IT Salaries and Hiring Are Up — But Just To 2008 Levels 198
tsamsoniw writes "A mid-year salary survey has a mix of good and bad news for IT professionals: The good news, hiring is slowly increasing as companies bring more IT operations back in house and salaries are creeping up a bit. But compensation (including benefits) are just now reaching 2008 levels — and hiring will remain soft, at least until the presidential election is over."
Citation needed (Score:5, Insightful)
"However, hiring overall will remain soft in coming months, particularly with the presidential election in the United States and economic turmoil in the European Union."
The EU part is obvious, but there's no explanation about why the presidential election would have an impact or where they are getting that data from.
Re:Citation needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Citation needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Businesses may be hesitant to make major investments in hiring (or anything) until they know which way the wind will blow after November.
Businesses hire because they need more people to do the work they have in the pipeline. Outside of a few firms in Washington, presidential elections have about 0% impact on that.
Anyone saying otherwise is has either never run a business or has an agenda to push.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone saying otherwise is has either never run a business or has an agenda to push.
I run a small business and work with other businesses small and large daily. What happens in DC affects every job in this country and the administration is responsible for setting the tone and direction of the nation in terms of it's social and economic agendas. This gets codified into laws on: ... From taxes, regulations, foreign trade the list goes on and on. Have you ever taken a look at the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs)? [slashdot.org]
Once a law goes on the book it stays there unless somebody passes another
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
So we pull up the non-farm payroll numbers for the past 40 years. Chart the time series. Nothing. Do some stats on the data: nothing significant on a 4 year cycle. Hell, let's do the stats on NFP^2 (maybe there is a volatility effect?) Nope. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
You are wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you'd like to mark your "inflection points" on that chart. We'll give you bonus points if you can ascribe meaning to them without laughing.
My seven year old does better charting hot temperatures to why she really needs an ice cream.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trust me, I have no love for Romney and his frequent promises of skyrocketing immigration and an obscenely high H1-B cap. But in the long run we're better off with him, no matter what he does, due to the perceptual niche he occupies.
Sorry but the facts are against you. The economy grew faster during the "bad perception" years of Clinton than during the "good perception" years of GWB.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trying to argue something inane like "GWB is gr8 and Clinton sux0rs!!11", as you seem to be suggesting.
No. You are drawing a caricature of my argument.
The fact that there are billions in capital and millions of jobs waiting on this election is real.
This is a made up fact. People are sitting on capital because they are afraid of the economic conditions worldwide. If the only problem were the US elections they would take their money and invest it elsewhere.
You can't wish it away,
Neither can you just m
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. The only businesses that I can think of that would need to plan directly around a presidential election are companies that contract with the government. To all other businesses not involved in any type of corruption, republican or democrat makes zero difference.
Re:Citation needed (Score:5, Insightful)
What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now
I'm hardly an expert on US matters, but I've always thought that this "disastrous approach" actually predates the Obama presidency, which is forced to cope with its results. Or is there some hope among the US people that a potential non-Obama future president would be able to solve the economical problems of the US in one swift stroke using his magical superabilities?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The best thing a government can do for an economy is get out of the way. Even outside of extreme regulation, taxation and foot-dragging bureaucracies, a government that doesn't change is better than a government that changes every six months, and whose leadership announces sweeping new initiatives almost as frequently.
Nobody in their right mind wants Romney to "fix" the economy, they just want him to get out of the way.
Re:Citation needed (Score:5, Insightful)
This was the prevailing ideology leading up to the financial crisis, where drastic deregulation to get government "out of the way" paved the way to disaster.
Any time you can put nine people in a room that are responsible for trashing the world economy, and you have to beg them to let you save them with taxpayer dollars just to avoid a situation worse than the Depression... you've gotten too far out of the way.
This notion that we should be pushing for the mythical laissez-faire sort of capitalism, and that it will naturally evolve into a stable, working system that distributes resources in a reasonable manner, is bullshit. It's an imperfect world filled with imperfect people.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The GP wasn't advocating deregulation, but rather that the government stop changing the rules. Once the rules are established, businesses can adapt and the economy will stabilize. If the rules change every few years, the economy will keep fluctuating.
Re:Citation needed (Score:4, Insightful)
And the point of the response was that we have proof this doesn't work. Disastrous proof.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And the point of the response was that we have proof this doesn't work. Disastrous proof.
