| ▲ | cal_dent 8 hours ago |
| I think there's something quite interesting (well to me anyway) where if you go by the internet, there is this bloodbath (slight exaggeration perhaps but feels like that) in jobs out in the US, UK, Aus and major European countries (the volume of anecdotes & complaints would suggest a significant downturn in employment) but out in the official data, and less so but still true in the real world, things are still bobbing along. Not great guns but still ok. The interesting thing is how much is internet chatter a leading signal for this thing now than in previous cycles? Outside of the unique circumstances of covid, we've never had, to my knowledge, a notable downturn when social media, and all the chatter it generates, has been so prominent or mass engaged. How much of it is just internet noise vs canary in the coal mine stuff. Who knows? But curious to find out in coming months/year |
|
| ▲ | markus_zhang 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Reality is not particularly rosy for new graduates AFAIK. If I lose my job, I wouldn't be super surprised that I might never get a similar job for the rest of my life -- it is not that I do not have the skills, but 1) the amount of time for a laid off SDE to get a new job could reach to years, not months, so I need to do something else to earn $$$, and 2) why are companies going to hire me, who have gap years and are older, but not some fresh graduates who can work 80 hours per week and only demand half of the salary? And yes I believe this time it's going to be different. I believe that if the economy dumps again, we are really going to see more hot wars. It is different from 2001, and different from 2008. We have kicked the can for almost 20 years and I kudos the policy makers who managed to achieve this. |
| |
| ▲ | bluGill 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I have heard that story every few years for the last 30. I know when it is your personal situation things are hard, but your story is nothing new and people recover. Some get back into whatever their degree was, others start a new career and never do. this will happen again. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >and people recover. So you read nothing about how graduates during 2008 pretty much had forever stunted careers? They aren't put on the streets, but it's clear some very long term damage is being done to people simply as a matter of bad luck. | | |
| ▲ | thewebguyd 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > So you read nothing about how graduates during 2008 pretty much had forever stunted careers? Myself included. Graduated in '08, had to work various minimum wage jobs in retail for several years because no one was hiring. I'm just now at a point in my career, nearing 40, where I should have been at 28. Degree doesn't matter much when your only work experience is 5 years of working at Starbucks, and you barely have personal projects because you're too busy working 2 jobs to just to survive. Those of us who suffered through that time period barely recovered, and many didn't recover at all. It shaped an entire generation. | | |
| ▲ | smileson2 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm a little older but I have found it strange how well economic crisis has been almost wiped from our collective memories it was a horrible period and I have many friends who are in the same boat especially those not in software | | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think it is wiped from memories because it very specifically affected one or two years of college graduates (that had the experience the parent comment mentioned). Not an entire generation. The data shows millennials as a whole are better off than boomers were at their age. | | |
| ▲ | mvr123456 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The data shows millennials as a whole are better off than boomers were at their age. Perhaps true if you go east far enough, seems objectively wrong for the majority of the west though. Honest question, if you think this and it isn't just rage bait.. what data supports it? Scott Galloway disagrees and offers hard data, and goes as far as calling it intergenerational theft. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E | | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Perhaps true if you go east far enough, seems objectively wrong for the majority of the west though. Much of the (American) millennials generation believes a story that they’re worse off. I feel it is a convenient story for people to tell themselves and blame someone else for their perceived losses. But I pulled up several articles supporting my claim with a quick search, even though the opposite narrative is more widespread. Example article about how inflation adjusted net worth is higher for millennials than it was for boomers at the same age: https://www.newsweek.com/millennials-financially-better-off-... Galloway isn’t necessarily wrong in the individual data points he raises. But if you look at the sum of all of the factors - higher rents, more student debt, etc but also the positive things - the net worth in the end is higher for millennials. And remember this is inflation adjusted already. | | |
| ▲ | Den_VR 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The numbers that interest me are comparing home ownership rates at various ages between the generational groups Lots of research shows about a 8-10% gap, that only at very specific ages finally achieved parity. The consequence of this is a difference in wealth building, economic security, and family planning for millions. | | |
| ▲ | aianus an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | To add to that, an unemployed 28 year old living with his parents in the house that they own is a "homeowner" in most of these homeowner stats. | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why does home ownership on its own matter? Net worth is inclusive of housing and assets and debt. And net worth is a direct measure of the wealth that is being built. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because homes are pretty much the only asset a millenial would have at that time that would have grown over time. a 08-9 graducate wouldn't really have much money to spar for stocks unless they made really lucky bets or happened to mine a fewbitcoin they forgot about. Most all else would have inflated or depreciated. | |
| ▲ | aianus an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As a thought experiment would you not feel (much) poorer if houses suddenly cost >$5 million tomorrow and you didn't own one yet? Even if everything else cost the same? Even if everything else cost the same and your net worth went up $100k? | |
| ▲ | actionfromafar 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Someone posted this already but a more useful "net worth" is how big of a shock can take without paying multiples on the sticker price. And even homes are now sieving into institutional buyers. https://medium.com/newco/your-financial-shock-wealth-4845e6d... | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | aydyn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've read this as well, heres an economist article with a graph: https://archive.ph/Y3vvz However, there are certainly a lot of conflicting studies and data out there. And to be honest, it doesnt feel true given how much young people complain on the internet. Its hard to see which asserion is correct. It isnt necessarily correct just because one study says its so. | |
| ▲ | orwin an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's the average. Please compare the median wealth (especially seeing the absurd paper wealth of crypto bro and stock influencers who are almost exclusively millennials). [Edit] also inflation is calculated based on average consumption. So you will notice that toys, clothing and electronic devices (TVs, cooking robots), all cheaper and cheaper (due to enshitiffication and quality decrease) count more for inflation than education, cars, housing and probably a lot of other stuff a 25-35 yo care more about. |
|
| |
| ▲ | AngryData 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | A lot of the data used to claim millenials are doing better off is based on nonsense like "millenials have larger TVs on average" or "millenials all have smart phones yet boomers didn't have mobile phones", or equating 1 person making 3 times the median wage and 2 people making nothing as just as good as 3 different people making median wage. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | pyuser583 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | sorry your math seems strange. You graduated from college in ‘08 - 17 years ago. You’re nearing 40. So let’s say you graduated at 23 … you’ve only had a college level job for five years? The economy has been moving upward since 2013 - 12 years ago. What were you doing from 2013 to 2020? I ask because I also graduated around ‘08. I’ve been a software developer since 2016. I’m currently a senior dev with almost a decade of experience. There were really crappy years to start with, but I feel I’ve made up for it substantially. My own parents graduated in the late 70s during a terrible economic recession. It seems weathering economic recessions have been a tradition for several generations. I still remember articles almost identical to the ones I see now; “this generation is screwed and there is no possible salvation.” It’s getting old. | |
| ▲ | Den_VR 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I'm just now at a point in my career, nearing 40, where I should have been at 28. What or who is the standard for where you “should have been at 28?” |
| |
| ▲ | adamredwoods 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Here's the study on that: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology/article/77/4/78... >> Across a generation’s life course, early-life advantages are magnified through disparate occupational and social trajectories that lead to wide late-life disparities in financial and health resources, in a process first termed by Crystal and Shea as one of “cumulative advantage and disadvantage” (CAD; Crystal, 1982, 1986, 2020; Crystal et al., 1992, 2017; Crystal & Shea, 1990b; Dannefer, 1987, 1988). Dannefer (1987) described the trend of increasing inequality over the life course as the “Matthew effect,” applying a biblical dictum first used by Merton (1968), stating that “to he who has much, more is given, and to he who has little, even that is taken.” This ongoing process has also been described as an “obdurate tendency” for increasing inequality over the life course (Dannefer, 2020). | |
| ▲ | Saigonautica 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean, it caused me to emigrate to a growth economy. If I stayed in the West, I don't think I would have been OK. |
| |
