Am a Senior PM laid off from a Big-N tech company who has launched multiple 9 figure revenue generating products.
The market, despite the economy and the time of year isn’t great, but it’s not terrible.
I’ve had lots of first and second interviews and a surprising amount of final rounds given all of the above.
That said most all of those came from recruiters reaching out as opposed to applying directly.
Unlike a month ago, my LinkedIn is EMPTY in terms of recruiter messages.
It’s been over a week since anyone’s reached out but I figure that’s a function of the time of year.
To compare to Spring of this year when I was interviewing (while still employed) I had many, many, more recruiters reaching out than anything I’ve seen in the last 3 months, and the caliber of jobs was higher quality.
It sucks being unemployed during the holidays and not getting the reach I had before. It’s a little scary, but I keep reminding myself that it’s that time of year with holidays, no budget, etc and it’ll get better in January (hopefully).
I’m no 100x rockstar coder, but I’ve added real, quantifiable value at companies where it’s a real challenge to launch anything quickly and successfully. It’s not nearly as rosy a picture as the BBC presents. I hope it gets better soon.
I'm a linux sysadmin / devops guy who went through this recently. When I started looking, end of September, I had a ton of interest from recruiters who wanted to chat. I also applied to a ton of jobs. Week 2 looked a little sparse. By week 3 I was getting interviews daily.
It took 6 weeks, but I ended up with about 6 solid offers and I turned down another 2 or 3 that wanted to make offers, or continue interview rounds.
I landed an awesome job at the very end of November.
Things will pick up in January, good luck.
I noticed that the number of recruiter messages I get on LinkedIn was proportional to the number of replies I give to the messages in my inbox. When I'm active, I get more interest. Like, going from 0-1 new recruiter messages to 5-7 a week. Maybe I'm imagining things, but it would make sense that if you just have your profile set to "Looking for work" but you're not actually talking to anyone, you're sending a signal that you're not actively looking, and you're going to fall to the bottom of the pile. Send a few "Sorry for the delay in responding. $YOUR_PRODUCT sounds interesting. Can you tell me more," messages to the most recent messages in your inbox and see if it gets things unstuck.
>Unlike a month ago, my LinkedIn is EMPTY in terms of recruiter messages.
A lot of in-house recruiters may have been laid off during that time, so might not directly correlate with new job postings volume/quality (obviously still related though).
On the upside, wherever you land, they are more likely to be investing thoughtfully rather than tacking on headcount.
It's known that tech recruiting has its most active months in spring/summer. Its more in line with the school year[1] than the calendar year.
[1]: probably because parents don't like big changes while their kids are on a schedule and because new grads, and possibly (on a more evolutionary-biological level) because people are more active after winter as they begin foraging/farming/building, venturing out, etc.
>Unlike a month ago, my LinkedIn is EMPTY in terms of recruiter messages.
>It’s been over a week since anyone’s reached out but I figure that’s a function of the time of year.
Funnily enough, for me in the UK my Linkedin inbox is fuller than it's been all year. I've had multiple messages and connection requests from recruiters today alone, and it's not even half 9 yet.
Downturn is still very young. Many unprofitable companies can continue to execute on their previous funding rounds which, raised in the macro environment of zero-cost money, can provide for a year or more of runway. Should this downturn become a fairly severe recession, many more jobs may be hit affecting hiring in skilled tech as well.
Not claiming that this will happen, but many economists agree that it is fairly likely. So even if you are in a very enviable position in a skilled tech role and are inundated with recruiter calls I would prep: take stock of your finances, determine your personal runway (how long can you maintain current quality of life should your paychecks stop tomorrow) and plan accordingly. My 2c.
I think a lot more interesting things are going on with the "tech recession" than meets the eye.
Unlike the crash in '08 and '01, the economy now has a hard dependency on tech. There is no "going back" to the world of the past. Smartphones aren't going to be "un-invented". People aren't going to give up online shopping. Businesses aren't going to give up targeted advertising and start buying ads on AM Radio or something. If you look at the big picture, and barring any wild developments like general intelligence AI, the demand for skilled tech workers is only going to increase.
I don't think tech workers are invincible but I think tech is now a requirement for economic growth, which poses a problem: Business leaders and investors have been really ticked off by the tech labor shortage. They tried to fix it with H1B, they tried with all these "learn to code" programs. They tried boot camps. They keep trying, and failing, because being a software engineer requires a degree of intelligence and critical thinking and there will always be a limited supply of that kind of labor.
