Tech layoffs shock young workers, older people not so much(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Tech layoffs shock young workers, older people not so much
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/20/technology/tech-layoffs-millennials-gen-x.html
66 comments
Mostly agree but houses are really expensive around here, significantly more expensive than 10 years ago. If you have a family and need a decent amount of space then your options are either buy > $1million house (at minimum) or live very far away and have an in sufferably long commute. New grads are pretty fcked tbh unless housing supply increases fast or they just stay in apartments.
There is a balance between overspending and forcing yourself to live uncomfortably just to save money.
Maxing out roth ira isn't that helpful for this situation given there is a 10% early withdraw penalty
There is a balance between overspending and forcing yourself to live uncomfortably just to save money.
Maxing out roth ira isn't that helpful for this situation given there is a 10% early withdraw penalty
The point is not that the roth ira is a useful savings vehicle for one's emergency fund, but that it's a good idea to think of the extra FAANG / MAGAM (whatever the acronym is now) money one gets on top of a non-MAGAM developer job should basically be treated as if it doesn't exist, and therefore socked away in the extremely useful retirement savings vehicle of the mega backdoor Roth IRA (which I know at least Microsoft offers). This treatment of the "MAGAM bonus" as such allows one to be able to downsize to a less-well-compensated dev job if one has to (e.g. layoffs, then go work for some non-software-first company like in automotive, consumer products, etc).
Most developer salaries put them well above the IRA limits, so having the option to save post-tax dollars in a Roth (which also has no RMDs, unlikely regular 401ks and IRAs) is a rare opportunity.
Most developer salaries put them well above the IRA limits, so having the option to save post-tax dollars in a Roth (which also has no RMDs, unlikely regular 401ks and IRAs) is a rare opportunity.
In Seattle where so many people have been earning so much this doesn't really work out unless you're a dual-income couple or don't have kids and don't need much space. The house prices here have been driven up so much even modest houses are going to be a good chunk of your income if you're a single earning household. You pretty much have to use your RSUs to get a downpayment.
That's true, any of my colleagues who have bought houses recently were dual-tech DINK and had to sell off a bunch of RSUs. Single-income folks just have to wait it out and hope prices come down, or just give up the narrow search and get some place in Tacoma :/
Why should everybody get a house and not have a 2 hour commute? It was the norm for the past few decades, and so your post just reinforces the prior post, except the Roth IRA thing. You can save without an IRA.
Yeah, everyone sitting comfortably in their big house in a nice neighborhood close to work that they got when it was reasonable to do so can now sit back and lecture others: "why do you need such an expensive house and less than two hour commute?! Just don't have kids and rent an apartment!"
The real question is why can't we get much denser housing (e.g. condos) and a smaller commute.
At least for Seattle, it seems like the liability for the builder and the costs don't really justify building for less than some un-sellable amount (e.g. $1k / sqft) [0]
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/wnkwvp/comment/i...
At least for Seattle, it seems like the liability for the builder and the costs don't really justify building for less than some un-sellable amount (e.g. $1k / sqft) [0]
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/wnkwvp/comment/i...
That is a good question. Not terribly hard to answer either. Things in America cost a lot. Labor costs a lot. Everyone needs a livable wage and good health care, even carpenters. Wood costs a lot, and it should because trees take a long time to grow and deforestation accelerates climate change. And regarding climate change, energy costs a lot and it should because if it didn’t, then there would be more even more climate change. So that’s the answer to the question of why can’t everyone own a home and not commute. It is because we care more about workers and the environment and have chosen to give those issues the highest priority. And if you don’t like that, it’s a free country; there is more affordable housing in states where people care less about workers and the environment. Ironically, many of those states are actually better places for workers and the environment, but that wasn’t the question.
If they built condos that were greater than 2000 sq ft regularly, that might be an attractive option.
Rent is still less than 1/3 of post tax income most places if you have a high paying tech job. Also you can always downsize on stuff to save on floorspace.
Yeah I rent in a neighborhood and my rent is a third of the equivalent mortgage. The downside is that you miss out on the annual appreciation. If you invest what you save in paying down a mortgage the market you can actually make more than what you’d make on the rental appreciation. Still I think there’s an intangible value to owning your own house and keeping that in the family, especially once you have kids / grandkids.
