suffocated by bureaucratic friction, and large organizations that are NOT defined by process will die because they will lack the ability to execute.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    6. Re:Lessons learned the hard way... by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with lessons is not everyone learns the same one. Investors discovered they can still make good short term profits by treating employees like cogs, and a whole host of new tools and practices have been developed to optimize this. The people making the most power over the situation DID learn their lesson and are applying it.

    7. Re:Lessons learned the hard way... by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *nod* people tend to forget : there is no fundamental right for corporations to exist, they are a thing because states and societies decided they were a net benefit to the whole and built a legal framework for them to exist within. That framework could go away if society decides corporations were a net loss.

    8. Re:Lessons learned the hard way... by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Interestingly, start up that get big enough eventually succumb to the sirens of process over people.

      Succumb? No. They realize that relying on individuals is how you go out of business. Processes are stable, and they can undergo a continuous improvement cycle to ensure that they are serving the business well. People aren't necessarily stable, and they can disappear at any time. Or you can find that their skillset no longer is sufficient to support your business.

      We all have worked with "that guy" who was foundational to the company. That guy with the institutional knowledge that the company couldn't operate without. The few times I've seen that guy go, it was massively disruptive to the company.

      Larger companies understand this and design processes to prevent individuals leaving from massively disrupting the company. Smaller companies often don't understand this, and they need to learn that painful and expensive lesson a few times before they truly do.

      I'm all for hiring great people. I'm absolutely not for leaning on them so much that everything collapses when they leave. To prevent that you need processes to capture institutional knowledge and ensure that numerous people have the ability to do subsets of each other's jobs, so that one person leaving doesn't result in a giant hole in what the business can accomplish the next day.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    9. Re:Lessons learned the hard way... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Everybody good and experienced has seen it happen from the inside. The senior managers can't turn down any growth, so they hire seat warmers, completely fucking the teams. It all starts when they hire 'professional HR', that's the kiss of death.

      The growth in business doesn't continue, but staff growth sure does. Soon the technical debt is unsupportable, the original good people are gone and the staff are all gaming some stupid metric.

      My take: Keep growth at a level you can staff for without serious compromise. Unless you can get acquired in the next two years, then fuck those chumps, hire the seat warmers while looking for your next opportunity.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  5. That's not the point by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The rest of the world has done fantastically well since then. You have to get your head around the ideas that are in play here. American elites decided to ruin our middle and working classes for the benefit of hostile people in distant lands. NAFTA, the Iraq war, TPP, they are not running things for the benefit of their own people. Heck, they don't even consider that they have anything in common with us. They are "citizens of the world" and anyone who says Americans are getting screwed is immediately labeled a Nazi and ignored. When you look at the actual goals of our elites, they are accomplishing them. It's just that they decided that they were going to ruin us to achieve them. It's working well so far.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:That's not the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's just that they decided that they were going to ruin us to achieve them. It's working well so far.

      Americans ruined themselves by voting hard right parties into office, the fact that someone like you claims elites sold you out when you gullibly believed in republican and democrats corporate bullshit tells us all we need to know. Nothing short of a movement of working folk from below would ever get the elites to look out for you. Your one of the most ignorant people on slashdot. A delusional right wing retard who doesn't seem to get, the more hard right you become, the more you are screwing yourself, right wing ideology is the ideology of elites and big business. But you are so drowning in your own idiocy and dunning krueger that you can't tell which end is up down there.

      Americans learned nothing from their own history, the new deal was probably the best thing to ever happen to americans, and the next generations afterward gullibly believed whatever corporate right wing talking points your media and talk radio hosts in spades because they don't read nor study history.

      When the banks got bailed out you voted republicans back into office a giant wtf, americans are pretty much shit for brains. You had your banks bailed out in front of your eyes and yet you still vote for the arms of big business. The demopublican duo.

    2. Re:That's not the point by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This makes no sense, what motivation would "American elites" have for benefiting "hostile people in distant lands"?