No, that's not the point of the response. The point of the response was to get all butthurt and rant, and he didn't prove dick.
Look, no matter what approach the government takes to business, it needs to maintain some amount of consistency. Even when you change things, you need to have certainty in the Law. Hell, it's a fundamental principle of Law in general, not unique to business.
The responder is correct in general terms, other than kind of missing the point of the post he responded to. That post was tryi
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter to the Austrians. In fact, I'm frequently surprised when I hear people who demand empirical proof for everything else in the world (science, climate change, evolution, where my fucking car keys are) will throw it all out because some Austrian dude said that empirical proof means nothing for his particular pet subject, so let's stop trying. So, in short, your "disastrous proof" means nothing, but god help you if you have evidence to the contrary because they'll foist it all over youtube and
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The GP wasn't advocating deregulation, but rather that the government stop changing the rules. Once the rules are established, businesses can adapt and the economy will stabilize. If the rules change every few years, the economy will keep fluctuating.
Thank you for stating this. Businesses are not able to act confidently when they are worried that the rules are going to keep changing. It's not like playing a boardgame where it's all part of the fun. Real things are at stake, and people tend to be very cautious and try to remain flexible and not put any chips on the table when the rules keep changing. (apologies for the mixed gaming metaphors)
Also, I think there's a semantic problem between the people that argue against and for "deregulation", as the
Re:Citation needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Businesses are not able to act confidently when they are worried that the rules are going to keep changing
Another meme courtesy of the republican party. Rules change all the time when you are in business. New competitors arise, trading treaties are signed, programs appear and disappear, new threats appear out of left field. Change is what businesses do best. To think they are sitting on untold monies because they don't know what will come is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Another meme courtesy of the republican party.
Oh, yeah, because businesses favored by democrats don't hedge the same way. This bullshit cuts both ways. You're thinking with your politics, not your brains.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what if businesses believe this "meme" and don't hire? You'll tell them they're wrong. They won't listen. No one will be hired. So what's the point exactly?
Your failing to understand business concerns doesn't make them magically go away.
Why should people risk their money, their current position, their efforts and their time to hire people to make a profit when the government is trying to increase the risks and take most the profits? (And don't argue that the government is not doing that. Even if y
Actually. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No he isn't. The pubs are always saying that shit. trying to freeze regulation in a place so when companies find loop holes and abuse them they can do so without consequences.
I am unaware of any democrat that says:
"Businesses are not able to act confidently when they are worried that the rules are going to keep changing"
If there are, then they are wrong as well.
Re: (Score:3)
"And what if businesses believe this "meme" and don't hire?"
they don't. No one in business does, becasue they would go out of business if they assumes all the properties of business where static.
"Your failing to understand business concerns doesn't make them magically go away."
it's not an actual business concern.
"Why should people risk their money, their current position, their efforts and their time to hire people to make a profit when the government is trying to increase the risks and take most the profit
Re: (Score:2)
Since your statement that "no one in business does" is obvious to everyone as a false statement, there's no need for anyone to address (or even read) anything else you've written. People "in business" have diverse opinions and various guesses about the future. What's the point in asserting that they don't?
Re: (Score:3)
he was just pointing out that the parent post is nothing but regurgitated corporate whoring from the republican platform. What you are doing is acting like a young child trying to deflect responsibility by claiming that the other kids did the same thing.
Thanks for reminding me we're on /. and not CEO Weekly by getting modded insightful with that junk. There is no deflecting of responsibility. The article claimed hiring would slow due to the Presidential election coming up, the poster explained why. That is absolutely true and has nothing to do with Republican vs. Democrat ideology. It is not a "republican meme". It is simply a matter of businesses being able to predict what the market & rules will allow them to do.
Businesses rely on predictability
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Businesses are not able to act confidently when they are worried that the rules are going to keep changing.
More BS courtesy conservatives/republican/folks with their head shoved up their ass.
Business aren't worried about "rules" that "change"... they are sitting around because of low demand (due to other massive problems with the economy and how the middle class is doing). Business WANT rules changes all the damn time - check out the lobbying budget for various industries. They just want all changes in their favor, everything to benefit them, without any longer term outlook.