My pet theory is that some portion of the layoffs are being engineered to undermine the remote work revolution, scare people into accepting lower wages, and get back to "how things were". But the economic need for tech is so large and the supply of labor is so limited I don't see much changing.
I feel that there's lot of bubbles which will burst and release plenty of programmers to the job market. It's already happening. And those programmers will not find work, not all of them. We need smartphones, but we don't necessary need all those "old moms social network" apps.
During rich years plenty of people came to the industry. Plenty of them are smart and capable, so competition will lower salaries and push some people from their levels.
And god save us if this AI thing will actually take off. It's dumb but it's progressing.
> And god save us if this AI thing will actually take off. It's dumb but it's progressing.
I don't see how it does anything but progress. I obviously have no idea how long it will take before it can replace a software engineer but after playing around with ChatGPT and seeing the code it can create, it's definitely progressing faster than I thought it would.
I think it's a mix. Companies reacting to markets and targets are cutting costs. Other companies are using the economy as air cover enact employee hostile policies and changes.
For example, when things start recovering, I'm curious how quickly companies will rush to increase comp back to recent levels, bring back cut benefits (or reduce their costs that have increasingly been passed on to the employee), change WFH policies, etc.
My gut says they will only do it when labor has leverage again, which means these companies will try to put their thumb on the scale as hard as they can to make up lost ground and then some.
There’s a barrier to entry here for businesses to enjoy tech continuum.
Clean books, squeezed operations, cash reserves, and providing critical internet infrastructure you’re likely & able to discount at scale right now as well as foreseeable future.
Most non-tech businesses get by with, and prefer, the platform world that spoon feeds them.
It’s either a good time to be Google, or a self-funded startup. Not much in between.
One thing to keep in mind is that in the Dotcom bubble, the web was brand new. On the talent side, we were still figuring everything out. Most software engineers were used to either desktop app development, or expensive enterprise server development. Most designers were print designers, with UX design having not really emerged from the early human-computer interaction days where it was still more technical than humanities.
At the same time, the web had only proven that regular people were willing to try it, but there was no meaningful consumer or advertiser money flowing through it for another ten years. So basically you had a perfect storm of a bunch of people trying to figure out something from scratch and massive over investment from VCs. When the music stopped it was a bloodbath because there was so little actual revenue.
I don't see the same thing happening now because the web is firmly embedded in our lives and someone needs to maintain all this code. I'm honestly more worried about environmental threats and the sustainability of our way of life than the economy per se.
> So basically you had a perfect storm of a bunch of people trying to figure out something from scratch and massive over investment from VCs.
This could describe today, with crypto (tech still looking for solutions to problems that aren't scams), AI (great potential but mostly in a gimmick phase right now), and VCs coming from a decade of record-low rates causing extreme valuations across the board ($5M seed rounds, etc).
If you exclude Big Tech (which also took a beating but is managing), the smaller tech scene is ripe for a disruption of a very uncomfortable kind.
This makes sense in terms of VC (not to mention broader crypto investors who got hung out to dry by SBF's ponzi scheme), but as far as employment is concerned I am not convinced that crypto represents anything like the marketshare of web startups in 2000.
I’m pretty happy for all those sectors to tank, they don’t produce value that people would pay for, while we struggle finding competent people for product startups generating 500k per employee.
Do the hard tasks and I pay you exactly this amount. People are, really, so lazy. Yes there is some jQuery in the app, well it’s not the bane of the world, and yes we gotta interact with customers, horror, well deal with it and I pay you exactly the revenue it generates.
But of course everyone wants to have K8s and microservices on their resume, rather than building something people want.
I’ve said almost that to my senior, but he keeps hating the jQuery app. It’s fine with me, but don’t complain.
I've been asking around about the dot com bust, trying to get a better picture of it
The problem is that most of the people I've talked to were employed at huge, profitable companies that made actual products. So it was just a blip for them.
I was working on web development after school and got laid off, but all that meant was I had to eat the food my parents made for me instead of eating at fast food places with my friends..
I got laid off twice during the Dotcom bust. Remember that it dovetailed into the post-9/11 stuff too. In Q4 2001, there was just nothing. Intel and Nike were advertising web development positions for $12/hour (not a typo) and were getting flooded with applications. I ended up cold-calling various local businesses, got a freelance php/mysql contract for $20/hour, found a different perl/oracle contract for $55/hour in May of 2002, and worked my way back up from there.