      No, businesses did it to benefit themselves of course. It's been happening since about 1980, productivity has continued to rise but wages have not kept pace. Combined with tech being a relatively young industry which is still rapidly evolving (meaning that once rare skills are now more common, and things like Javascript frameworks on machines with 8GB of RAM dramatically lowered the bar to entry) and you have your explanation.

      Speaking of political extremists, take a look at your own language. You probably didn't intend it, but you are echoing some very unpleasant people with those phrases.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:That's not the point by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Elites basically came up with this: labor is commoditized as mobile capital is free to roam the globe for the lowest cost labor. In contrast, labor is far less mobile, and unable to shift as fluidly and frictionlessly as capital to exploit scarcities and opportunities.

      Neoliberalism--the opening of markets and borders--enables capital to effortlessly crush labor. Our elites, in embracing globalism, have institutionalized a system that shreds the scarcity value of domestic labor in favor of lower cost foreign labor that serves capital's desire for lower costs.

      For someone who is professional class, someone who has a nice income and who does NOT make their income from labor but from providing intellectual services (doctors, lawyers, teachers, white collar work in general) then moving production overseas is overall a plus. THEIR job is usually not threatened by factories closing and jobs being exported overseas and their costs go down as labor wages go down due to cheap crap from China. In other words, globalization leads to a net INCREASE in take home pay for the professional and upper classes. (Always has)

      However, if you are an average working class American, then your incomes and your throats are being cut by the huge influx of new, cheap junk. Working class jobs are being destroyed by low income labor at one end and automation at the other, leaving working class voters angry and broke and with no place to go.

      That's where the backlash is coming from, and that's why so many upper income people can't see any problem with it. It's the old old problem of the landed gentry and the nobility looking down their noses at all of those stinking deplorable peasants, all over again.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:That's not the point by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

      American elites decided to ruin our middle and working classes for the benefit of themselves.

      FTFY.

      Things did NOT get better in Mexico with NAFTA. Our cheap corn imports wrecked their economy and the low paying manufacturing jobs are poisoning them. Meanwhile our drug war has made a mess of their country and their neighbor's countries.

      China didn't get better because of us, they industrialized. Industrialization and the modernization that goes with it is overall a good thing. But the relentless drive for cheap consumer goods is preventing their working class from organizing and demanding better wages. America has become dependent on cheap Chinese goods for our own economic security because it's the only thing offsetting the constant drop in wages TFA is talking about.

      The solution isn't isolationism or trade wars. It's Unionization & worker solidarity across borders. Demand a higher standard of living for the Mexicans and the Chinese and it'll raise yours too. You're trapped in a race to the bottom. The only winning move is not to play.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  6. Population growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In that time period, SV has also added half a million people (2.5M -> 3M). It could be that those new residents represent an influx of lower-paid workers (remember, the SF boom happened after 2000). So it would be useful to know how the makeup of jobs has changed. If tech jobs are a lower percentage of total employment now than in 1997 (an increase in lower-paid jobs "diluting" the tech salaries), then it would appear that wages are declining in real terms.

    A better study would consider whether the pay of specific job types has changed since 1997.

  7. Re: Netflix launched in 1997? by Wallace487 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I can't tell if you're joking, but Netflix started as DVD rental by mail service. It was several years before they added a streaming component.

  8. Bastille Day by AndyKron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At some point all of this is going to come to a head. Like Bastille Day.

  9. Not surprise... by PortHaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Corporate America is endeavoring to lead us into neo-Feudalism.

  10. DotCom hysteria? by slashcross · · Score: 2

    So tech workers now, who are very numerous, are making less then tech workers during the peak of the DotCom hysteria, when they were quite scarce? Shocking.

    --
    Slashdot your i and slashcross your t.
  11. 1997 - Peak Y2K by anvilmark · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Businesses were throwing wheel-barrels of money at Y2K conversions at that point.

    1. Re:1997 - Peak Y2K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, not really. I was well into a 15+ year career back then. I started at a new company just after the 1996 Olympics finished up. In 1997 it was on the company mind to start testing if things were going to break starting at Y2k, but all out rewrites of software didn't start happening until the start of 1999.