| ▲ | reactordev 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I was going to say this. Money comes, money goes, that’s life. Ideally you’re smart enough to save and invest to weather these storms but for those (like myself) that are still working hard post 40, we know it’s all part of the game. I tell the younger generation the same thing. Save, invest, max 401k, before you go off and party. Your older self will thank you. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You telling someone with 50k in debt, turning in 1000's or job apps struggling to find a job they studied 4+ years for and not being able to even pay rent to "just save"... is exactly how we got into this situation to begin with. | | |
| ▲ | ethin 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm literally one of these people. My only work experience is a GSoC internship in 2021. I have yet to get hired and I've been looking for 4 years, graduated in 2022 right before ChatGPT came out. I've had no choice but to become a generalist as a consequence, and over the last year or two my interviews have dropped to zero and absolutely none of the advice I've gotten from anybody has helped. Just my personal experience. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, I'm really sorry this happened. I'm managing a bit better since I graduated in 2017, but I still pretty much had my senior trajectory yoinked from under me. The market is completely different now than back when I graduated. I don't really have any advice for the present. We're in a storm, so do what you need to weather it. If there's any downtime you do have, use it to prepare for when (if?) the market bounces back: 1. Network. Nothing serious but just get to know people in your area. Keep in contact and they might one day have an in for some work. 2. work on personal projects. They aren't being looked at now, but it'll help you stand out when the market corrects itself. 3. consider some adjacent skillsets. At some point, if this last longer than any of us expect, it may be best to vouch for yourself. learning some graphic design can help you sell your own apps or make websites for others. Learning some art can help you sell games. embrace the generalization and be able to take small products from start to finih by youself. If you don't want to get completely out, you may want to start shaping your career around being your own boss instead of relying on others to employ you. 4. take care of your physical health. I don't know your body, and you may already be doing this. But it's always important to remind people (especially in a field like tech) that sometimes a breath of fresh air and 10 minutes of walking can make all the difference. Don't let yourself get cooped up. Best of luck out there. |
|
| |
| ▲ | karlshea 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm gonna have to hold your hand when I tell you this: when you tell the younger generation to "save" or "invest" they are going to walk away from that conversation knowing they were just speaking with one of the most mind-numbingly naive Olds they're going to encounter in probably the next several months. Please, if you ever want any respect from anyone younger than you ever again in your entire life, do not say those words again. | | |
| ▲ | reactordev 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | At some point you are going to have to grow up and take matters into your own hands instead of blaming everyone for your situation. I’m not old. Just wise. | | |
| ▲ | cjs_ac 27 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I appreciate the point you're trying to make, and I agree taking responsibility for one's own life circumstances is the only way to improve them, but surely you understand that 'save and invest' is wholly unsuitable advice for someone with no disposable income or no income at all. | | |
| ▲ | reactordev 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Who else is responsible for you? You have two options. Continue to point fingers and complain and be broke, or start putting $100/mo in VOO and save what little money you have for your future? I know it sucks. I know income inequality is huge. I know the only way out of this is to put in sweat equity. I know the only way to put food on the table is to have a second job at a gas station. I’ve been there. However, as much as you DON’T want to hear it - the only way out of your mess is by you working your way out of your mess. |
| |
| ▲ | watwut an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | They cant fix the economy singlehandly. Blaming individuals for systemic problems is just avoidance. | | |
| ▲ | reactordev 39 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The only thing they can control is themselves and their habits though. I’m not avoiding the fact that the economy is fucked. I’m fully aware. It’s up to you how much you’re willing to continue to pay or what you’re willing to sacrifice. It sucks, but the only thing you can control is yourself. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | goodolddays9090 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm a bit over 40, not liking parts of my FAANG job, worried I'll lose it, and worried no where in the industry is as fun as 12 years ago, but being on the low end of Fat FIRE makes it a lot easier. | | |
| ▲ | aaronblohowiak 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | FI is more valuable than RE. After three years or so I got the itch again and decided to self fund my own thing. Also looking back on around 10 years ago more fondly.. | | |
| ▲ | goodolddays9090 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah; I've heard a few people say versions of you get bored if you retire early, and I've soon to be retirees talk about how the people they know who retired to go do nothing just wasted away. I like tech; my challenge now is finding a gig with interesting work and a good work-life balance and p75 pay. That, and knowing when I actually have enough net worth to have more freedom. The problem is you never think it's enough, but not because of greed, but because of fear. | | |
| ▲ | chickensong 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Boredom is a personality trait IMHO. Some of us never get bored, there's only lack of time and funds for hobbies and exploring. |
| |
| ▲ | goodolddays9090 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Also looking back on around 10 years ago more fondly When the work didn't suck and the product didn't suck. |
| |
| ▲ | cwbriscoe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Being FI helped me out greatly in December 2020 when My company laid off half of my team and expected me to take on double the load, including lots of extra after hours on-call support. I had a pretty great time not working for ~3 years during Covid. However, I am back to work after an old friend and boss offered me a WFH job that I couldn't refuse. He has since retired so I will stick around until current management pisses me off again, they downsize me or I just get sick of logging into teams/outlook at 7AM every morning. |
| |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I tell the younger generation the same thing. Save, invest, max 401k, before you go off and party. Your older self will thank you. 401k max is $24,500. How much do you expect a person to earn to be able to max it out? And what percentile income is that at the bottom and top of the age range you consider “young”? https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-age-calculator/ Tldr: you are telling almost every 20 to 30 year old to not party. | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Others are criticizing you but the reality is that people usually spend more and save less than they could. There are plenty of people with modest income who manage to build a decent retirement. But it takes discipline. You have to be okay with sacrificing for the future. | | |
| ▲ | raffraffraff 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As an "Old" who was a kid in the late 70s to early 90s, I'm telling young folks that there is no first world poverty like there was then. Not just because "we" were poor, but because you couldn't get "stuff" anyway. Like, the biggest TV I ever saw back them was 25". Nobody had a computer. Unemployment across the board was high. I saw my first kiwi fruit or avocado when I was 10. Clothes were expensive (even thrift / store brand). "Stuff" of any kind was expensive or non existent. Yesterday my BIL threw a perfectly working tower PC in the recycling because he couldn't find anyone (not even a charity shop) to take it. Last time I was at e-waste I saw half a dozen 42 inch TVs that I'm willing to bet we're working. However we were wealthy in one way: we had a stable home, and optimism. I may have had old clothes, one pair of worn shoes and a 4th-hand uncool bicycle, but there was no question of ever losing the roof over my head. And there was a future that looked like it was full of possibilities. "Stuff" was getting cheaper and more available. I remember our family being able to afford our first microwave oven. Our first VCR (1991). We didn't get rich, things got cheaper. Today, it's like we're looking at the future as if we're already post-peak, and it's all downhill from here. There's tons of stuff around but nobody wants it. People have also lost the positive attitude, optimism. It'll get you through a lot of bad times. Years and years of shit. Lose optimism, and it's all bleak no matter how big your TV is. If I could choose a safe to be reborn in, I'd take "our" poverty of the past over this. | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >the reality is that people usually spend more and save less than they could. You can't save your way out of rent being 70, 80+% of your paycheck. For my area, minimum wage is $18 and your best hope for rent is sharing a $3k 2 bedroom apartment. quick napkin math suggests $2400 take home pay and ~$1800 eaten up between the rent split, utilities, gas, and the most basic rice and beans diet of "groceries". Not even including potential health insurance or car notes or student loans. If you don't have the fortune of a family who'd house you for free/dirt cheap then you don't have much to save. You're already sacrificing for the present. |
|
| |
| ▲ | markus_zhang 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I pray you are right and I'm wrong. But I do have reasons to believe that this time is a bit different. | |
| ▲ | onion2k 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In all the previous job market contractions the root cause has been money - increasing costs, less investment capital, etc. This is the first time the root cause appears to be tech (if you believe the announcements about layoffs). That makes it different. | | |
| ▲ | nradov 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nah. It's not different. Money in the tech industry has always chased the hype cycle. We're approaching the peak of inflated expectations for LLMs and then in a few years the AI industry will crash into the trough of disillusionment. That doesn't mean that LLMs are useless but in many sectors of the real economy they will have only a slow and limited impact. https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartner-hy... | | |