Not to mention being in control of what you can do and when you move (if ever)
Yeah that's the point - new families now have to either: a) rent b) downsize significantly c) stretch their budget. While 6-10 years ago a house in Sammammish or Issaquah was easily attainable
I dunno about the mega back door Roth part… unless you truly have tons of excess, I don’t wanna be old till I can enjoy my money
Housing is more expensive today than it was in the past. Sure they might have gotten an expensive mortgage but what's the alternative if you want to start a family? Shame on the boomer generation for continually prioritizing their generation over future generations. They deviated from the long outstanding trend to sacrifice today for the betterment of the future.
Boomers left us with a housing shortage, education decline, health decline, public-pension deficits, unsustainable government deficit, trade deficit, and so much more.
Hopefully the younger generations can look towards reformation that while maybe painful for us makes our childrens, and their children's life better.
Boomers left us with a housing shortage, education decline, health decline, public-pension deficits, unsustainable government deficit, trade deficit, and so much more.
Hopefully the younger generations can look towards reformation that while maybe painful for us makes our childrens, and their children's life better.
Agreed that the past generation has made policy at the expense of their children/descendants. That's what taking on a higher debt as a percentage of GDP effectively is.
But there is no housing shortage. There was a shortage of listings for a period of time, not a structural shortage. Number of housing units per household is same as it was 20 years ago. 1.1:1
[Different metric, but gives an idea] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=MvZv
Prices in previous tech hub areas will fall drastically if remote work sticks, so won't be a problem for future residents of SF/Bay/Seattle/Austin.
But there is no housing shortage. There was a shortage of listings for a period of time, not a structural shortage. Number of housing units per household is same as it was 20 years ago. 1.1:1
[Different metric, but gives an idea] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=MvZv
Prices in previous tech hub areas will fall drastically if remote work sticks, so won't be a problem for future residents of SF/Bay/Seattle/Austin.
> there is no housing shortage.
you are factually inaccurate there, for most US metropolitan areas on the East and West coasts. In particular, the San Francisco Bay Area for sustained decade+, had several hundred thousand more available jobs than available places to live.
source: professional Urban Planners in California
you are factually inaccurate there, for most US metropolitan areas on the East and West coasts. In particular, the San Francisco Bay Area for sustained decade+, had several hundred thousand more available jobs than available places to live.
source: professional Urban Planners in California
I'm talking nationally. There are going to be outliers you can cherry pick for local concerns. The national data is quite clear on this, reference any stats you want on FRED or otherwise
And those jobs in SF are likely to go remote in large part, as we've already seen a strong transition towards. It's not very economically efficient to make employment contingent on location, so I'm doubtful that will continue to be the baseline model for white collar work.
Home prices in the Bay Area are driven by local employment, yet I can take the same job now and move to Texas and buy a 300k house rather than 3 million. The amenities and culture will develop over time.
Doesn't seem to be a very favorable outlook from a fundamental perspective for BA RE prices to me
And those jobs in SF are likely to go remote in large part, as we've already seen a strong transition towards. It's not very economically efficient to make employment contingent on location, so I'm doubtful that will continue to be the baseline model for white collar work.
Home prices in the Bay Area are driven by local employment, yet I can take the same job now and move to Texas and buy a 300k house rather than 3 million. The amenities and culture will develop over time.
Doesn't seem to be a very favorable outlook from a fundamental perspective for BA RE prices to me
And Silicon Valley is uniquely messed up by Prop 13 and NIMBYs, not to mention the fact that there is no room to sprawl out like midwest cities given the geography.
That's not to say that other cities don't have a similar mix, but those other cities are not home to the headquarters of highly-paid software folks who all compete for housing. Even Seattle folks priced out can possibly afford places way up north in Everett or down south in Tacoma, if one absolutely must have a house for whatever reason. Even cities that are a heinous commute to Silicon Valley (e.g. Santa Cruz) are still wildly expensive.
That's not to say that other cities don't have a similar mix, but those other cities are not home to the headquarters of highly-paid software folks who all compete for housing. Even Seattle folks priced out can possibly afford places way up north in Everett or down south in Tacoma, if one absolutely must have a house for whatever reason. Even cities that are a heinous commute to Silicon Valley (e.g. Santa Cruz) are still wildly expensive.