      Oh, and I am only now starting to make the kind of money that I did in the late 1990's, almost another 20 years later. Within a month of September 2001 entire IT departments were being laid off at lots of companies. I went 9 months in 2002 without a single call back on a computer job. I took other retail jobs at 1/3 of what I was making just to survive. Finally in early 2005 I got a call for a computer job and took it at less than 1/2 of what I was making in the 1990's.

      It has taken until now to claw my way back to making the money I did in the 90's.

  12. It isn't just Sillicon valley by Hasaf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Real wages have been down for decades, and no, the Trump tax cut didn't change that https://www.bls.gov/news.relea...

    I have an MBA and I cannot afford to pay for the house I grew up in. My father paid for it on a single wage and hadn't finished college. It is easy to see where the culprits are: a high reliance on imports for manufactured goods and a significantly large share of earnings being diverted away from labour and going to the highest earners.

    1. Re:It isn't just Sillicon valley by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      I have an MBA and I cannot afford to pay for the house I grew up in. My father paid for it on a single wage and hadn't finished college.

      Shouldn't said house be paid off by now.....?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:It isn't just Sillicon valley by supercell · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Your father paid for it on a single income, because before the 1970's, not every woman was compelled to work.

      When you effectively double the labor force, without increasing demand for large goods (homes, cars, appliances, etc), inflation skyrockets (1970/80's). Now most every household requires two incomes. Nice job feminist.

    3. Re:It isn't just Sillicon valley by dasunt · · Score: 2

      I have an MBA and I cannot afford to pay for the house I grew up in. My father paid for it on a single wage and hadn't finished college. It is easy to see where the culprits are: a high reliance on imports for manufactured goods and a significantly large share of earnings being diverted away from labour and going to the highest earners.

      Why do manufacturing imports make the middle class poorer?

      I know it's a popular idea that exports make us strong, imports make us rich, but that basically boils down to mercantilism. Mercantilism sounds good (we're richer off if other nations gives us gold in order to buy our goods), but as Adam Smith himself pointed out, that's confusing money with wealth.

  13. And some friends wonder by ReneR · · Score: 2

    why I don't work at Apple, ;-) Loving living in cheap Berlin, Germany ,-)

    1. Re:And some friends wonder by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This.

      I now make about 2/3 of what I could earn in that Silly Valley. But I paid about 100k for my house and have living expenses of roughly 1000 bucks a month.

      In other words, I have more money left at the end of the month. Despite our crazy high "socialist" taxes.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Re:Tell me again how controlling immigration is ba by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's got very little to do with immigration, and everything to do with development work getting easier and more common as a profession. Back in 1997 it was much harder than it is today, with modern frameworks and sandboxes to play in like the browser. Back then web apps were CGI scripts written in C++, and Javascript was only two years old and far from widely supported or standardized.

    It would be strange if modern JS developers were getting paid as much as C++ people in 1997. There are far more JS developers, it's a far easier job. This is what happens as industries mature and the barriers to entry are lowered, and the skills required become more mainstream.

    Today if you want the big bucks you need rare skills, like embedded or AI research.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  15. Re:Obama by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Competition is always good.

    Yep, that's why I'm sleeping with your wife! Step up your game, man!

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  16. Re:uh.......quit. by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    And when all companies decide unilaterally that they have a certain cap on what they will pay? Then what do you do.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  17. Re:Tell me again how controlling immigration is ba by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I worked in the valley, at a variety of places, there were never more than 5% of workers born in the US. 95% immigrants. Yeah, I think that affects wages just a little bit.

    And don't forget, in the late 1990s you had "webmasters" and "HTML developers" who were fare less skilled than JS guys.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  18. Tell me again how UNIONS are bad ? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is why you unionize. So workers get a larger share of the profits.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
    1. Re:Tell me again how UNIONS are bad ? by jythie · · Score: 2

      The problem with unions is they make it hard to sell out your fellow workers, so as long as you richly reward a few you can point to unions and say 'see, you all have a chance at this brass ring, but the union would take that away!' and people will avoid them in the hopes they can make a little more than others.