I got laid off about a week after 9/11 though the writing was on the wall before that anyway. I consider myself super-lucky to land a job in about a month after a lunch discussion I had with someone I knew about 3 days after I was laid off. Nothing else, including discussions with other people I knew, was leading to anything at all.
Sure, but it was framed as a rebuilding step 20 years ago and inflation adjusted its like $165,000/yr. Making that in the trough of a recession after a lay off seems great to me.
Finding work was not all that bad depending on your skill set. In fact I started doing consulting after leaving my startup. Was one of the most profitable and enjoyable times of my career. Having been through several downturns in tech I tend to view them as shifts. Early 80's personal computers -> late 80's early 90's connectivity (modems) BBS networks -> 2000 Internet etc.
Understanding and adapting to those changes are key. Next up -> IOT - computers in everything - applying AI - Biotech - ? Generally something expensive has to become cheap for the masses. Hayes modems took $1200 - $2000 devices down to <$300. Ethernet made LANs cheap. Twitter made stupidity availability massively scalable for zero dollars:)
The workers hit the hardest during the dotcom bust were people who recently skilled-up in HTML/CSS and basic web design. There was a massive hiring spree for people with these skills and a huge number of those jobs completely evaporated by 2001. Many of those people ended up just leaving tech all together.
Those jobs never really came back as websites became more "Dynamic" and CMSes began to proliferate: So rather than hiring 20 web developers converting copy and design to websites you could hire a 1-3 engineer(s) to customize and run your CMS and non-technical people can provide the content.
I decided to leave my job of 8 years in July of 2001 (the layoffs in tech had started by then, but really built up momentum a bit after that). At the time I was doing software development for a semiconductor company and it just seemed like after 8 years there I wasn't going anywhere and we'd recently paid off our house so I figured, what the heck, I can find another gig in 6 months, I'll take some time off. When I started looking around in Jan '02 it took several months to find a 3 month contracting gig. After that was over I decided to go back to school and get a masters degree which I did. Had a few conctracting gigs after that but steady work didn't return until '05. So yeah, my timing wasn't great, but I did get my masters degree.
I've actually met a couple of people randomly on flights that worked as software developers until the dotcom bubble burst. They both said they couldn't find anything the following years so they changed careers: one became a carpenter and the other ended up as an accountant.
The dot com bust was a bit of a perfect storm, lots of people weren't needed because Y2K was over, lots of dumb ass startups with no product and no revenue disappeared and finally 9/11 gave everyone an excuse to chop heads because the economy was surely tanking. The first two were going to happen no matter what an the third just amplified the situation. Through all of it there was still hiring, the week I got hired the company that hired me laid off 12,000 people.
> I was working on web development after school and got laid off, but all that meant was I had to eat the food my parents made for me instead of eating at fast food places with my friends..
A good reminder that economic downturns can be actually healthy for people, families, and the environment. With less money, people will drive less, travel less, drink less, eat less meat, spend more time with loved ones, etc etc
I don’t work in web development (and didn’t then, either), so this may vary from what others are saying. What I experienced was that there was a downturn in 2001. I was working for myself and had a contract with a Fortune 50 company. They kept us on for about 6 more months after 9/11, then let all of the contractors go. But I had other irons in the fire, so it was fine for a while.
It really hit hard about 2 years later in 2003, when all non-web contract work dried up and clients started having trouble paying for work you’d already done. That was really brutal for me, personally. I was also selling some software in addition to doing the contracting. I got really lucky and someone saw my products and wanted to license them for their particular niche. I was just barely able to hang on until a year later when things mostly returned to normal.
If it hadn’t worked out, I probably could have taken a job doing some development work I hated if I really had to. There were still openings, but they were at places like Accenture, or whatever a small-time version of them would be.
I had just switched from IBM 370 mainframe assembler to Java in mid-2000, worked for several months at iXL, a then-typical consulting company with high margins and correspondingly high "bling" -- elaborate office furnishings, massive plasma TVs in the conference rooms, massages, beer cart Fridays, et cetera. That got crushed in the dot-bomb, followed soon after by 9/11. I managed not to have to return to my former vertical (airline reservations), but I definitely had to scramble to stay relevant. I work at Amazon now (usual disclaimer; opinions my own, etc.).
Cisco, EMC, Sun... were all huge (and formerly profitable) companies making actual products and got absolutely hammered when dot com busted. Personally I was very lucky--got a job with a small firm whose CEO I knew well and was (at the time) still doing OK though it went through a fairly long rough patch.