| ▲ | aydyn 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Its just so weird how demonstrably insane the hype cycle this time around is. Everytime I think ChatGPT and Gemini are improving, it hits me with some monstrously stupid hallucinations. Here's how my conversation with GPT 5.1 went this afternoon: >Can you please provide a reference for the assertion you just made >Sure, here it is: <link> > 404, please double check > I apologize for the mistake, I have double checked, here is the corrected link: <link> > Still 404, please always double check a link by actually visiting and reading it x5 before I gave up. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | sheepscreek 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > but not some fresh graduates who can work 80 hours per week and only demand half of the salary Cause garbage in, gets garbage out. With AI models being all the more rage in the coming years, unexperienced hires will prove many times more costly. (10x garbage with agents). So companies are going to concentrate their worker base even more with experienced folks. They need fewer of them. Yes. But quality matters more than ever. I really feel bad for the new graduates. For no fault of their own, the bar went up so high. Unless they’re a child prodigy doing some coding projects on the side since the age of 10 - no one will hire them. So how will they ever gain the experience they need? Maybe, just maybe, we’ll see a reinvention of coding schools - that will now focus on fundamental and industry knowledge - imparted by other veterans, instead of teaching applied skills. | | |
| ▲ | markus_zhang 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I agree with you, but I forgot to mention that in the original reply I meant to say that "After the economy turns around, there is no point to hire me, an older guy with maybe a couple of gap years, who worked as a Uber driver for the last two years and can't leetcode". But yeah, new graduates is going to suffer anyway. And I'm scared of the collapse of the existing world order. Maybe we won't see a turn around for many years if it does collapse -- and we are already seeing many cracks on it. | | |
| ▲ | echelon 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | New folks will never be hired. RIP to the CS degree. Old staff will be exited. Especially senior and mid level management. If you lose your job, you won't get the same comp again. The days of $500K TC are long behind us. It's the era of downsizing and outsourcing while blaming AI. None of this has anything to do with AI. That's just a scapegoat. Google and Amazon are culling entire US teams and rebuilding them in Asia where the cost of labor is significantly lower. The best thing ICs can do is fight for big tech monopolies to be broken up. (Call your reps leading up to the midterms.) If several members of the Mag 7 are broken up into smaller companies, that'll inject tons of energy back into the ecosystem and enable the wheels of competition and employment. Bonus - if big conglomerates are fighting to pick up the pieces of a Ma Bell style dismantlement, they won't have time to manage teams 12 hours away. Nothing against our colleagues in Asia. They're brilliant. But American companies built with American labor shouldn't shut us out in the cold while they reach record profits and continue to hollow out entirely new industries simply by outstretching their arms. | | |
| ▲ | QuiEgo 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’ve been told for 20 years that in 5 years my job is going to be offshored. If they could have they would have long ago. My theory: We had a crazy bubble of hiring during zero rate interest. We are living through a nasty correction. AI is moving the needle too, but it’s mostly being used as a scapegoat to save face and explain away cleaning up failed ZRIP yolo plans that didn’t pan out. We’ve also haven’t had a serious recession since 2009. It feels like it’s only a matter of time :( | | |
| ▲ | windward 28 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | You're zooming out and considering this negative sentiment with similar times in the past. I think that's wise. I think we should keep zooming out to other industries. Imagine you're an engineer for GM in Detroit in the 70s - would you consider the mean to be your contemporary middle-class lifestyle, or what it is in 2025? Similar for steel and semiconductors. It goes for other places, too. Is the US's financial strength of today its mean, or is it where the UK was pre-Suez Crisis? Where Japan was in the 80s? | |
| ▲ | matwood 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I got my first programming job in ~98 while still in college. I had family members telling me then that programming was a dead end and was all going to be outsourced. I lived through .com, GFC, etc... This does feel more like a reversion to the mean at this moment rather than some crash...yet. I feel for the people who only have known a job market that was easy to step into and paid great salaries because they don't know anything else. It's a lot like the people who think they are great stock pickers because they've only been investing in the greatest bull market we've ever seen. When I came into the job market the rule of thumb was it would take 1 month/10k of salary to find a new job. Over time that moved to 1 month/20k of salary or so. Even then, someone making a FAANG type salary should be prepared to look for a ~year for a new job matching that salary. Being able to bounce from job to job while getting big raises along the way was the exception, and ZIRP only exacerbated it. | |
| ▲ | pjmlp an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Adding my voice to sibling comments, this is from European experience, I have had several times been dumped from consulting projects, and having to do competence transfer to the offshoring team that would take over our team roles. Around five times since 2007. | |
| ▲ | jneen 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've had my job offshored in the past, in case a personal anecdote is relevant here. | | | |
| ▲ | echelon 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I’ve been told for 20 years that in 5 years my job is going to be offshored. If they could have they would have long ago. "This time it's different." 20 years ago China and India had a nascent tech industry. Now they're booming. Talented folks all over the world - Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere - are working on hard problems. > We had a crazy bubble of hiring during zero rate interest. We did. This has had a tremendous impact, no doubt. But by the same coin, ZIRP has had half a decade to unwind at this point. There's other stuff going on. Tariffs, continued inflation, etc. We're not the only industry offshoring. Hollywood has moved a lionshare of production overseas in the last 4 years. Graphics design and marketing... It's being shipped out at volume. | | |
| ▲ | QuiEgo 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | My personal experience, YMMV: I was told that once video conferencing got good and internet and infrastructure became better in other places, "this time it will be different." I was told once universities in other countries started pumping out a pool of great candidates, expats who worked for FAANGs in the US would go home to found their own companies using that pool, and those companies would take over the world. "this time it's different." I was told during covid once everyone was remote, why would people not just hire the cheapest remote workers going forward? "This time it's different." Don't get me wrong, I absolutely have seen more and more offshoring over time, but there's a huge inertia behind the US tech industry that's hard to change. The VC / startup ecosystem and all of it's resources have huge Bay Area inertia - it mostly hasn't even spread to the rest of the US, let alone the rest of the world, despite the cost of living and constrained talent pool in the Bay Area. There's something about getting a bunch of people with the same mindset in one spot and having them know each other, socialize with each other, make friends and networks with each other that still matters. Founders tend to build off the people and connections they know and are connected with personally. I'm hoping it will take long enough to change for me to finish my career. We'll see. This time really may be different :). EDIT: p.s. Agree totally it's way to complex to tell what's actually happening. The _impact_ of the end of ZRIP, the rise of AI, major tax changes on R&D amortization, and US tariffs pretty much landed at the same time, so who knows? | | |
| ▲ | alephnerd 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The difference is, offshoring in the 2000s was largely private sector driven with minimal subsidizes and investment promotion programs lead by countries and their local governments. On the other hand, in the 2020s, India, Israel, most Eastern European states, Ireland, Costa Rica, and a couple others have launched industrial promotion subsidizes for software offshoring - often providing US$10k-30k per head in federal and local subsidizes along with subsidized office space and real estate and tax windows. That along with the internal frictions of async work largely being ironed out due to the COVID remote work period along with an exodus of mid-level managers on work visas during the early pandemic layoffs which had an outsized impact on Indian, Chinese, and Eastern European techies in the US made offshoring much more cost competitive and effective than it was 25 years ago. Putting your head in the sand saying it's no big deal is honestly very stupid if you are hoping to maintain your career for the next 5-10 years in any white collar job. And it's only going to get even more competitive now that the Indian government is enacting labor reform laws to align Indian labor laws with China's [0], making it even more cost effective for businesses to offshore by reducing regulatory overhead [1]. [0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-21/india-imp... [1] - https://www.fortuneindia.com/business-news/tech-sector-expec... |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tibbar 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is not the picture I'm seeing on the ground. AI is eliminating certain classes of junior software positions. (Roughly: jobs where explaining a task to junior engineer is more work than asking Cursor/Claude Code/Codex to do it.) Junior engineers can fight back against this by a) getting really good at clarifying requirements b) learning quickly, so their work quality is eventually higher than Cursor can work out in one shot. This is also a pressure against hiring teams overseas: when the bottleneck is communication + taste, not raw implementation cycles, you'd rather have a small local team. And it's a pressure for high TC, because individuals now have much more leverage, although they need to master more skills to take advantage. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >Junior engineers can fight back against this by Many juniors can't even meet with a human interviewer. There's no point maximizing for interviews that never come. That's the issue. >This is also a pressure against hiring teams overseas: This seems to agree with the issue. a team of 100 becomes a team of 5 locals and 95 outsourced work. Maybe those 5 managers are better off, but we're still reducing the local workforce by 95%. And I doubt the conditions of the remaining 5 are better than pre-outsourcing. You can't out-compensate burnout and QoL. Gen Z in particular seems to really be pushing against this mentality, so this strategy is limited in time even if it's working on Gen X/Millenials. | | |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | kaashif 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Surely people who can't get a job aren't "junior engineers" - they're just graduates. Junior engineers, i.e. people who have already been hired, can indeed fight back by getting really good at their jobs. But you're right, it doesn't help you get hired if you can't even get an interview. |