  19. Re:Tell me again how controlling immigration is ba by alvinrod · · Score: 2

    It’s kind of funny to read about how the U.S. is dying when you still have loads of people trying to come here. All the funnier is that it’s often from of the same places where they implemented systems to try to solve that supposed greed reigns supreme problem you think the west has.

    Tech jobs have seen wages grow, which suggests the problem is likely related in some way to an influx of low skill labor that will work cheap or even under the table for below minimum wage. This concern is hardly a red herring.

  20. It was the .COM economy. by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    The late 1990's was full of stupid.
    What was the real driving force was the Y2K scare. The Year 2000 was approaching. A lot of businesses running mainframes which were decades old had the choice, of updating their software to handle the 4 digit years, get new systems, or both.
    BY the late 1990's with the 486 and the Pentium Chip in place as a solid 32 bit platform their decade(s) old mainframes needed to be upgraded anyways, and might as well go with the cheap Desktop systems which were arguable more powerful (in many aspects) and being cheaper then a Dumb Terminal, they could get more of them.
    So A bunch of Companies and people were getting new computers having new computers all in the same same time. With everyone getting a new computer and finally upgrading their Old Apple II, Commodore 64, and IBM XT (And compatibles) (The big names in America) They now were on the Same OS (windows), with similar hardware, which supported TCP/IP and modem speeds exceeding the 14.4k with was enough to browse the internet with small pictures. This got people hooking onto the Internet. Often with Services such as AOL.

    Now with the Consumers and Businesses all on similar protocols. Businesses could actually use the internet for commerce. So other then hiring tech workers to fix Y2k and get the new systems working for business, they were also trying to find people who could manage this new World Wide Web Thing.
    So there was a shortage of Tech Workers, Companies bent over backwards to keep them hired, even if they couldn't afford it, because they hoped to get a strong foothold before they had to pay all the bills. Also a lot of these tech guys were starting their own businesses because it was so easy to get customers at the time. So there was a High Demand and Low supply. Thus high paying jobs. Like over 50k a year for a Microsoft Front Page web designer.

    Now what happened?
    The Clinton Administration seeing the low supply and high demand decided to open the H1B for more tech workers. While with hind sight this was a bad idea, but at the time, it seemed the only logical thing to do. Because there was so much demand that such shortage in tech workers could bring the economy to a halt, Especially if y2k turned out so bad.
    So this increased supply, then after y2k people got all their new systems and everything was upgraded. So the economy Upgrade Schedule was in sync. and from 2002-2006 the Tech bubble popped. Demand dropped with extra supply from the H1B. Companies tried to save money, by prolonging their upgrades, and Trying to outsource all IT work with very cheap labor. Around the 2005-2010 time frame, Outsourcing had stabilized, realizing that outsourcing wasn't as cheap as it seemed, and also a lot of jobs didn't scale well. So the Tech industry recovered a bit, Then the great Recession of 2008 hit. While Tech workers were effected less then other sectors, it was still hit. The Recovery wasn't really in effect until around 2012. However now a few Tech Giants had firmly gained Ground, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft. The big guys now hold a lot of the keys, and with Cloud being popular method of deployment The demand for the Little guy Tech worker was needed less and less. So while it is better then after the Tech Bubble pop, it isn't like it was during peak bubble of 1997.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  21. They don't need to invest in you by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they've got the H1-B program. They can pit you against workers from around the globe. Workers who trained themselves. Billions of them. So many that a few are bound to work out. Plus they can work them 80+ hours a week and not worry about burnout since there's a 100+ guys right behind them and behind those 100 guys is you.

    This is what happens when workers get too confident in their abilities to start to think they can make it on their own. A single employee can't effectively negotiate with a mega corporation unless that employee is in the top 10% of geniuses, and, well, the reality is 90% of us aren't. If we were we'd know that, because 100-10=90...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They don't need to invest in you by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Billions of them?