Re: (Score:2)
The GP wasn't advocating deregulation, but rather that the government stop changing the rules.
Rules sometimes changes for a reason. Think SOX compliance regulations for example. As imperfect these regulations might be, the rules that preceded them, though in place, were not sufficient to prevent some major shenanigans which SOX tries to prevent (however, imperfectly the try-out might be.)
Go further back in time and remember Standard Oil. Rules had to change to cope with it.
Rules are not panacea fixed in the sky around which the clouds of business arrange themselves in cooperative harmony. And an economy, however free it might be, it should operate within the context of national interest.
The day you can iron-out rules that can remain unchanged forever while being capable of handling every economic evolutionary twist (and/or new organized fraud/criminal schemes), then your argument will be a good one.
Re: (Score:3)
The GP wasn't advocating deregulation, but rather that the government stop changing the rules. Once the rules are established, businesses can adapt and the economy will stabilize. If the rules change every few years, the economy will keep fluctuating.
If businesses really want stable regulation, then they need to stop lobbying to have those regulations changed.
Re: (Score:3)
This was the prevailing ideology leading up to the financial crisis, where drastic deregulation to get government "out of the way" paved the way to disaster.
Funny, and here I thought that the amended Community Reinvestment Act (as amended in 1991 and 1994, and heavily enforced by regulators beginning in 1994) [wikipedia.org] forced banks to relax lending standards to such an extent that they had to find new and exciting (read: untested and dangerous) ways to get said loans off their books. I was under the impression that this began the rapidly snowballing practice of handing out loans to people who weren't the least bit qualified (from a strictly financial perspective) and tha
Re:Citation needed (Score:5, Insightful)
When the economic playing field is young and full of independent entrepreneurs, the "get out of the way" philosophy works well.
Once the economy is mature, and full of monopolies and cartels, government regulation of business is the only thing that can prevent an overwhelming crime wave or outright bloody revolution.
We all know that people are greedy, and accepting that fact is why capitalism shines when the market is actually free. A cartel/monopoly-controlled market is the opposite of free, and the greed of the people at the top of these cartels and monopolies makes them every bit as destructive as a totalitarian dictator, with just as much power to boot. They set up barriers to entry which prevents any new business, even one with a superior offering, from ever getting a foothold, and all the benefits of capitalism go up in smoke. If the government does not keep the megacorporations on a leash, the people wind up largely hopeless and desperate, so they take up arms.
Re: (Score:3)
Big business uses government regulation to create cartels and monopolies. You're basically saying that we need a government big enough to save us all from destructive influence of big government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Citation needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Um. No. That's how we got a financial crisis in the first place. The repeal of Glass-Steagal during the Clinton administration is how banks in the USA got the ability to gamble with *your* money instead of their own. Building a socio-economic environment without regulation is a bit like building a house without any building codes. Firewalls, plumbing and wiring codes exist for a reason. Ditto for financial regulations. It's to the advantage of the wealthiest gamblers NOT to have regulations. For the rest of us who will never win the capitalist lottery in a big way, the regulations protect us.
Oh, and might I point out that the most successful economy in Europe, is highly regulated AND they have universal health care. Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway aren't doing so poorly either with their regulated economies. Of course, the Swedes were smart enough to let the banks fail and be sold off during their last banking crisis. We, sadly, were not.
Re: (Score:3)
We know this because Canada has not had similar regulation for a much longer time, and they were not hit nearly as bad by the crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Investment banks were a big part of the problem, as they were buying the mortgages that were being packaged up and sold by regular banks.
Re:Citation needed (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is not bank failure. The FDIC regularly seizes banks on Bank Failure Friday. Banks fail all the time:
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html [fdic.gov]
The problem is the complete lack of any serious reform. Too Big To Fail, a major issue, is even worse today than it was in 2008. The failed banks are merged with larger banks with the government absorbing significant losses. [fdic.gov]
Basically, the current system uses tax money to fund Wall Street profits. Bad loans which the government insures or buys means tax money goes to make the loan good, making the lender whole, and leaves the taxpayer on the hook. With government debt at 100% GDP, the government should not be funneling money to Wall Street for pure profit, and getting nothing in return.
Tax money should be used for public goods, not Wall Street profits. That system has not changed in any significant way. The Too Big To Fail banks are completely and totally backstopped by the government. And that means these entities have a direct line to the public treasury.