With real estate management software enabling the market to act as a cartel you can have an 'excess' of housing yet maintain an apparent shortage and extract monopoly rents.
True, though I question how effectively a cartel on rents can be formed in practice.
I believe that specific piece of software is already being investigated by the Government for anti-competitive, price fixing like behavior
I believe that specific piece of software is already being investigated by the Government for anti-competitive, price fixing like behavior
Effective enough to elicit government investigation. There is a huge industry of data aggregators and managers for which this cartel like emergent behavior is the primary value offering. My current rent is managed by it and I can presume at least 10% rent hike every year. The entrenched money benefits from this status quo so without an establishment threatening crisis I doubt much would be done about it.
Rents are declining nominally right now, not rising. If you look at recent MoM data. The software can't just tell companies to raise rents 10% if the market doesn't bear it.
It would require a unilateral cartel without meaningful supply outside of that agreement to actually fix prices.
That being said, this kind of behavior should be subdued as much as possible, within reason
It would require a unilateral cartel without meaningful supply outside of that agreement to actually fix prices.
That being said, this kind of behavior should be subdued as much as possible, within reason
They would be declining more without the software, you can still extract monopolistic rents in an economic downturn. Just because the rents have declined does not mean they’re not monopolistic.
A lot of this is geographical monopolies and actual liquid stock is often quite limited, so long as price is set at the margin and the managed property is on that margin they can elevate the price. This is easy enough to do as low rent options don’t stay on the market. Plus non-managed properties will benchmark themselves against the market which includes the managed properties allowing for price leadership.
There is a whole zoo of anti-competitive behavior strewn through business that is tolerated due to the immense amount of money that is made that is beneficial to governments who tax it and politicians who receive donations. I don’t know how to fix it, step 1 seems to be fix political corruption and that already seems impossible. Once something becomes corrupted it’s very difficult to un-corrupt it.
A lot of this is geographical monopolies and actual liquid stock is often quite limited, so long as price is set at the margin and the managed property is on that margin they can elevate the price. This is easy enough to do as low rent options don’t stay on the market. Plus non-managed properties will benchmark themselves against the market which includes the managed properties allowing for price leadership.
There is a whole zoo of anti-competitive behavior strewn through business that is tolerated due to the immense amount of money that is made that is beneficial to governments who tax it and politicians who receive donations. I don’t know how to fix it, step 1 seems to be fix political corruption and that already seems impossible. Once something becomes corrupted it’s very difficult to un-corrupt it.
Note that "total housing units / working age population" is the wrong metric. Many baby boomers are choosing to stay in their houses long after they have retired, and retirement lasts longer because life expectancy is now ~15 years past retirement (more in many of the blue states that are the most housing constrained).
The proper metric would be "population entering peak home-buying & child-rearing years / (deaths + population entering senior homes + new home construction)". I'm pretty sure that metric is pretty bleak just looking at the U.S. population pyramid:
https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/
The proper metric would be "population entering peak home-buying & child-rearing years / (deaths + population entering senior homes + new home construction)". I'm pretty sure that metric is pretty bleak just looking at the U.S. population pyramid:
https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/
I gave the "housing units to households" metric, which is the one that matters most.
It's 1.1 housing unit to 1 household, same as it was in 2001. You can corroborate with FRED data for total households vs total housing units
Demographics were favorable for demand for the past few years due to millenials reaching homebuying age, but they quickly shift against demand over the next decade due to large elderly population passing on and lower population growth. Not even considering that homebuilding is at an all time high
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNDCONTNSA
It's 1.1 housing unit to 1 household, same as it was in 2001. You can corroborate with FRED data for total households vs total housing units
Demographics were favorable for demand for the past few years due to millenials reaching homebuying age, but they quickly shift against demand over the next decade due to large elderly population passing on and lower population growth. Not even considering that homebuilding is at an all time high
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNDCONTNSA
There has also been a change in people in younger professional demographics actually wanting to live in (certain) cities which was mostly not the case 25 years ago. When I took a job in the MA computer industry out of grad school, I don't think anyone in my class actually lived in Boston/Cambridge.
(And all the computer companies were out in suburbs/exurbs anyway though finance was downtown of course.)
(And all the computer companies were out in suburbs/exurbs anyway though finance was downtown of course.)
[deleted]
At least when they die we will get their stuff
Most won’t. The assisted living centers will, and the workers at the facilities.