But no small number of people, including many who had worked at large firms, basically left tech.
What “unprofitable” companies are you talking about? Most of the layoffs have come from very profitable companies that trimmed a lot of fat they acquired.
Meta, Amazon, Stripe, Twilio, Salesforce etc are all profitable companies. That’s where the majority of non crypto layoffs came from.
Profitable big tech layoffs are, in my opinion, a different phenomenon. Those companies are trying to get their PE up to be competitive with fixed rate assets. Otherwise, their share prices will suffer even more. For example, Google's PE of 19 is OK in the era of a free money, but not so good when rates are at 5% and defensive sectors yield 7+%. But the key thing is that the layoffs are not an existential question for them -- they are profitable and can continue to run for years even if their shares suffer. It would be a bad business decision, but will not lead to a quick death.
I was talking about smaller, unprofitable, non-market dominating firms. If they are not profitable they will have to raise or die. And raising in the environment of 5+% rates and poor overall tech stock performance may get brutal. Currently, many of those companies still have significant runways (because they were able to raise a lot earlier), but this will start running out in the next several months. This may already be starting: two of my friends who work in such small companies (robotics and lasers) are sensing job uncertainty ahead. My 2c.
It's not an existential question for the companies, but it could be for the people making the decisions. If shareholders aren't happy with the company's performance, the CEO might find themselves getting replaced.
While you're correct about most of those, Twilio has been an epic loss-making machine its entire existence.
$1.1 billion operating loss the past four quarters on a mere $3.6b in sales. $915m operating loss fiscal 2021, $492m operating loss 2020, $369m operating loss 2019, $108m operating loss (on $650m in sales) for 2018, and so on. They have always lost money and are currently gushing red ink.
It's definitely part of the reason their stock has collapsed in such a dramatic way (a particularly unsupported valuation previously). While even most highly profitable tech stocks have dropped by a lot, Twilio's drop of ~89% is largely reserved for the group of very unprofitable extreme valuation tech stocks.
They are saying that many unprofitable companies haven't done their layoffs yet, because they're still coasting on huge funding rounds from 2021. Thus, there are more axes yet to fall.
Not sure how much stock I actually put in that argument -- lots of VC-funded companies are already doing layoffs, too -- but I think you're sort of agreeing with them.
IMO One of the best times to do a startup is during a downturn. Startups typically don't even have a product for some time after beginning. One of the worst scenarios is introducing your product at the beginning of a downturn. Adoption rates tend to be slower then because corporations are reducing spending.
One can always look at recently funded startups. Doesn't have to be your own. VC don't necessarily pull back on funding during recessions - using the same reasoning that it is a good time. Starting a new fund can be a problem during that period since many investors become risk adverse.
I still hear a lot of conversations that assume current trends are temporary, that we'll return to an era of free money soon, and we can finally stop worrying about this silly "profit" nonsense to focus again on growth which is much more fun.
I won't believe this is near over until I see worldviews fundamentally change.
This has been my experience too. Companies never stopped looking for senior talent. Junior talent is getting squeezed. Quite a few people in my circle have been getting job offers after interviewing at one or two companies, it's still somewhat of a hot market.
Junior talent isn't getting squeezed either; there are just too many unqualified people trying to break into the industry. The time when you could get a high paying tech job with a bootcamp certificate or a couple of trivial projects on your Github is over. People with CS degrees, internships or a year or two of professional experience are fine.
I guess that is true. I mentor CS students at my local university and they're having tougher times breaking into the industry than past years. We helped them with resumes and making contacts, and where maybe 3/4 of students previously would have been placed by now, only maybe 1/4 are getting placed. Companies in my area seem interested in talking to students, but not actually hiring them (yet.) A couple students got job offers in place 6 months out (!)
I do believe the bootcamp certificate crowd will have a harder time than this though. I'm seeing way more "degree required" postings than I did 5 years ago.
> A couple students got job offers in place 6 months out (!)
This is standard in the tech industry. The bulk of college hiring happens August-October for start dates in May-August or even later. And the local market is always going to be difficult in non tech hubs. Relocation is almost always a requirement for the better jobs.
Relocation to the Bay was impossible for me to avoid as someone who graduated with 3 FAANG offers and a multitude of other big tech and startup offers as a 2019 grad. All SF or Bay mandatory. Don't know if that's changed post COVID though.