Creative destruction is desperately necessary at the top. [economist.com] The people who orchestrated this debacle are still in power, both in finance and politics. They rose to the top because of their ability to create and prosper in this terribly flawed system. To think they'll voluntarily change it when it rewards them so handsomely is completely unrealistic.
Re: (Score:3)
How many times does history need to beat us over the head with the untruth of the claim that getting out of the way is the best thing a government can do for the economy before people start from a position of getting regulation right instead of getting regulation gone?
Re: (Score:2)
How many times does history need to beat us over the head with the untruth of the claim that getting out of the way is the best thing a government can do for the economy ...
I think the problem is that history doesn't actually teach that. Can you point out some examples in history were free economies did worse than comparable regulated economies at the same time? You may be able to find a few, but there are far more examples of the opposite. Some people have pointed to the Great Depression of the 1930's as something caused by under-regulation in America, but the Great Depression was just as bad or even worse in countries that had more regulation.
Re:Citation needed (Score:5, Informative)
The best thing a government can do for an economy is get out of the way.
That's what conservatives did: weaken financial regulations, lower taxes, etc. The result was the disaster of the Bush presidency culminating in the financial crisis of 2008, which we are still feeling the effects of.
Sorry, but this mantra conservatives keep preaching is demonstrably false.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is, that the vast majority of business people would do honest business and not try to screw anyone, even in the complete absence of government.
Kid, have you ever actually *worked* anywhere? Most of the business owners I've known or worked for would have sold mud as peanut butter and had their employees pay *them* if they had any chance of getting away with it.
Sociopathic tendencies increase as you ascend in management. If you don't know it yet, you'll find out.
Re: (Score:3)
"The fact is, that the vast majority of business people would do honest business and not try to screw anyone, even in the complete absence of government"
That's contrary to the entire history of business since the industrial age.
Re:Citation needed (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm hardly an expert on US matters, but I've always thought that this "disastrous approach" actually predates the Obama presidency
Correct. I'm Canadian, so I'm greatly affected by what goes in the US Economy. What Obama struggles with, and continues to struggle with are largely related to his predecessors and include, but aren't limited to -
1) The "Bush Tax Cut" which ensured the US federal government had insufficient taxes to do their job, combined with the trillions spent on overseas wars.
2) Governments that preceded him being unwilling to regulate the financial sector, resulting in the meltdowns in 2008. (I blame Clinton here too - His presidency is largely to blame for the subprime mortgage mess.)
3) An obstinate congress which blocks anything, regardless of whether or not it is good for the country.
Re:Citation needed (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The "Bush Tax Cut" which ensured the US federal government had insufficient taxes to do their job, combined with the trillions spent on overseas wars.
Passed by Both Houses of Congress based on what was thought to be good information at the time. [wikipedia.org]
2) Governments that preceded him being unwilling to regulate the financial sector, resulting in the meltdowns in 2008. (I blame Clinton here too - His presidency is largely to blame for the subprime mortgage mess.)
It's good you mention Bill Clinton's administration on this. [wsws.org]
3) An obstinate congress which blocks anything, regardless of whether or not it is good for the country.
Oh Like when Obama's Administration with a Democratic House and Senate majorities failed to pass budgets? [foxnews.com]
Look, this is Slashdot [youtube.com] and Politics aside there's a ton of blame for the mess we have. As Will Rodgers once said "If you find yourself in a hole the first thing you do is stop digging."
The fundamental problems with our government are created by the people who vote for these idiots over and over again. From the people who vote for corrupt politicians [nbcnewyork.com] to those who vote for people with IQs less than the McDonalds dollar menu prices. [yahoo.com]
Speaking from direct experience, the leadership we have is no better than what you find in an episode of "The Office", what should we expect? It doesn't matter, Democrat or Republican and there is the problem, there's only two degrees of separation between them. Close your eyes and you get the same turd sandwich, it's all shit just go ahead and take a bite. Both parties have rigged the political processes, the election laws and created a million barriers for qualified people to run for office. What ever happened to write-in candidates? That's a whole other discussion.