Assisted living is a money pit, and most boomers aren’t sitting on massive amounts of wealth.
Assisted living is a money pit, and most boomers aren’t sitting on massive amounts of wealth.
The owners of the assisted living facilities will. The workers there will presumably continue to be paid peanuts.
Don’t blame boomers, blame knowledge economy industries and the unbalanced and concentrated rewards they produce (not just at the top, but all the way down the line). When we came to America we moved to Northern VA, and we’re able to afford a nice house in a good school district even without my mom working. Subsequent waves of mg family are moving to places like Texas for the same reason.
To get housing prices under control, it’s not going to be enough to tackle the supply side by building more housing. You also need to tackle the demand side by heavily taxing those knowledge workers so they have less disposable income to spend on housing.
To get housing prices under control, it’s not going to be enough to tackle the supply side by building more housing. You also need to tackle the demand side by heavily taxing those knowledge workers so they have less disposable income to spend on housing.
No. The “good school district” in your comment is the tell. As long as access to good education is gated by housing, parents will plow any salary gains back into bidding up homes in “good districts.” See “The Two Income Trap,” two decades ago.
I'm considered a "young worker" by this articles definition, and have worked in the tech industry my whole life. Like many of my generation I came of age and entered the workforce during America's worst economic crisis since the great depression. Watching people around me lose their jobs and their homes and leaders fret over the near-collapse of the financial system is burned into my conscience.
I may have never personally been laid off, but I have always saved, invested carefully and lived within my means, in anticipation of the next crash. So have many of my peers.
So this article does not ring true for me, unless it's simply saying "twenty-something gets laid off for first time, older person says welcome to the club', which isn't exactly news.
I may have never personally been laid off, but I have always saved, invested carefully and lived within my means, in anticipation of the next crash. So have many of my peers.
So this article does not ring true for me, unless it's simply saying "twenty-something gets laid off for first time, older person says welcome to the club', which isn't exactly news.
Yeah, I tend not to comment on stories about how hard it is to save money. My first professional job went belly up in the dot com crash, but even before that, I always made it a point to not just live within my means, but also not be too proud to scrounge. Whether that's thrift shopping, buying cars used, dumpster diving, or buying houses that are just shy of being condemned, the point was always to make sure I was building a cushion, just in case. It's hard to do, given how rampant consumerism is in America, but if you're able to blot out that narrative, these bumps in the road are much less likely to be catastrophic.
Nowadays you've got sites like Mr Money Mustache, which, while extreme, can at least present a kind of framework for being more mindful about spending and saving. I felt like I was just kind of making it up as I went along. You don't buy into someone else's idea of a lifestyle - make preparations for financial stability. Once that hits, everything else is gravy.
Was my first economic downturn a surprise? Sure, kinda. There was a lot going on that seemed really dumb, even to a relatively naive 19 year old. Had I also read about The Great Depression, the 70s gas shortage, and the 80s recession? Sure did. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
Nowadays you've got sites like Mr Money Mustache, which, while extreme, can at least present a kind of framework for being more mindful about spending and saving. I felt like I was just kind of making it up as I went along. You don't buy into someone else's idea of a lifestyle - make preparations for financial stability. Once that hits, everything else is gravy.
Was my first economic downturn a surprise? Sure, kinda. There was a lot going on that seemed really dumb, even to a relatively naive 19 year old. Had I also read about The Great Depression, the 70s gas shortage, and the 80s recession? Sure did. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
I think it boils down to how old you were when the subprime mortgage meltdown happened in 2008, and how much your parents were affected by it. I wasn’t in the workforce until 2014 but seeing my parents and others struggle left an impression on me for sure.
This seems hard to generalize. On the one hand, older workers know that downturns are a fact of life whereas someone who started in 2010 has probably never experienced such. On the other hand, someone in their 50s may not be ready to retire--or in a position to retire--but would probably have more trouble picking up a new job.
Just because someone lived through the dot-com meltdown as a fairly young person doesn't make it easier to hand a new position relatively late career.
Just because someone lived through the dot-com meltdown as a fairly young person doesn't make it easier to hand a new position relatively late career.
The headline (and presumably article) isn't about survival, it's about surprise, and the headline (and presumably article) is pretty boring: If you've been through it, you aren't surprised by it.