I've mentored a couple of college kids and have pointed out some good jobs at good companies and the response I got was "they're boring". They might be boring but they pay well and have good benefits, I guess it's got to be a generational think because I would have jumped all over a $80K gig at a boring company vs a $32K gig at some BS startup at 23-24.
I'm still uncertain when that was ever so easy. Leetcode, take home exercises, and all of the hiring processes that are the stuff of a hundred irate blog articles posted to HN have been around since the late 2000s. And it feels like bootcamp grads were feeling the squeeze as early as ~5 years ago.
I know someone who founded a bootcamp around 2010. According to him they had a 99% placement rate within 3 months of finishing bootcamp till around 2015, with starting comp in the 80-120k range.
The basic setup over 3 months:
1. Crash course in basic dev tooling setup (git etc.)
2. Crash course in data structures and algorithms (e.g. leetcode)
3. Crash course in setting up a production environment
4. Group interview prep sessions post-graduation
According to him this worked because:
1. There was very little talent on the market at all
2. Very few CS students had any experience writing production code, even for toy apps. This meant their ramp up time was often slower than bootcamp grads
3. There was a backlog of otherwise highly competent people trying to break into tech that just needed guidance on how to get in
None of these things are true anymore and he has sinced closed his bootcamp since it began to felt exploitative.
> Very few CS students had any experience writing production code, even for toy apps. This meant their ramp up time was often slower than bootcamp grads
This sounds like self-serving BS to me, or if it’s at all real, it’s indicative of employers not understanding what’s important in hiring for software development.
Even if someone takes longer to ramp up, the depth of knowledge is much more important in the medium to long term. Perhaps if the work being done is just churning out boilerplate, the boot camp grad might have a brief edge, but that’s exactly the kind of thing CS grads can automate out of existence.
But anyway, the key phrase in your comment is “according to him”. It sounds like he came up with a maximally rosy-eyed rationale for his failure, but the reality was probably a lot simpler: he just wasn’t creating any value.
It was a response to a ridiculous claim about the capabilities of bootcamp grads.
Sounds like you’ve bought into your friend’s BS. Perhaps he believed it too. But I’m pointing out that it’s much more likely that the bootcamp wasn’t producing quality developers, and became unsustainable once the market became a bit more discriminating.
> a ridiculous claim about the capabilities of bootcamp grads
Having met many of these grads, and lived through that phase of hiring, I think it's a lot less ridiculous if you imagine the early bootcamp grads from my friends program as someone who's e.g. a senior mechanical engineer with a degree from good university.
These people have strong technical and soft skills and were unusual at the time in that they were already productive in stacks that companies were using.
By 2015, you couldn't fill a bootcamp with these kinds of people, so graduate quality is dropping at the same time that universities up their game and start including classes that teach some basic SWE skills.
I don't think we actually disagree that the value-add was never that great as the program mostly only helpful to people who already had most of the skills necessary to be a good engineer.
A few decades ago maybe. It is easier compared to the other majors, but easy makes it sound like a firm handshake is the only necessity. Hasn't been like that since 2008 minimum.
Back in the dotcom boom, most certainly. I had a friend who had taken exactly one programming course in some obscure financial language and she got hired at the, to her, insane amount of $45/hour. At that time, pretty much any warm body that had ever looked at a computer was being hired.
The problem is the "funnel" is clogged. You can slip through with a referral, a degree from a tier-1 school, and/or some solid internships but everyone else just has to hope they get lucky.
I do agree about the under-qualified part though. We do some basic technical pre-screening that has candidates spend maybe 15 minutes answering 2 fizzbuzz-style questions just to save everyone time and there's a solid minority of candidates that can't do a question they didn't rehearse in leetcode training.
the main bootcamp in my city is still doing quite well, but it's not startups that are hiring - it's big banks and the companies the contract out to them. many of the bootcamp grads are only getting QA positions, but that's still a step up from their old work, and some are still getting entry level developer positions.
I’m seeing the opposite at PE-backed firms. Blackstone, for instance, have been firing anyone who costs anything, and moving every technical role to the lowest bidder. I’ve watched the entire technical and leadership teams for businesses get fired this year, and replaced with $10/hr coders.
It’s going to make them look rosy for the next few Qs while everyone else haemorrhages cash. Long term, not so much, but the long term isn’t important to the market.
My co-worker's engagement was recently reduced due to lack of work matching his highly specific skills, so he's on the lookout for another project.
He was told by one of the recruiters that while there are offers for contractors such as us, it's the first time since time immemorial when they're actually considerably lower than the previous year.