| |
| ▲ | 05 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > learning quickly, so their work quality is eventually higher than Cursor can work out in one shot. This sounds almost word for word like The Onion’s classic: Secretary Of Labor Assures Nation There Still Plenty Of Jobs For Americans Willing To Outwork Robots [0] https://theonion.com/secretary-of-labor-assures-nation-there... | | |
| ▲ | tibbar 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Wow. That is ... too painful and true to life to really be funny at this point. But, ok, still funny. To be fair, I meant something a little different -- something like -- learn how to be a robot priest who can get it to follow the desperate prayers of humans. And, like, how to unstick the robot arm when it accidentally punches through a wall. Etc. Not that that is particularly comforting, in an existential sense. Maybe buys you a couple years till you have to pivot again. |
| |
| ▲ | conductr 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > when the bottleneck is communication + taste That was the bottleneck in the industry when it was in growth phase, it's a mature sector now and it's all about efficiency and profit now. Speed to market and product iteration speed isn't the most important thing anymore, there's not a lot of innovation taking place. Outside the actual novel AI specific companies out there, of course, there are a few other spots of growth and exceptional companies but largely the kings have been crowned. | |
| ▲ | echelon 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Show of hands for anyone seeing AI replacing juniors (and I assume also backfilling employees). I'm genuinely curious. I've heard this argued the other way too. Seen it firsthand. Fwiw, we've had good engineers switch to vibe coding and it's ruined their output. From really solid systems to unmaintainable flocks of seagulls - nested if statements ten levels deep with no thought or care. From good engineers that are just dialing it in now. We've had good engineers use vibe coding to save to time to work on their side hustles. Then go on to try to raise money for AI products. | | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I lead cloud consulting projects as a staff consultant specializing in application development. I use to need myself to lead the project, customer management, design work and some development. I would add usually another developer to do some of the grunt work coding and usually a cloud architect to take care of infrastructure as code, security, etc. Not that I wasn’t knowledgeable enough to do it all myself, I just didn’t have time. GenAI can definitely do CloudFormation, Terraform or the AWS CDK (ie using a high level language like Typescript instead of Yaml) and can do the code where I really don’t need two other resources or deal with the detailed requirements and coordination. Before the pearl clutching starts about my not knowing how to code without AI. I’ve been coding consistently since 1986 when I was a hobbyist assembly language coder. > We've had good engineers use vibe coding to save to time to work on their side hustles. Then go on to try to raise money for AI products. It seems to be working… https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Uy2aWoeRZopMIaXXxY2E... | | |
| ▲ | Lio 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > GenAI can definitely do CloudFormation, Terraform or the AWS CDK GenAI does not exist yet. | | |
| |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | baq 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If you lose your job, you won't get the same comp again. The days of $500K TC are long behind us. I wouldn't be so sure about that, unless you mean $500K TC in 2019 dollars. ZIRP might just come back, but it'll come with a higher price tag than the one from 2008. | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah pretty much. Engineers are going to be at a crossroad where they either turn to the government to finally build in some proper labor laws and other obvious controls (how about re-banning stock buybacks?) or go out to the Wild West and hope they idea can sustain their livelihood. Given the vibes of the community here: I guess I'll look for a Mad Max mask (I'll ofc keep performing my civic duties, though). | | |
| ▲ | matwood 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > how about re-banning stock buybacks? This is pretend boogie man. Banning buybacks will not automatically make that money flow into hiring or salaries. Companies are not charities, they exist to make a return. If hiring people and/or paying more will generate a larger return than giving the money back to shareholders either through buybacks or dividends, then companies will do that. AI is now giving companies something to do with excess cash that could generate better returns (shareholders believe so) and buybacks are being pushed out as money goes elsewhere[1]. [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/move-over-stock-buybacks-ai-1... | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Banning buybacks will not automatically make that money flow into hiring or salaries. Nope, but that's what trends show us from the decades between its ban and bans being lifted. All I know is that companies flowing money back into itself and having executives shift in and out every few years clearly hasn't worked. It's just one stepping stone to make sure companies have skin in the game again. You can argue dividends but that means the money gets taxed quicker, so that also helps the people. >AI is now giving companies something to do with excess cash that could generate better returns Sure, for now. I think that problem will fix itself sooner than later, so I'm not too concerned about that. Trends come and go. |
| |
| ▲ | ac29 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > turn to the government to finally build in some proper labor laws and other obvious controls (how about re-banning stock buybacks?) What would banning stock buybacks accomplish? Companies can still return capital to shareholders in the form of dividends. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Dividends don't grow the stock as quickly. They can and will do that, but the goal is to change the incentive structure back to long term growth and not "stock buyback and dip from company in a year". | |
| ▲ | echelon 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Dividends are immediately taxable. Stock buybacks are designed to let the shareholder see the same upside, but decide when to take the taxable event. Long term gains are also preferable to non-qualified dividends. | | |
| ▲ | Marsymars 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Even worse for non-American stockholders of American companies - the IRS charges a 30% foreign withholding tax on dividends. If you ban stock buybacks in favour of dividends, it’s a big tax increase on foreigners, so US stocks lose a whole pile of value for American stockholders when foreigners dump American equities until the ROI equalizes. (Roughly 20% of US equities are foreign-owned.) | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | echelon 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | A big tech breakup needn't be anti-capitalist. In fact, it might be the most pro-capitalist move. If you're an entrepreneur or VC, you want big tech broken up because they can put serious price pressure on your exit. Trillion dollar companies can easily spin up a team to copy you, with no incentive to stay alive. They can threaten you with all kinds of leverage - access to customers, patents, legislators. They can give you an ultimatum to sell for cheap, go to your competitor, etc. Their scale and reach is additional unexpected gravity on your delta V. Capitalism is supposed to be hard. It isn't supposed to support invasive species that can graze anywhere they please and kill ecosystems of diversity and innovation. These mega conglomerates can just throw themselves into markets using unrelated business unit profit and suffocate real companies. Breaking up Google and Amazon would be good for everyone, perhaps even shareholders and ICs at those companies themselves if value is unlocked. Let alone all of the other companies and entrepreneurs in the market. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think it depends on which kind of entrepreneur you're aiming to be. VC breakups are amazing if your goal is to box in and become a market competitor. But as of the last decade or so there's been plenty of "incubators" to take into account. startups whose goal is instead to be sold off to some major company and get their payday that way. Those kinds of models would deteriorate, and are likely what want to prop Big Tech up. I do hope we have more genuine competitors fighting out there for breakupps. But it's hard to say these days. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cyberax 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > New folks will never be hired. RIP to the CS degree. We've just hired a couple of graduates, with the expectation that they are going to take some time to grow. What I'm seeing right now is a huge influx of candidates from large companies that have zero skill. I'm not exaggerating, they can't code anything. And it's not just AI, they started working before ChatGPT came out. Others in the industry are seeing the same and it's quite likely that your resume is getting lost. One practical advice for resume writers from me. PLEASE, just don't put stuff like "Improved the API responsiveness by 23.123897%". Unless it's a crazy number like 100x. | | |
| ▲ | matwood 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | We posted a job a year ago for a dev. We received terrible candidates, but still tried to fill it from the pool. 2/3 ghosted the interview and the other I'm not sure had ever done anything in iOS. I just pulled the job instead of wasting more time. I'm planning to post another job in the new year and I'm not looking forward to wading through the garbage. |
| |