Back in Feb. 2009 I flew from DC to RDU and sat behind two congressmen. One was so myopic that even with glasses he had to keep the paper an inch off of his nose. When they boarded they were high-fiving each other saying "We passed it" referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). During the flight they kept passing pieces of paper back and forth, you couldn't help but overhear occasionally even on a noisy plane. One quip was disturbing "I didn't know that was in there" referring to the ARRA
legislation.
So, two congressmen who voted yes on a bill that became law and they didn't read it. Two votes making decisions for you and I. I can't fault their political views or party affiliations but I can fault them for not at least reading the damn legislation that they were voting on. It sounds like they should be part of a human centipad. [southparkstudios.com]
True leadership means making the decisions that are best, not politically expedient and not all of them will be popular. Doing your best also means researching the problem and understanding what you're trying to solve. Unfortunately nowadays everybody in this country has the attention span of a 4 year old and now we have an entire generation of adults who grew up not paying attention, barely passed their courses in College and now are running things.
Nobody can fault somebody for serving in public office, but it would be nice if there was at least some brighter individuals who would run. Yeah, you'd get rocks thrown at you but at least you'd be doing the country's business rather than trying to
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
198 of 205 Democratic members of the House voted against the Bush Tax cuts. 46 of 48 Democratic members of the Senate voted against it. The CBO predicted that it would increase the deficit.
It is disgustingly dishonest of you to pretend that this was some sort of bipartisan effort based on best information. There are no economic policies that suggest increasing deficit spending during booms, yet that is exactly the reckless nonsense that was supported by the Republicans. That recklessness meant that when
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody can fault somebody for serving in public office, but it would be nice if there was at least some brighter individuals who would run.
This is the problem. Imagine you are an extremely competent, altruistic person, who wants to help the world. Are you going to think, "I know, I'll help the world by spending all my time on the campaign trail, and kissing up to donors, and after all that, I'll be one of 435 representatives who gets to vote or not vote for a bill. If I keep that up for a while, and get lucky, maybe I'll have some real power."
No, you're going to find some way to change the world and help people that is much more effective, a
Re: (Score:2)
Passed by Both Houses of Congress based on what was thought to be good information at the time. [wikipedia.org]
Yeah, passed by both houses... why don't you look at how the actual voting split down? To imply it was fully supported by both parties is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.
But in case you do lie to yourself like that - how about holding Republicans to this same standard as far as the Affordable Health Care Act? You know, legit legislation passed by both houses, etc?
which fox site did you cut and paste this BS from (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Or is there some hope among the US people that a potential non-Obama future president would be able to solve the economical problems of the US in one swift stroke using his magical superabilities?
Well, it was a similar hope in a magical President that got Obama into office in the first place, so...
Re: (Score:2)
Or is there some hope among the US people that a potential non-Obama future president would be able to solve the economical problems of the US in one swift stroke using his magical superabilities?
Yes, our elections revolve around two people taking turns talking about position X, where they are really pro-X while the other guy is anti-X (or generally "soft on X"). When the election finishes, they basically do the same thing and fail because all they've been thinking about what they think is cool, instead of realistic ways to do it (realistic solutions are a synonym for "soft on X"). Then there's a simple rule: If you voted for him, he did absolutely nothing wrong and in fact Jesus himself said his ac
Re: (Score:2)
If I burn the house and then let you take over after that, sure you will max out the credit cards buying replacement goods for all the things I destroyed.
Using your twisted logic, you made things much worse by buying replacement underwear, clothing and basic goods.
A mild recession is akin to you losing your job, you cut on expenditures and try to survive until you get a new one.
A depression like the one we are in is like your house burning down. You approach your relatives/friends/bank and ask for a hefty l
You don't understand. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
None of those need to be refuted. Even if they were true, they in no way would be responsible for the current state of the economy. Even if true they would be minor gaffes in a trillion dollar economy.
What really screwed up this country was two unfunded wars by GWB, financial deregulation starting with Reagan followed by Clinton and GWB, and the original GWB tax cuts at a time where we were waging two wars and more, not less revenues were needed.
Re: (Score:2)
All the regulations in the world didn't stop the crooks, and never will. That is why idiots like you don't and will never understand. Nobody could have regulations on something that never existed prior (derivative loan securities). The reason why this failed, is because (hindsight being 20/20) it was nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme among banks.