Don't know what to make of this - could be just a negotiation tactic but indeed the budget he was offered there was around 75% of what he had in his previous main thing(our project is technically his side gig).
Meanwhile Google was on a hiring spree around here for the past few months, but the compensation offered is reportedly, ahem, uninspiring.
Perhaps if enough companies do the same we'll be facing not a job shortage, but a well-paid job shortage. I think it's possible.
Is anyone aware of how hard covid hit the software engineering community via early deaths/retirements? This downturn is going to be weird all over the economy because unlike normal recessions its coming right after a structural change to the labor market which is why were still seeing historically low unemployment rates despite these rate hikes and layoffs. Every company who was profitable to begin with has been hungry to snap up employees still.
Not saying this is necessarily true with software since were a niche of the economy and may have a different outlook, but the affect of covid on our number would help figure that out
This article[0] doesn't discuss the tech industry specifically, but Jerome Powell recently stated that deaths from covid is a notable factor in the labor shortfall. Those deaths, along with early retirements and decreased immigration, have left the labor market about 3.5 million people lighter than it would have been without covid.
All the news I read is lay-offs, recessions and downturns.
All the emails I get are from recruiters begging for me to apply to their clients' many openings.
And I am not Skilled really.
I am not one for conspiracy theories (except for some really niche little ones :) ) but it does make me wonder how much the media follows facts and how much it follows the mood. People seem in the mood for a recession more than actually in one...
I've heard nothing but the warning of a massive recession since about 2015, half the pundits are telling me the world is going to end in the next six months and the other half say the pump is primed and the good times will be back in the next 6 months. I guess we'll find out who's right in the next 6 months...or not.
I don't think you're that far off. When Elon's antics went public, there was a good article about how most other tech CEOs/managers wanted to replicate it. One CEO felt a bit emboldened to crack down, but acknowledged that if he did what Elon did he'd likely lose everything. However, he said that it didn't really matter because Elon's actions have had an effect already by scaring workers and making them less likely to ask for more
I don't think it's crazy to imagine that tech CEOs, investors, management, etc stand to benefit from tech workers being more scared to negotiate for more
the #1 influence on the american economy is the Fed, and if they raise interest rates - which is likely - then it will cause a recession. (see Volcker)
of course there are no guarantees, we can't predict the timing or severity of the markets' reaction, but its not a complete fiction of the media and mood.
The media is corrupt and filled with incompetent writers. According to them we will be replaced by ai monday morning. They did the same wave of stories where they said baristas and chefs will be replaced by ai robots just a few years ago. They even had “proof”: a robot arm here and there doing a crappy job at making a burger and scrambled eggs. Now it’s tech “workers”. Also there are no jobs in tech. These folks writing “news” really are clueless and have no idea what they are writing - dont usually bother talking to people and researching their content, they just spew it out.
This was true during the dot com bust as well. Basically good technical talent is good technical talent right? If things are similar to the dot com post partum it won't be as great for middle/line managers. Those folks often found themselves with a management practice from a company that failed, and that sort of tainted them as well seeing as "management" was considered the reason things failed at the company. In the early 2000's I saw a lot of resumes of "engineers" where their last job was management. Sometimes that was fine, they had kept themselves fresh while managing, sometimes not so much.
I'd still hire someone whos able to google a vague problem (not from leetcode) during an interview, piece together information, code it, and get away with it. That shows at least some knowledge, skill, and potential. But using chatgpt requires no skill. Shame
Great to hear that those laid off have jobs to find.
This round of layoffs has only been the end of easy money. If we have an actual recession it will get worse. Now's the time to think through emergency funds and contingency plans.
Inverted yield curve and other economic indicators all point to an incoming recession. Then again, it's a pretty unique time when the natural interest rate is negative. Maybe boosting government spending will actually work, it's hard to say. It's all kind of a big experiment at this point
companies printing money i.e profitable not funded by cheap vc money are not affected by the current downturn. unless it is industry wide e.g covid which affected the cash flow of travel tech companies. likewise for financial companies e.g HFT.
of course certain skills get saturated and get replaced. normal course of market adjustment.
I imagine that all those companies are big enough to have segmented departments that can be determined to be unprofitable by themselves. Amazon made plenty of profit, but they doesn't mean they should keep employing everyone from the Alexa department that only lost money.
100x this. Most companies with large layoffs had pie in the sky valuations due to pandemic money printing. They were never profitable. VCs with wads were searching for next 20x in three months
It feels like we've been waiting 6 months for the last 12 months for the downturn to start any day now. We're in uncharted territory. The economy sucks yet people are employed, wages are down, and cost of living is way up.