The article is more about surprise/preparation. I think the "shock" in the headline suggests something about outcomes as well but that's probably nitpicking.
Post the dot-com crash, a lot of people (both techies and non-techies) felt that tech was not a stable career. However, when Facebook didn't want to collude with big tech companies about salaries, salaries have become skyrocketed (as a secondary consequence, Bay Area home prices have gone through the roof). When new grads can make $250K a year, that's when many felt that tech is a great career--be it a software engineer, program manager, strategy, etc. Top tier Ivies used to go to Consulting, IB, PE and VC. Now, Big tech also takes a chunk of people from top Ivies. That tells you that getting a PM role at Google is as good as joining as an analyst at JPMC/GS.
Maybe, layoffs during this cycle will prick that bubble that tech career is stable and leads to high payouts.
Maybe, layoffs during this cycle will prick that bubble that tech career is stable and leads to high payouts.
Throughout my career (electrical engineer) I have lived through four major downsizings of at least 30% each. I was never laid off, I was never affected. I have always wondered if that was a good thing?
Is anyone compiling statistics or numbers on how H1-B's have been affected by this? I imagine a significant percentage of those laid off are required to leave the US within a couple months, and considering the numerous November layoffs, we may be seeing an exodus of high-skilled immigrants about now.
From what I've heard, during the dot-com bust it was much, much worse. People parked their luxury cars in the airport parking lots and literally walked away from them. Lots were overflowing with abandoned cars.
From what I've heard, during the dot-com bust it was much, much worse. People parked their luxury cars in the airport parking lots and literally walked away from them. Lots were overflowing with abandoned cars.
You could write this article at the start of any sector rotation.
They do.
Indeed, this type of writing is what will get replaced by GPTs first.
I was doing a project using some obscure Oracle tool (could be AutoVue, but can't remember) somewhere around 2008-2009. I had to go through several Oracle teams, because the old ones kept getting hit by layoffs and the new ones which inherited the project didn't know anything both about the tool and the project. Can't say I blame anybody for being so disinterested under those circumstances. Or in fact anybody working for a big company and putting in the minimum necessary effort.
Not just young but older as well..
My mother-in-law (who is not in tech) really steered my brother-in-law hard towards job in tech as software engineer thinking it's the greatest job ever - "working in IT is the best job!"
Luckily he graduated just in time a bit under a year ago and managed to sneak right before the hiring freezes happened.
IMO the most stable careers in terms of good demand and pay continue to be nursing and doctor (though probably more stressful and less flexibility)
Luckily he graduated just in time a bit under a year ago and managed to sneak right before the hiring freezes happened.
IMO the most stable careers in terms of good demand and pay continue to be nursing and doctor (though probably more stressful and less flexibility)
Nurse and doctor are not very good when you consider that nurses are not paid that well (unless you are an RN or a specialty nurse), and doctors earn pay comparable to plumbers when you consider the opportunity cost of going to college/being in training until your mid-30s. This is in the US.
It's often much more profitable from a payoff/effort ratio to become something like a Physician's Assistant / Nurse / Lab Tech than to become an actual Doctor nowadays.
It's often much more profitable from a payoff/effort ratio to become something like a Physician's Assistant / Nurse / Lab Tech than to become an actual Doctor nowadays.
Grass is greener on the other side.
In terms of job security nothing beats healthcare though. No matter how well or bad the economy is doing, no matter how many industries crumble, no matter how expensive things get, no matter if currencies go up or down, food is short or in excess, etc., people - rich and poor - will always have health issues. They either live long enough to have many health issues, or they have a big health issue which threatens them of not living long enough.
It's paradoxical that many hospitals laid people off during the early days of the pandemic because they suspended visits/treatments, during the early days, for most non-emergency conditions.
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/10/853524764/amid-pandemic-hospi...
The healthcare industry is not as rosy as you imagine. Yes, demand is inelastic, but stuff like this still happens.
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/10/853524764/amid-pandemic-hospi...
The healthcare industry is not as rosy as you imagine. Yes, demand is inelastic, but stuff like this still happens.
I didn't say I think those careers are amazing or better (I don't want to be in them over my current job) but I definitely think they are more resistant to economic downturns and more location-agnostic
This both oversimplifies the experiences of people who have been through economic cycles before (some of them are shocked too), and underestimates the power of the human imagination. I for one believe I can read about an era I didn't experience, use my imagination to think about what it would have been like to live during that time, and if something similar happens in my lifetime, be less 'shocked'. I think many people can do this too!