| ▲ | intended 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Nothing against our colleagues in Asia. They're brilliant. But American companies built with American labor shouldn't shut us out in the cold while they reach record profits and continue to hollow out entirely new industries simply by outstretching their arms. What makes you think people in Asia wouldn’t benefit from more competition in the market as well? That said - I feel that advertisement based markets will always consolidate. There is too much of a benefit to having a single network which has the largest reach in terms of audience to show ads. This will always create incentives to consolidate over time. Then again, why make the perfect the enemy of the good. Getting to more competition is a good step. |
|
| |
| ▲ | agentultra 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We haven’t passed the stage where we convince policy makers to stop dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We’re not going to convince anyone to keep hiring software developers. I think we ought to be keeping people trained and employed but it seems we’re not on the winning side here. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We gotta gather ourselves and remind companies why they once paid handsomely to not let potential disruptiors run rampant on the market. Long term new teams will form once productivity is valued again and not this giant incestuous GDP-maxmizing scheme. | | |
| ▲ | oblio 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | On the long term, we're all dead. I doubt things will recover to 2018 levels. Too many new software devs coming out each year, too much AI, too little big company growth once everyone already has an internet computer in their hands. The Wild West is over and now the digital economy has entered the boring phase. | |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | dtech 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I think we ought to be keeping people trained and employed I never understood this sentiment. We don't have a massive manual weaving industry anymore, 95%+ of people used to be farmers in 1900. Tech comes and replaces humans, and the transition can be extremely painful especially for the people replaced, but ultimately it's better than keeping people artificially employed in obsolete jobs. (I don't think SWE will be obsolete, but even in this case I'd rather switch careers) | | |
| ▲ | oblio 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Most deindustrialized regions in the West haven't recovered to full prosperity and are quite depressing to live in, sometimes even 30-40 years later: US Rust Belt, Wallonia in Belgium, the French North East, etc. At a large enough scale, most people don't really move on, their lives are wrecked and they just suffer through them. |
| |
| ▲ | kortilla 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The comparison to greenhouse gases doesn’t make sense. Corps pay a lot for developers right now because they get more value out of them than they cost. As long as that remains true, devs will be fine. | | |
| ▲ | pyuser583 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Part of being a developer is innovating as rapidly as possible. We obsolete our own practices in a regular basis. We should be the last occupation to be replaced by machines. Maybe I’m stupid, but I’m stupidly optimistic. |
|
| |
| ▲ | travisgriggs 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Or, more dystopian take... it won't matter. If software reliability continues to degrade in a normalized fashion, it won't matter. First mover advantages and networking effects will make it impossible for an outfit trafficking increased quality to ever get enough breaths to even compete. |
| |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I saw this coming way before AI became a thing around 2016 when I was 42. Software development was becoming a commodity where there were plenty of “good enough” developers where no matter what, it was going to be saturated. If someone is trying to sell themselves as an undifferentiated developer in 2025 or later, it’s going to be an uphill battle unless you can lean on your network. At 51, if my only differentiator is I can code, I’ve done something horribly wrong in my life. Anecdotally, I found software development adjacent roles quickly when I was looking both last year and the year before. | | |
| ▲ | kortilla 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Software developer salaries went up significantly after 2016 and it was a super hot market for developers in 2020. So whatever you saw wasn’t a good indicator. | | |
| ▲ | godelski 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's easier to lower standards than to raise them. There's always a race to the bottom. I don't think it's a big leap to suggest that what's considered the "minimum viable product" has decreased over the years. It's also no secret that software is getting worse. As to salaries, I think you forgot how things worked before. The reason companies like Google introduced free food and all the incentives was because increasing salaries was not a better way to attract better talent, since salaries were already high. So either now something has changed where better talent cares more about money or we're attracting talent that cares more about money. As in either the same people changed or we're attracting a different type of person. Personally, regardless of age, regardless of field, I've seen a strong correlation with the best people not caring as much about money. Once the salary is good then they care more about how interesting the work is or how they can reduce stress in their life. Money matters, but it has decreasing utility as it grows. | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It was very much bimodal. If you were working in BigTech or adjacent, that was definitely true. If you were working in enterprise dev like most of the 2.5 million+ developers working in a tier 2 city outside of the west coast in the US, comp was definitely stagnating. In 2016, I knew I had to do something when my (step)son graduated in 2020 and my wife was willing to move anywhere the money took us. It just so happened that a job fell into my lap at AWS working (full time) in the consulting department. I am no longer there. I now work at a third party consulting firm as a staff consultant specializing in app dev. | |
| ▲ | fooker 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah someone joining a good company as a senior engineer in 2015 would retire with about 15M in assets now assuming smart investments (say... half on big tech stocks, half in market indices) Someone joining now on the other hand, might have to resort to physical work at some point in the next ten years of things go south. | | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is very much tech bubble thinking. Most developers in the US don’t work for tech companies and will never make ovdd $200K inflation adjusted. Developer salary is very much bimodal https://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/trimodal If you are working for boring old enterprise companies like banks, airlines, insurance companies or even most YC funded companies, “senior” developers will top out at around $160K-$170K inflation adjusted in tier 2 cities. I spent my pure developer career [1] in Atlanta GA. Well known companies based there like Home Depot, Delta, Coke, and GE Transportation are paying their top developers around what entry level developers getting in BigTech. But choose your non west coast city and you will see the same. | | |
| ▲ | fooker 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Okay, assuming you could invest 100k out of your 170k per year into companies you know were doing well on tech from 2015, how much would you have ? (say: AMD, Tesla, Google, Amazon, Facebook) The answer is about 10M, which is not that far from what I estimated, even without including Nvidia. Now add in house price appreciation. There are plenty of people who have managed to do this, from fairly normal tech jobs. | | |
| ▲ | ahtihn 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure, just save 100k out of your 170k comp, that's totally how normal people operate. And not only that, also pick the right stocks rather than just sticking everything in an index! Just magically turn 10x 100k into 10M! | | |
| ▲ | cwbriscoe 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I haven't got to 10m yet, but I saved 70-80% of my take home pay since ~2008 and I have enough to quit at any time and live the rest of my life without working. That is just by investing in the 3-fund portfolio and without the crazy SF salaries. | |
| ▲ | fooker 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You do not understand compounding growth. You could have looked up the numbers for indices yourself, but here you go - S&P500 -> ~4 million NDXT (top 100 tech) -> ~14 million. > just save 100k out of your 170k comp Yes, that was my starting salary, and that's almost exactly what I saved. This calculation assumes your salary is somewhat constant and maxed out as the person I was responding to claimed, but in my experience you can expect your tech salary to double every ~5-6 years. | |
| ▲ | fragmede 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Shit, dump that $100k into bitcoin at the low point of 2015, and you'd have $37 million today. Easy! |
| |
| ▲ | Marsymars 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > There are plenty of people who have managed to do this, from fairly normal tech jobs. Yeah, but there also isn’t enough wealth in the system for everyone to do this. Like suppose that a) we’re now at a reasonably correct valuation for Nvidia b) assume a hypothetical where everyone in the US had plowed all of their savings into Nvidia in 2015. Result: The market cap of Nvidia is still $6 trillion, and the median American owns less than $10k in Nvidia stock. | | |
| ▲ | fooker 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I meant everyone with a good tech job, not everyone in the country. About a 1:1000 ratio I'd guess. | | |
| ▲ | Marsymars 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure, but there was nothing stopping people with $10k in savings in 2015 from buying Nvidia. If someone with $10k in savings had bought Nvidia in 2015, they’d have $2.5m today. But that only works for a relatively small number of people before the $2.5m is no longer $2.5m - they’re all drawing from the same $6 trillion pot. “Everyone with a good tech job” is accurate, but besides the point, it would work exactly the same if you limited it to “everyone who’s a plumber” or “everyone who’s a fedex driver”, but literally cannot work for everyone at the same time. | | |
| ▲ | fooker 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > it would work exactly the same if you limited it to “everyone who’s a plumber” or “everyone who’s a fedex driver” Yes, "Everyone with a good tech job" has a significantly higher chance of keeping or holding tech RSUs, and have conviction that investing in tech is going to pay off. > but literally cannot work for everyone at the same time Yes, that is how the world works. Anything that makes you successful would not work for everyone at the same time. | | |