      I've migrated for work myself, as well as working in my country of citizenship. Never really felt I was competing with these billions of self taught people... It was always down to my skills being a good fit for the company and us agreeing on a salary.

      I don't think I'm exceptional, not in the top 10% of geniuses. The UK's immigration system is apparently too lax. I compete directly with people from eastern Europe, Poles and Bulgarians and Romanians who thanks to freedom of movement don't even need to apply for a visa, they just book a cheap flight.

      Managers don't just want the cheapest though, they want someone good. If they get someone not so good it ends up reflecting badly on them.

      If there is an issue in SV it sounds like it's because there are too many people in SV. I think US employment laws are partly to blame too. In Europe it's much harder to fire people so there is more effort put in to hiring someone good in the first place, and not just getting the cheapest warm body.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  22. Re:Tell me again how controlling immigration is ba by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can you give some examples of companies that have 95% immigrant worker populations?

    I've heard his claim made about companies like Google and Intel, but their own stats paint a very different picture.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  23. Hardcore conservatives didn't want a bailout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hardcore conservatives didn't want a bank bailout. The banks had made bad some decisions, which came back to bite them. Irresponsible companies deserve to bankrupt. The House Republicans vetoed the first bailout. Then the media started its panic and W said, "It's gonna blow." Banks spread their money across DC, and the second time, the bailout passed with BIPARTISAN support.

  24. Re:Tell me again how controlling immigration is ba by lgw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The big companies seem to be more like 80% (talking about developers, not employees). Not going to give my job history on slashdot, but one small company I worked at had, before I was hired, no native-born tech people of any kind, excepting the VP of development. At the time they got bought they had 30 US employees and about 100 in India (devs etc, not talking about support), and 2 of us were born in the US (plus one technical non-dev). The acquiring company forced out everyone senior who wasn't Indian in the most blatant racism I've yet seen. Even the Nepalese guy got pressured out.

    In the large company I worked at before that the numebrs were about the same: 30/100 US/India split, with 2 US-born devs (plus 2 managers).

    When I worked at Amazon (which was Seattle, not Silly Valley) our group of 50 or so needed 3 people who could get top secret clearance. Problem was, we only had 3 devs who were born in the US, and I wasn't interested. Amazingly, the "we're trying to recruit US citizens, we just can't find qualified people" hiring process suddenly found another 3 qualified US devs over the next 6 months. Amazing coincidence, really.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  25. Re:Tell me again how controlling immigration is ba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Itâ(TM)s kind of funny to read about how the U.S. is dying when you still have loads of people trying to come here.

    Its a relativity problem. You see, if the whole continent is sinking into the sea, people clamour to the high land, even though its also doomed and sinking just as fast. Eventually everyone ends up crammed on the highest peak when that finally goes under.

    You are watching people running for the highest hill and construing it as a sign of that hill's innate supremacy over the low-lands. The flood won't be nearly so impressed when it gets there.

    In other terms: the US has accumulated an undue share of global wealth (by a myriad of reasons, prominently featuring luck, malignancy, savagery, brutality and kleptocracy, which would take ages to go over) and therefore looks like the tallest peak where to shelter from the global disaster. Also many, if not most migrants only care about their next meal and long-term planning does not figure much in their actions.

    The collapse of the economic house of cards, Ponzi scheme, or whatever name you give to the scam is in fact imminent and global. All the metrics you care to look into point firmly to a crisis of massive proportions that will hit hardest in the places which consider themselves most lofty and untouchable. As such catastrophes usually do.

    Or to put it yet another way, hordes of people were immigrating to the US on the very Wednesday right before the Black Thursday too.

  26. Re:Why do they reference Netflix when it covers al by pauljlucas · · Score: 2

    I would assume they referenced Netflix to give the reader a sense of time. It's like saying "Company X, founded when Hayes was President, ..."

    --
    If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  27. If you can get that machine cheaply for for free by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    subsidized by somebody else then no, you're not dumb. You're doing something perfectly rational. I think the phrase is "tragedy of the commons" but I could be wrong.