Everyone learns from experience; the wise try to learn from other peoples' experience.
Someone can intellectually know that there are business cycles in all industries. And probably even have heard about the dot-com bust and how bad some people say it was. And, simultaneously, think that's all sort of a distant abstract concern from the perspective of their cushy job at Google.
There is a whole generation or maybe even two that has only known a low interest rate environment.
People are shocked since its been decade(s) since the last layoffs in tech. But when you look at the headcount its just returning to 2021 levels. Not great for the job market but not terrible.
And 2008 didn't even affect the tech sector all that dramatically. To your point, there's another article in the NYT today:
Layoffs at Tech Giants Reverse Small Part of Pandemic Hiring Spree
Some of the biggest tech companies have announced tens of thousands of job cuts. But even after the layoffs, their work forces are still behemoths.
What happens remains to be seen but so far it's mostly retrenching of big increases.
Layoffs at Tech Giants Reverse Small Part of Pandemic Hiring Spree
Some of the biggest tech companies have announced tens of thousands of job cuts. But even after the layoffs, their work forces are still behemoths.
What happens remains to be seen but so far it's mostly retrenching of big increases.
Yeah, and actually the entire "recession vibe" over the past few months has been largely anticipatory and sentiment driven.
Wages have been rising quickly on average, retail spending is still quite high relative to pre-covid trends, employment has been strong (outside of VC/big tech).
You see headlines about 10k here or 20k there, but in the end there's over 100m jobs in the US economy. The layoffs aren't meaningfully large in and of themselves
It remains to be seen how much worse it gets over the next year or two (if at all).
Wages have been rising quickly on average, retail spending is still quite high relative to pre-covid trends, employment has been strong (outside of VC/big tech).
You see headlines about 10k here or 20k there, but in the end there's over 100m jobs in the US economy. The layoffs aren't meaningfully large in and of themselves
It remains to be seen how much worse it gets over the next year or two (if at all).
Poor babies. If those let go from well paying jobs didn't save for a rainy day then they are idiots.
Reminds me of the “first time?” meme
Having survived (just) the dot com bust in 2000 I recently wrote up my experience:
https://medium.com/@davenixon_44904/how-to-find-a-job-when-y...
TLDR: avoid changing from homeowner to renter if at all possible - convert your normal IRAs to ROTH during any lean low-tax years - learn the hottest new skills to get rehired
https://medium.com/@davenixon_44904/how-to-find-a-job-when-y...
TLDR: avoid changing from homeowner to renter if at all possible - convert your normal IRAs to ROTH during any lean low-tax years - learn the hottest new skills to get rehired
This article made me thing about the idea of "cohort" disadvantage (as opposed to generational disadvantage).[1] It's not so much which decade you were born in, but whether you were born a year or two before or after a recession.
I remember, during the dot com boom of the late 90s, how much my impressions of the working world differed from people who graduated just a few years after me. I graduated from UCSD into the recession of the early 1990s, and I was living in SoCal, which was unusually hard hit. Graduates of very elite colleges were getting career-building jobs (UCSD is well regarded, but it wasn't quite in the tier to provide that immunity), and very in demand STEM majors were still getting good offers, but a lot of college grads were stringing together multiple service industry gigs. I'm really not kidding when I say that 5 years later, English majors thought the main difference between college and the working world is that now you can easily find well-paid work in media companies and your employer pays for the booze and parties (though finding an apartment in SF was a nightmare compared to the recession).
I suspect it's this way for people who graduated on the wrong side of the 2008 banking crisis as well. It's not Gen X or Millennials or Z, it's a much narrower time frame.
Some of this is definitely about resilience. I personally allowed it to affect me too heavily. I went back to college to study engineering and never really managed to shake the belief that I'm only as employable as my most up-to-date hard skills. The idea that a smart person can enter a new field and learn on the job... I know it's true, but I've never quite been able to really believe it. This has made me too conservative.