| ▲ | Marsymars 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Yes, that is how the world works. Anything that makes you successful would not work for everyone at the same time. To me this reads as a particularly misanthropic view of the world that only considers zero-sum (or less than zero sum) actions. Any investments in yourself that aren’t at the expense of others (education, exercise, diet, therapy, living space improvements, etc., etc.) or investments in family and community, benefit both you and others and would work for everybody; indeed, many such investments would work better the more people undertook them, rather than the fewer. | | |
| ▲ | fooker 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you see the difference between > more and > everyone ? If more people bought Nvidia stocks, the value would be higher. If everyone bought, something would give (and that is exactly what we are starting to see). |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | matwood 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In GA, after taxes your take home would be ~125k. So you think someone can live in a big city like ATL for 25k/year? What if they have a family? Ok, are you assuming their spouse is also in tech and making at least similar? The 125k also doesn't have healthcare deducted yet. Some of the comments on this thread highlight just how disconnected many people were/are from everything outside of the FAANG bubble. | | |
| ▲ | fooker 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you live in an expensive city and do not have a proportional salary, obviously you are going to save less. > Ok, are you assuming their spouse is also in tech and making at least similar? Yes, suppose spouse contributes to household expenses, but assume separate savings and investments for this calculation. Do you see you'd easily get to 100k saved? The difference between having a large fraction of your savings in your bank account versus invested for the last 10 years can be quite a few millions, which is what most commenters here are failing to see. I'm sure the story was different between 2002 and 2012, but that was not what I talking about. | | |
| ▲ | matwood 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok, so you need 2 people working in tech making near top end salaries for the area? You do see how this simple idea of saving 100k/year isn't so simple for anyone outside of FAANG? | | |
| ▲ | fooker 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | What's a realistic number in your opinion? I managed to save about 100k per year in Denver and Salt Lake City with mid tier tech and govt lab jobs. I'm suspicious of the claim that Atlanta is significantly different. From what I have seen, it's usually bad financial decisions. And for context, saving about double that during and post COVID by obtaining a remote job where the employer does not discriminate by location too much other than for maybe career growth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cindyllm 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >Reality is not particularly rosy for new graduates AFAIK I looked at the statistics[1], and while you could argue new graduates have seen worse (recent grad unemployment is actually lower than much of the 2010s), you can also see that in contrast to previous periods where new grad unemployment is lower than all worker unemployment, this time around new grad unemployment is actually slightly higher. However if you look at the chart this wasn't a post pandemic phenomena. The gap has been closing since the back half of the 2010s, and doesn't show much of a spike after the release of chatgpt, so "AI" isn't a good explanation either. [1] https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market | | |
| ▲ | godelski 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Break it down by degree. You're losing some important information in the aggregate. Going to degree you see that Computer Science has the 7th highest unemployment rate: anthropology, physics, computer engineering, commercial art & graphical design, fine art, sociology, computer science, chemistry, information systems & management. Of course you also need to look at underemployment too. Which CS is on the lower end of that. So you have to consider things like that even though there's a higher unemployment rate than performing arts (2x) there is far lower underemployment because people expect to get jobs in their field for CS. There's more you need to look at too. It's not so easy and you shouldn't just use such a high level approximation if you want to make sense of the data. Hiring lab has some more interesting information to like the number of postings. CS is way down from "prepandemic" levels, but unfortunately only goes to 2020 (hence the quotes). https://data.indeed.com/#/ | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There's a recent podcast that talked about this if you have 15 minutes to watch a segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYRCYdxVMaM TL;DR Gen Z is "slightly better off" in pure financial status compared to older generations , even with inflation adjusted. But the distribution on what got cheaper overtime and what got more expensive is causing the true strain among Gen Z. It also helps to explain a bit of a generation clash when you see how older generations can chastise the younger ones over what were "luxuriies" when they were that age. The entire market is flipped. |
| |
| ▲ | hombre_fatal 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Your competition isn’t new grads. It’s experienced engineers in other countries who will work for half your wage in your own city on an H1B or similar. | | |
| ▲ | thewebguyd 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You're half correct. H1Bs in your own city aren't working half your wage. However, engineers in developing countries will work half your wage, remote from their home, where that's a great salary where they live. When the average annual salary in India is the equivalent of $4,200 USD/year, there are a lot of talented engineers there that if they don't win the H1B lottery, will end up working for big tech remote. | |
| ▲ | bboozzoo an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You're mistaken thinking those engineers aren't facing the same market downturn. AFAICT, it's exactly the same in Europe. The only difference is that in Europe folks weren't paid exorbitant salaries like their US colleagues were. | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | H1Bs don’t work for “half your wage”. This is a myth. H1Bs have a higher average salary. |
| |
| ▲ | skybrian 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | “The rest of my life” is a very long horizon for making predictions. I don’t think I could predict much about politics or the economy two years out. |
|
|
| ▲ | epistasis 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| At least in the US we haven't had official data for quite some time. The BLS lost its chief because of "bad numbers" The numbers we do have show significantly worse jobs numbers compared to prior years. We might get data again, maybe not, but the US government has had an internal revolution, and it's doubtful we will have data as good as in the past, and it's quite likely that any bad news will be deeply buried. |
| |
| ▲ | reactordev 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | BTC would agree with you. It’s nose diving. | | |
| ▲ | epistasis 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Since its a Sunday night during a holiday weekend without any big breaking news, I would suspect that's probably just a bunch of people that had automated sales at $90k, or something similar. | | |
| ▲ | reactordev 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Love that HODL optimism. Looking at the longer charts there seems to be support around $80k so maybe. This could just be holiday shopping. The timing of economics with this though has me worried the support will falter causing a sell off and Monday’s bell will be a bloodbath. | | |
| ▲ | epistasis 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I have zero optimism for BTC, hold zero, and can't imagine a circumstance where I'd ever buy some. (Though perhaps a few more years of current US policy and USD will be so terrible that BTC starts to be more attractive...) I see that Tokyo stock markets are way down today, that's probably what's driving lower BTC? | |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | fragmede 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | For a look at the shopping economics, this year's bfcm at stripe is pretty fun! http://bfcm.stripe.com people are selling off Bitcoin to have money to buy stuff, and that link is an inside baseball look at how much stuff is being bought. |
| |
| ▲ | dboreham 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | A common pattern is: people (I supposed I mean: investors) are somewhat worried that markets are over valued. They ponder, think, research, binge-watch Prof G videos... Then they travel to have Thanksgiving dinner with a bunch of in-laws. Market gets discussed over cigars. If they get a confirmation signal from the brother in law attorney or sister in law dentist that they are worried too...then after mulling it over on the flight back to Denver...the market dumps on Monday. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | elric 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Some anecdata from Belgium: the software market is dead. Hardly anyone is hiring. Rates have plummetted. There are (virtually) no startups. Big corpos are hiring in Southern and Eastern Europe instead, when they're not outsourcing to India. Unlike some of the US commenters, our high tax rates and lack of stock-options driven reward schemes means that most of us don't have enough money in the bank to casually found a startup. |
| |
| ▲ | mschuster91 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Unlike some of the US commenters, our high tax rates and lack of stock-options driven reward schemes means that most of us don't have enough money in the bank to casually found a startup. That's because it effectively is gambling. Maybe if you are one of the first 50 employees in a startup that is one of 100 to reach "unicorn" stage, you have the chance to strike it big... but then you are 0.01% of all employees of startups. The 99.99%? They'll have had their company fold or let them go due to the company "pivoting" or "having to look better in quarterly reports", they'll have left voluntarily for one reason or the other, or they'll have been let go right before the vesting period to save the company money and end up with nothing vested, or the company will have gone to three, four, five or more rounds of funding watering down existing options, or the company will have gone bust... all while having traded the "chance" of striking it big for lower pay, thus reducing payments into our tax, social security and healthcare systems. Europe does not like gambling with the lives of its citizens and the stability of our systems. | |
| ▲ | fragmede an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I've been lead to believe that, in lieu of startup founding cash in the bank, there's a better social safety net, for use in cases like these. Is that not the case? |
|
|