    Workers are now paying for their own educations thanks to massive cuts to state and federal college funding.

    Also, cheap work visas let you get workers trained overseas. These workers are either trained by their governments or (again) often on their own time/dime because of the intensely competitive economies they come from. India is especially bad about this as they've got a massive educated class and not nearly enough to do with them.

    What I'm saying is that workers have been made into disposable commodities. But pride keeps us from facing that harsh reality head on and taking the steps needed to mitigate the damage (read: Unionize and solidarity).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  28. They aren't talking about tech workers by magzteel · · Score: 2

    No point in thrashing about H1-B's. From TFA

    "Technology workers saw a median wage increase of 32 percent over the past 20 years, the study found. But Silicon Valley workers in virtually all other areas lost ground during that time. Across all jobs, wages for even the highest-paid 10 percent increased just under 1 percent, the study found."

  29. Re:Tell me again how controlling immigration is ba by guruevi · · Score: 2

    Employees, not contractors. Contractors are not Human Resources, they're literally counted as an expense like a computer or a software license subscription.

    That's why companies love contractors, they don't have to do a bunch of paperwork like pension funding or worry about compliance to various frameworks. When it comes to liability it's a "third party vendor" to blame and it doesn't count towards your H1B and other statistics.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  30. Re:Tell me again how controlling immigration is ba by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

    It's got very little to do with immigration, and everything to do with development work getting easier and more common as a profession.

    If it had nothing to do with immigration, companies wouldn't work so hard to bring in cheaper employees from abroad. But they do.

    If it had nothing to do with immigration, nobody would squawk when we said "OK, we have enough now. We don't need anymore H1Bs, etc." But they do squawk.

  31. No by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    because they won't release those stats. They use contractors to hide it. The published stats are for FTEs. A huge part of the reason to use contractor firms for that is to hide those stats.

    Anecdotally the last 4 places I've worked at are pushing 80%.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  32. Re:H1-B by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

    RTFA. This is not caused by H1-Bs. Salaries for tech workers have gone up, and according to TFA they are "thriving". Tech salaries are up 32% after adjusting for inflation.

    What TFA is talking about is everyone else. People that work in Sunnyvale grocery stores, or San Jose car dealerships, or Palo Alto restaurants. It is workers in the non-tech economy that are doing poorly, and those people aren't competing with H1-Bs.

  33. Re:I don't think gentrification is the problem by Bengie · · Score: 2

    and destroyed what little they had in their 401ks

    401ks rarely get destroyed, just temporarily devalued. Eventually the market corrects itself and you're back to normal. Unless you decided to sell low and cash out during a crash, which is stupid. The value of my 401k nearly doubled during the 2008 crash, just by using the general "index" investment options. Market crashes are rare opportunities to buy really low.

  34. That screed of yours recalls a Heinlein quote by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In other terms: the US has accumulated an undue share of global wealth (by a myriad of reasons, prominently featuring luck, malignancy, savagery, brutality and kleptocracy, which would take ages to go over) and therefore looks like the tallest peak where to shelter from the global disaster. Also many, if not most migrants only care about their next meal and long-term planning does not figure much in their actions.

    VS Heinlein

    “Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

    Robert A Heinlein

    You are right about something. The U.S. is dangerously close to allowing that kind of bad luck here, and if we go it will be the collapse of Rome all over again.

  35. Re:Tell me again how controlling immigration is ba by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Don't conflate "white" with US-born.

    ... and don't conflate "brown" with foreign.

    Santa Clara County was one of the main areas settled by refugees from the Vietnam War. That was over 40 years ago. Those refugees now have US-born adult children and grandchildren. So that Vietnamese guy in the next cubicle is most likely a native born US citizen.

    Santa Clara County has a Chinese community that dates back to the construction of the Union Pacific Railroad, and a Hispanic community that goes back centuries before that.

  36. Re:You'd get fired for that by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    You sound like your starting to understand what we think of you?

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'