Not everyone from my cohort responded this way, but I do think it's more likely among people whose first few formative years in the workforce happen during a very poor hiring climate. The thing is, as I learned from he next bust - if you have a job before the recession, you often manage to hang onto it, and by the time the next boom rolls around, you're well positioned to take advantage. Even if you lose your job after a couple of years, you have some experience locked in, and you understand how it all works, and you know that there really are jobs, that things will improve, and that you just need to weather the storm. But for people who've never really experienced anything else, I think it creates higher risk mental habits of risk aversion that can be hard to shake. I also think that once a better hiring climate resumes, employers are more likely to go to colleges to recruit for entry level positions, and tend to overlook people who graduated several years earlier but lack relevant experience.
I've read that this effect is much more muted among very elite college grads, and I strongly suspect the same is true for a few very in demand STEM majors at non-elite colleges. Since this is hacker news, I can describe it as a vector field. People who are just on the wrong side of the line can get swept into a completely downward vector field than people just a couple spots before or after on the X-axis. Very elite college grads and some STEM majors can re-enter that positive, upward vector field at a later date.
[1] https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/recessi...
I remember, during the dot com boom of the late 90s, how much my impressions of the working world differed from people who graduated just a few years after me. I graduated from UCSD into the recession of the early 1990s, and I was living in SoCal, which was unusually hard hit. Graduates of very elite colleges were getting career-building jobs (UCSD is well regarded, but it wasn't quite in the tier to provide that immunity), and very in demand STEM majors were still getting good offers, but a lot of college grads were stringing together multiple service industry gigs. I'm really not kidding when I say that 5 years later, English majors thought the main difference between college and the working world is that now you can easily find well-paid work in media companies and your employer pays for the booze and parties (though finding an apartment in SF was a nightmare compared to the recession).
I suspect it's this way for people who graduated on the wrong side of the 2008 banking crisis as well. It's not Gen X or Millennials or Z, it's a much narrower time frame.
Some of this is definitely about resilience. I personally allowed it to affect me too heavily. I went back to college to study engineering and never really managed to shake the belief that I'm only as employable as my most up-to-date hard skills. The idea that a smart person can enter a new field and learn on the job... I know it's true, but I've never quite been able to really believe it. This has made me too conservative.
Not everyone from my cohort responded this way, but I do think it's more likely among people whose first few formative years in the workforce happen during a very poor hiring climate. The thing is, as I learned from he next bust - if you have a job before the recession, you often manage to hang onto it, and by the time the next boom rolls around, you're well positioned to take advantage. Even if you lose your job after a couple of years, you have some experience locked in, and you understand how it all works, and you know that there really are jobs, that things will improve, and that you just need to weather the storm. But for people who've never really experienced anything else, I think it creates higher risk mental habits of risk aversion that can be hard to shake. I also think that once a better hiring climate resumes, employers are more likely to go to colleges to recruit for entry level positions, and tend to overlook people who graduated several years earlier but lack relevant experience.
I've read that this effect is much more muted among very elite college grads, and I strongly suspect the same is true for a few very in demand STEM majors at non-elite colleges. Since this is hacker news, I can describe it as a vector field. People who are just on the wrong side of the line can get swept into a completely downward vector field than people just a couple spots before or after on the X-axis. Very elite college grads and some STEM majors can re-enter that positive, upward vector field at a later date.
[1] https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/recessi...
>I also think that once a better hiring climate resumes, employers are more likely to go to colleges to recruit for entry level positions, and tend to overlook people who graduated several years earlier but lack relevant experience.
That's probably true. There's machinery at colleges to feed graduating seniors into the professional hiring pipeline. Someone who has been underemployed at jobs that may not be professionally relevant has far less access.
That's probably true. There's machinery at colleges to feed graduating seniors into the professional hiring pipeline. Someone who has been underemployed at jobs that may not be professionally relevant has far less access.
a) living paycheck to fat paycheck because of how they decided to misuse their compensation, i.e. luxury cars, getting the maximum mortgage the bank would allow for them and buying a house in the past year because of FOMO, etc.
b) those who have years of runway, and are only upset because they may have to sell off some of their ETFs to make ends meet if they can't find something in >1 year
Unfortunately, I see too many of my fellow devs fall into category a) and are really up a creek. The best thing to do when one lands a highly-compensated tech job (in the future at least) is to treat the "extra comp" as that: extra. Just max out the "mega backdoor Roth IRA" instead buying of a custom-wrapped Tesla.