| ▲ | port11 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've been unemployed for quite some time as a software developer with 13 years of experience. The unemployment agency of my country tries to help, but the reality is that the amount of new jobs every week is staggeringly low since end-2024. The agent on my case was herself honest about the prospects. It's even worse for younger developers or very old folk. I tuned into my old freelance network in Germany and the account manager told me they're seeing 60–70% less freelance work in tech. I could get a job in the odd thing here and there, so I'm not immensely worried yet, plus it allows me to stay home and raise our baby. But I think everyone around me is worried, even outside tech. |
|
| ▲ | sheepscreek 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I believe you’re in the minority here. Perhaps your experience is different because of your skill set or the market you’re in. Anyone that I know personally who got laid off (in tech) took at least 6 months to find a job. I don’t know about anyone else but that to me is pretty brutal. More so as the people getting laid off are mid career, some with kids. Edit: Add to the above that companies like Walmart are seeing an uptick in high wage earners becoming their customers, and McDonalds seeing a shrinking population of low-wage customers. It’s easy to infer the rest from there. People who used to do well are cutting expenses and those who were already struggling are..I seriously don’t know what they’re doing. Where do you eat when you downgrade from McDonalds..Wendy’s? It’s a sad state of affairs. Source: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-11-16/mcdonalds-... |
| |
| ▲ | kragen 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You ask, "Where do you eat when you downgrade from McDonalds..Wendy’s? It’s a sad state of affairs." On the off chance that this isn't a joke, you need to know that eating out is very expensive in the US, even at McDonald's. According to the obviously highly credible https://mcdonalds-menu-prices.us/ a Quarter Pounder With Cheese costs US$7.99 now. I think home-cooked rice and lentils costs about US$0.20. Other similarly low-cost foods include polenta, homemade bread, homemade mayonnaise, zucchini, spaghetti, sunflower-seed cheese, homemade peanut butter, onions, potatoes, etc. Those numbers aren't even the same order of magnitude. | |
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Where do you eat when you downgrade from McDonalds? You buy groceries. And if you must downgrade from there you eat the rich. | | |
| ▲ | mbfg 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | the advantage of fast-food over groceries, is that you don't have to worry about spoilage and waste. So the delta is probably less than you think. Now granted McD is an s-show, they are no longer the restaurant of the poor, You likely can get a better burger meal deal at a Chilis than a McD, as sad as that is. | | |
| ▲ | ac29 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Even if you waste half your groceries its still cheaper than eating out. And wasting that much is difficult to do, most staples will last weeks to years without risk of spoilage. There are some fresh fruits and vegetables that are exceptions because they dont take well to refrigeration or freezing but really not much. | | |
| ▲ | mbfg 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | also, there is the case of the mismatched quantities for shopping, ie, the old hot dogs come in 10 packs, and rolls in 8 backs, etc. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Good grief .. you're serious? Flour comes in sacks, meat comes in cuts - we've a quarter lamb in the freezer, part of that in the fridge, and yeast and flour enough for bread for the next six months. We shop cheap, like the family has done for the past 100+ years, much of our food comes from the garden - our excess gets swapped with others excess (we have a lot of fruit, we never buy eggs, they come from people that can be bothered to run chickens). It's a bit of work, we save money by not going to a gym and our life expectancy and cancer survival rates are much better than, say, middle north America. | | |
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | To cut mbfg a bit of slack here, your approach doesn't work in all situations. I admire your functioning community and supportive family and the fact that you've got time and space for things like gardening. If people can't live like you do, it's probably because they've been placed on some kind of economic hamster wheel, and rather than figure out how to get a quarter of a lamb their better bet is to emigrate or to disrupt the system that's making McDonalds feel like a relevant factor in a survival equation and build the community that you're describing in the wake of that disruption, which might be difficult if you've never been part of a community that functions in that way. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | strken 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is just wrong. Beans and rice are more than an order of magnitude cheaper than McDonald's per calorie and they're non-perishable. Combine that with whatever fruit and veg is affordable fresh or frozen, a bit of cheap seasoning, and you're still coming out ahead. You obviously need access to cooking and storage facilities to eat like this, but the target audience of McDonald's is the time-poor, the resource-constrained, or the depressed and disabled, rather than just the money-poor. |
|
| |
| ▲ | HDThoreaun 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | McDonald’s is expensive. Much cheaper to cook yourself. | | |
| ▲ | adamredwoods 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Situational. IMO, I think it breaks even, but eating out saves a lot of time! Healthier cooking at home? Yes. I studied this for myself (N=1), and my cooking is about US$10/meal give or take (asparagus, chicken, rice, water to drink). If you cook for two or more people, then I think cooking at home comes out ahead financially. | | |
| ▲ | kragen 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What hourly wage are you imputing to your cooking to get US$10 for a meal of asparagus, chicken, and rice? My estimate for the materials would be: - 250g raw chicken wings: $375 ≈ 30¢ (I bought these on Saturday, so this is the current price) - 200g asparagus: $1500 ≈ US$1 (this is a rough guess because I never buy it and the greengrocer doesn't have a web site) - 100g dry long-grain rice: $100 ≈ 7¢ (just checked the price online, and I think this is rather high) - water to drink and cook the rice is unmetered here Total: US$1.37. But you could easily get it down to less than half that with a different vegetable. Salts, spices, and oils might add a few pennies. Possibly if you are at McMurdo Base or something your ingredient prices might be unusual. | |
| ▲ | cloverich 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 10/meal is very expensive, fyi. A rotisserie costco chicken is $5 for reference; rice and beans is essentially free. Cabbage nearly so. | |
| ▲ | astura 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >cooking is about US$10/meal give or take (asparagus, chicken, rice, water to drink). You must be eating an absolute TON to eat $10 worth of chicken, asparagus, and rice. I just checked the prices at Target and rice is $1.89 for 2 pounds, chicken thighs are $1.69 a pound. Asparagus is spendier at $5 for 1 pound. How many pounds of chicken and asparagus are you eating? Even if you ate two pounds of chicken and the entire pound of asparagus you aren't hitting $10. | |
| ▲ | ta12653421 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | ...and add the time for preparation, cleaning up etc.: Thats one of the most frustrating things when cooking for one person - you invest 45min to eat 5min and the rest is "organisation & logistics" | | |
| ▲ | matwood 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 45 minutes is crazy. I have a chicken and rice dish I can make in 20 minutes (yes, I've timed myself because I'm weirdo and enjoy those chef shows). It takes 20 minutes because that's how long the rice takes. It can be faster if I use shrimp instead of chicken (more expensive though) and noodles instead of rice. It also makes ~3 servings. | | |
| ▲ | ta12653421 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Wow, i got downvoted for complaining about my cooking times on HackerNews, this is a real innovation: so:
- 5 min walk to supermarket
- 10 min in there
- 5 min walk back home
- washing & cutting wedgetables 7 - 10 min
- maybe cutting some meat: 5 min on top
- eating 5 - 10 min
- cleaning up the kitchen 5 min |
| |
| ▲ | astura an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's why when it's just me I don't really do much cooking. I'll eat ultra-low prep stuff like toast (w/beans, hummus or avocado), bagged salad, frozen food, or grilled tofu. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cal_dent 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I believe the long-term average in the US and UK was somewhere around 20 - 25 weeks so that's still broadly in line. Not trying to dismiss anyone but there is a cacophony of voices about the difficulty in finding jobs but hard to ascertain if that is any different from normal or we just got used to a boom cycle (ex Covid) and that's causing the disconnect? |
|
|
| ▲ | reeredfdfdf 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I live in Finland, with over 10% unemployment according to official statistics (second highest in EU, just after Spain). From what I can tell, things really suck especially for fresh grads. There's fierce competition for jobs like cashier at supermarket, hundreds of applications for one position is normal. Lots of fresh grads with bachelor's or master's degree compete for those jobs too, since they can't find anything better. Also, of the few open positions, many are the kind of "rental work" that offer only limited hours a week, at unpredictable times. So, this is what an objectively bad job market looks like in Europe. |
| |
| ▲ | torginus an hour ago | parent [-] | | Is having temporarily high unemployment that bad? Sure, demand is not as sky high as it used to be but doesn't mean people won't get a proper job eventually. Imo it shows that you consider your people valuable and have a strong social safety net, so people are not forced to accept the first job that comes their way and compromise on pay or what you want to do. I'm sure those grads could get underpaid crappy jobs the next day if they had to, but the point is they're not forced to. If you can't sort this out in a couple years, then you have a real problem. | | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 an hour ago | parent [-] | | > If you can't sort this out in a couple years, then you have a real problem. The problem is, we've been in an era of the polycrisis for decades - first 2007 the financial crisis thanks to the US subprime loan market, then the Euro crisis, then came the refugee crisis 2015, then the second refugee crisis 2018, then Covid, then the Russian invasion, then the Israel-Palestine war, and now Trump. And the last three and a half crises are still going on simultaneously. There has been no recovery period in which things could settle and those who got left behind could catch up, it was straight from one crisis to the next. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >out in the official data, and less so but still true in the real world, things are still bobbing along. The Titanic had 3 days of warning and took 3 hours to sink. A large ship takes a long time to do anything, be it turn or drown. If you've been following the breadcrumbs in pretty much any industry (especially tech), you know the market isn't in a good shape. If you're looking outside expencting to see the world burning, you gotta wait another 3 hours (or hope someone steps in first). |