The economy doesn't suck. Most of the 2022 numbers that look bad are really artifacts of year-over-year reporting, being compared to numbers from 2021 that were artificially high because of time-shifted demand from the pandemic in 2020. Compare 2022 to 2019 and most things look fairly normal for a three-year period.
Remember the "great resignation"? That was never a thing - people aren't leaving the workforce - it was just time-shifted demand for job switching that didn't happen during the pandemic, so that some transient numbers looked high.
>Remember the "great resignation"? That was never a thing - people aren't leaving the workforce - it was just time-shifted demand for job switching that didn't happen during the pandemic, so that some transient numbers looked high.
What is this based on? Labor force participation rate[1] is still visibly lower than pre-pandemic levels.
The y-axis is quite zoomed in on that chart. The difference from early 2020 to late 2022 is only one percentage point, and that's probably entirely explained by normal aging patterns.
Possibly only because it's still early. Unemployment doesn't lead up to recessions, it spikes months afterwards, and usually maxes out just after the recessions end: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
I don't think that massive downturn people are thinking is coming ... is going to come. The job market is too strong (because of lower immigration, and how many exited the job market during covid) and so is the housing market.
I thinks its going to be more like this for the next 8-12 months, until the fed stops raising interest rates, and then it will be a mad dash to get everything going again.
Currently, the fed is still saying December's CPI print (coming on January 12) may be high. But looking at the futures market, it seems like almost everything is down significantly and we might see the first CPI print of 0% MoM in a year. Is the fed keeping this narrative to temper the market and slow it down? Or do they know something we don't?
If January 12 shows 0% or even negative MoM, it's possible interest rates could come down in 2023.
There was an entire layer of software companies that were struggling to hire and fill roles because the big players were hoarding talent. All those companies are still hiring, the roles may not be as flashy, and the challenges may be different but they all need good engineers.
ML engineer with 10+ years experience, took voluntary break in Sep, started interviewing in Nov, interviewed at 6 companies to land 2 offers.
Most companies have been having hacker-rank pre-screen coding, Hiring Manager Technical screen, System Design, Product round, Behavioral round, ML specific round.
While it's not been hard to land interviews, the process is taking a long time and it looks like people are looking for previous experience in the specific stack they work on. Offers are also lower from a year ago.
if you're willing to relocate and not picky there are tons of state/federal programming jobs. couple co-workers got picked up by NASA for Javascript/C++ programming
As someone with 13 years of experience in Backend Development and Devops and currently working in a startup that might run out of money next year, would it make sense to start looking for a new job right now or just wait it out? Also considering that I'm working in Europe where job protection laws are quite strict and having worked in a company for 3 years will give you strong job security. So basically I will be one of the last ones to be laid off.
The longer you wait to jump ship, the less time you'll have to establish and prove your value at a new company, making it more likely that you'll be first in line on the chopping block if the new company also ends up with layoffs in the next few years.
It really all depends on how many years you can survive without a job from your savings and how much faith you have in your startup to survive long term. You seem to be in a high risk, high reward situation which necessarily has no one right answer because every person has different risk tolerances. If you can survive 2-3 years without a high paying tech job, and don't have a family to support, the reward of sticking it out might be worth the risk. Only you can answer that.
Because I am working on some new products and finally without a NDA (since a decade), I can make some noise about myself again, so I am polishing my LinkedIn, Twitter, Mastodon and website; I am getting rather a lot of recruiter noise even some direct companies. I am skilled but not looking. It seems a way better market than when I switched off my LinkedIn. But that can hardly be…
An employer’s market changes the dynamic, which can be to your benefit if you’re a top engineer. I expect that companies can lay off the bottom 10% and then turn around and hire the top 5% in the market who will replace the laid off 10%.
Kind of risky to join a new company though because if they do layoffs, recent hires or more likely to get the axe.
This sounds like anti-worker sentiment trying to sneak in on people's egos. It doesn't pass the common sense test, for me.
It sounds like you're saying that companies are going to lay off (say) half their workforce, and replace them by a handful of "10x engineers" who they pay twice as much.
Is there any evidence that this happens?
It sounds to me like saying that luxury mansions go up in a housing market crash, or blue chips went up in 1929.