|
| ▲ | tencentshill 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I know 4 people who were laid off this year. 2 federal government (1 contractor) and 2 large corporate. Entirely anecdotal, but the data I see isn't good. |
| |
| ▲ | bn-l 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | The commenter you’re replying to is from Australia and things are likely different here |
|
|
| ▲ | vachina 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Jobless are probably a vocal minority. Nothing paints a picture of recession in reality right now. |
| |
| ▲ | ta12653421 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Clearly: You are not in one of the major EU-countries :-) | |
| ▲ | MangoToupe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well for one, the concept of a recession is entirely unrelated to employment rates |
|
|
| ▲ | vannevar 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >...but out in the official data, and less so but still true in the real world, things are still bobbing along. I don't know that the official data shows things "still bobbing along." The graph of monthly employment numbers looks like it has a decidedly downward trend overall. September jobs were unexpectedly high, but we've had a lot of subsequent downward revisions and it may happen again for September. https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2025/11/2... |
| |
| ▲ | cal_dent 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | looks like a return to post GFC pre-covid trend. That's sort of what I mean, we've obviously come from a boom-ish market and correcting. How much of it now is the shock that now isnt the same as the 2021-2023 market v this is the start of a real downturn. I don't know |
|
|
| ▲ | Earw0rm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Think it's a filter effect. The areas getting hit especially hard happen to overlap strongly with the most online, which is a relatively small part of the economy overall - and, if you get cut, you've got a bunch more time to to talk about it, which amplifies things further. Plenty of other areas doing OK for now - construction, healthcare especially - there's no shortage of money around, it's just not going into tech projects outside of the AI bubble. |
|
| ▲ | fuoqi 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There are several factors which contribute to the "rosy" official picture: - A lot of people participate in the gig economy instead of getting registered as unemployed. - AI has eroded a lot of employment opportunities for graduates, i.e. people relatively active on social networks. - Official data can be horribly inaccurate (phone surveys in 2025, seriously?) with grossly outdated models (remember the recent huge revisions?). Political pressure does not help here either. - The unemployment stats do not account for significant downgrades in salary and working conditions. They will show the same picture for a person with a cushy office job and the same person working 2 jobs in retail from paycheck-to-paycheck. |
|
| ▲ | duxup 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I find that social media just trends more negative generally. People engage with the negative. |
|
| ▲ | MangoToupe 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > we've never had, to my knowledge, a notable downturn when social media, and all the chatter it generates, has been so prominent or mass engaged How would we even know? It's not like there's a practical way to measure this from an individual's perspective. |
|
| ▲ | iwontberude 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Actually having trouble finding candidates... |
| |
|
| ▲ | csomar 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Tech is more affected than the rest which is over-represented in discussions. Also people who can’t find a job tend to be more vocal than the rest. |
| |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Based on the numbers we had before the BLS clammed up, all sectors except healthcare is going down. But yes, tech is one of the bigger slumps. If your job isn't to help take care of the aging boomer population, you're not having a good time. I work in games and have the occasional slump. But this time is much different. all staffind agencies for temp work in my city pretty much said there's nothing out there. my local area is pretty much a bunch of fractional janitorial roles and that's it. | |
| ▲ | fragmede 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are they perhaps more vocal because they have a lot of time on their hands? | | |
| ▲ | t-writescode 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | You mean spending all their time looking for a new job, applying for various benefits, doing side work as much as they can, at pay far lower than they're used to so it takes more hours of gig work to reach equilibrium? | | |
| ▲ | shagie 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > ... at pay far lower than they're used to ... Is this saying something more about the relative expectation of compensation bands? New grads are unlikely to have a comparable benchmark. People who've worked in Big Tech and finding themselves applying to regular companies where the revenue per employee is in the $200k range are likely going to have difficulty adjusting to such. I work in the public sector and make very low six digits. Others I know have compensation that is 3x or 4x what I make while working in technology industries. If both I and the people I chat with were to find themselves suddenly out of a job, I suspect I'd find an acceptable job elsewhere more easily than they would because anything I did would be a pay raise while anything they took would be a pay cut. This in turn translates to that I would be the less risky candidate (that I wouldn't be looking for a new position that would pay more within the year)... and thus I believe not only would I be more likely to accept the job I would also be more likely to be extended the position. Browsing reddit there are a lot of people on cscareerquestions (and similar) who have the mindset of FAANG or bust as a new grad. That they wouldn't even consider working at a company like Little Cesar's or Home Depot despite those companies having open positions. --- Furthermore, this gets into a lemon market situation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons ). Where it becomes harder to distinguish a good candidate for a poor one and that can only be found out after someone is hired, the companies that have people are more afraid of hiring a lemon than so don't hire anyone. This further depresses the market for the highly skilled candidates. Additionally, people who are skilled are less likely to look for a new job because the market is depressed and they're not as likely to get a good position afterwards. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Is this saying something more about the relative expectation of compensation bands? I just want to survive and I can do barely that. If you want a reference: I'm a single male who went from 160k salary to nothing in the last half of 2023. My necessary expenses were 3k a month (70% of that being rent). Since then I lived in 2024 off of 50/hr freelance @ 15 hours a week. or... 3000/month. You see the issue here. Savings got obliterated, credit built up. But I figured I'd pay it off quickly if I just got any job to supplement the freelance work. not a 160k job per se. I could have found some local 60k IT role and been just fine (if a bit overworked with two different jobs). In 2025, after a year of circuses in the job market I settled on a 20/hr 20 hour role to supplement the freelance work. So things are "stable" now... as long as I don't get sick, or the car doesn't break down, or a variety of other life factors (spoilers: I did in fact get sick. Which lead to me finding the 2nd part time work). Like I said, I just want to survive. As is, I'm working for a third or so of my old salary with zero benefits and much more stress. | | |
| ▲ | shagie 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I understand how that goes. In 2009 I lost my job making $85k (it would now be $130k in 2025 dollars)... and I was unemployed for a little under a year. I got a job where I made $25 an hour (40h a week with time and a half overtime) as a software developer (in a city where the median per capita income was $36k/year - and yes, I verified that with the federal reserve stats - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/3008 ). In 2015, with no meaningful raises and a bit of burnout I got a job in the public sector for $80k and have since been promoted and am making a little bit over $100k (different city, median per capita income is $75k/year). Salary-wise, I'm making less than I did when I lived in California in '09 (and that's salary - stocks were a nice bit more and public sector doesn't exactly have an ESPP). It may be necessary to move to get a job that pays $80k a year with 100% in the office expectations. Yes, it sucks. It's hard. Finding a job in '09 was not fun and I expect that similar conditions are to be found today. However, there are jobs out there when one considers what would be D tier companies and presents themself as someone isn't going to leave in a year for a higher salary somewhere else (before the implicit ROI of onboarding has been paid off). With the prevalence of job hopping and the "this resume does not match the applicant" issues, companies have become very risk adverse. |
| |
| ▲ | t-writescode 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is the comment chain to which I was responding: csomar: Also people who can’t find a job tend to be more vocal than the rest. fragmede: Are they perhaps more vocal because they have *a lot of time on their hands?* (emphasis mine) me: You mean spending all their time looking for a new job, applying for various benefits, doing side work as much as they can, at pay far lower than they're used to so it takes more hours of gig work to reach equilibrium? -- So, what I was responding to was the implication that unemployed or under-employed means that you've got a whole lot of free time, which can absolutely, positively be the opposite of true. If one had a job that previously made end's meet and now all they've got is gig work, they're probably filling ALL of their time just to survive, and are probably still coming up short. That's what I meant. |
|
|
|
|