I wouldn't say it's "anti-worker", just armchair discussion of supply-demand economics. You can't improve worker conditions without an honest characterization of market dynamics. It pretty straightforward that a decrease of "open positions" (the supply of jobs) and the increase in "candidates looking for work" (the demand for jobs) would afford employers the leverage to change their hiring strategies.
Combine that with post-covid environment where employers want to boost productivity to prior levels, and as they see other companies successfully perform layoffs without huge hits to productivity or stock price, and you get a perfect storm.
And yes, most companies that have had had layoffs are still hiring, but obviously more selectively.
Follow up:
> It sounds like you're saying that companies are going to lay off (say) half their workforce, and replace them by a handful of "10x engineers" who they pay twice as much
they don't have to be 10x engineers, just perceived as better than their current "hand". Put some card back in the pile, draw some new ones from the deck. And they don't have to pay them twice as much either (unless a really desirable skillset), it's an employers market.
I feel the recent rounds of layoffs were a bit overblown (perhaps because it affected well-known companies? and Meta isn't very liked by traditional media outlets).
A lot of layoffs targeted "tech-adjacent" or "non-technical" positions too (perhaps this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34039816 can shed a light on how essential these jobs were). Some of it were expected, like at Microsoft where they trim about 1% of the workforce deemed underperforming on an annual basis.
The market is still incredibly hot for high performing engineers, especially senior. I think where the squeeze really happened are junior positions, but I still see a strong market for qualified candidates. It's certainly not like back in 2015 where you would see junior hires come in with only a coding bootcamp on their resume.
Now something I noticed is a renewed interest for startups, especially from experienced engineers who might have "cashed out" in the last few years and have bit of runway. Crypto and Twitter both created their fair share of well-off engineers that are looking for their next challenge.
> Craig Freedberg, from UK-based specialist recruitment firm, Robert Half, says businesses will still have a need for tech resources and software development projects.
> However, he thinks companies will be reluctant to expand their workforces and will instead turn to temporary tech workers.
Maybe in the UK, but it's not what I've seen this side of the pond.
Brexit made the UK a risky destination to start or operate a business, and out of control inflation didn't help. Salaries adjusted to cost of living have decreased, inducing an even larger brain drain. Temporary resources are good for the immediate bottom-line but when has this ever worked out? Long term, it generally means a loss of technical expertise for a company. The reason a lot of UK businesses are doing it might also be that Brexit made it much harder to secure finding, as investors aren't too confident in the UK's future.
> Could this erode Silicon Valley's attraction for ambitious software engineers and developers? After all, other cities like Lisbon and Toronto are offering attractive tax breaks in the hope of attracting tech entrepreneurs.
Startups aren't worried about taxes. They are worried about funding. The real question here is are Toronto and Lisbon attractive places to secure funding? That's what matters to founders.
> Author Margaret O'Mara does not see a big exodus. "Companies come here for the talent, to recruit the best people, and that's still happening in Silicon Valley," she notes.
> But venture capitalist Lu Zhang views it another way. "The new normal will be to rely on the core values within Silicon Valley to help founders get started and create their initial products and learn about market fit, but then to expand outside those borders to leverage talent outside Silicon Valley and remotely hire from other tech hubs."
From my experience that's already the case. However, long term, I've seen a lot more employees move from other tech hubs to the Valley than the opposite.
Every time I've been pitched the "next Silicon Valley" or that innovation just wasn't going to happen in the Valley anymore, the correct bet was to ignore it. I don't see how this time is different.
Am a Senior PM laid off from a Big-N tech company who has launched multiple 9 figure revenue generating products.
The market, despite the economy and the time of year isn’t great, but it’s not terrible.
I’ve had lots of first and second interviews and a surprising amount of final rounds given all of the above.
That said most all of those came from recruiters reaching out as opposed to applying directly.
Unlike a month ago, my LinkedIn is EMPTY in terms of recruiter messages.
It’s been over a week since anyone’s reached out but I figure that’s a function of the time of year.
To compare to Spring of this year when I was interviewing (while still employed) I had many, many, more recruiters reaching out than anything I’ve seen in the last 3 months, and the caliber of jobs was higher quality.
It sucks being unemployed during the holidays and not getting the reach I had before. It’s a little scary, but I keep reminding myself that it’s that time of year with holidays, no budget, etc and it’ll get better in January (hopefully).
I’m no 100x rockstar coder, but I’ve added real, quantifiable value at companies where it’s a real challenge to launch anything quickly and successfully. It’s not nearly as rosy a picture as the BBC presents. I hope it gets better soon.