It wasn't lack of regulation or lowered regulations that created Derivatives, it was creative crooks that created them, and nobody was smart enough to NOT bite, exce
Re:Citation needed (Score:5, Funny)
What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now, along with a massive tax hike. The US will likely continue with the Great Depression II in that case.
On the other hand, if Romney is elected, the country has a fighting chance to recover.
Translation: You are in a coma after being shot in the head. Doctor A's treatment of IVs and drugs and stuff isn't having you up and back to work in a week, so your family panics and brings in Doctor B, whose treatment is to shoot you in the head again.
Re: (Score:2)
How come none of the other recoveries took this long then?
All that came before, it was blindingly obvious when things are getting better. With Obama, all of a sudden it impossible to fix.
Maybe it's not the economy. Maybe it's him and his policies.
Re:Citation needed (Score:4, Insightful)
How come none of the other recoveries took this long then?
Except for the great depression or the current Japanese and Irish depression all of which you conveniently forget to mention.
Maybe it's not the economy. Maybe it's him and his policies.
Or maybe all the other recessions were created by tightening of monetary policy and quickly cured as interests rates went down when inflation subsided.
In contrast when recessions are caused by deleveraging they all have in common that they are really hard to solve, like the great depression, like Japan, like Ireland. The only way out we know is massive spending as in the great depression. The republican party is opposed to this always, regardless of how out of the ordinary the circumstances might be, requiring an exception to be made.
analogy does not mean blatent lie. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now
We don't have a disastrous approach to business now. Businesses are enjoying record levels of profitability and have immense amounts of cash on hand.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html [nytimes.com]
"GORMAN: Well, they won't hire more people until they have a business need to do so. And behind your question is the fact that many compan
Re: (Score:2)
What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now, along with a massive tax hike. The US will likely continue with the Great Depression II in that case.
On the other hand, if Romney is elected, the country has a fighting chance to recover.
Which is a really myopic and uninformed way of looking at things.
Business taxes (and incentives) are determined at the state level, not federal level. Companies don't pick up and move to other states or anywhere else because of federal elections.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean if Obama is elected the Republicans in Congress will continue their approach of scuttling any proposal that has a chance of helping the economy improve in the hopes that if they make the country collapse badly enough, it will rebound against the party of the incumbent in the next Presidential election?
Plausible, but more of a reason to vote ag
Re: (Score:2)
> if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach
> On the other hand, if Romney is elected, a different set of businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'll bite. I've held off, but hours later this thread is still at less than 200 comments.
> On the other hand, if Romney is elected, the country has a fighting chance to recover.
Right not, the major problem with the country is the degrading fortuntes of the middle and working class. Our economic doldrums are from a lack of demand, and many other places here it has been said that when more is demanded, business will hire to meet the needs, etc. The lack of demand is because of the downward pay press
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
If you actually bother to get off your fat ass an look into economic histry, you would realize that h\increasing government programs for infrastructure has always gotten a country out of similar economic situations.
The pubs cut that actual amount of money needed for those programs, but even still, the economy is a lot better now then it was in 08. Cut it after they agreed to it, btw.
Romney's "Plan" has never, ever not once gotten any country out of a similar economic situation in all of history. It t
Re: (Score:2)
IT spending would be reduced in preparation to the election because people in govt jobs would be concerned for their own jobs. Plus spending on anything big would be put off until after the election incase a new govt is put in place, the old govt wouldn't want the new govt to get the kudos on anything good and anything bad can easily be blamed on the past govt decision
Re: (Score:2)
there's no explanation about why the presidential election would have an impact or where they are getting that data from
We don't live in a free market state. Its assumed that major government provided economic numbers are kind of pencil whipped before the election to support the incumbent. Reality is never completely on display, however, you'll get a much better look at it a couple months after the election, rather than before. You can tell any lie with statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's nonsense, that's what it is. Same as when the business press talks about "uncertainty" - it's always uncertain what's going to happen in business, and what they're really saying is "There's a slight chance that the federal government won't just do exactly what we in industry want, Waaaa!."
Presidential factors (Score:2)
Here's a few things I hear about when I talk to business owners. 1) bush tax cut - hopefully it stands 2) buffet tax increase - hopefully it just stays a gimmick 3) estate taxes - should I divest now and drop the cash in a trust or can I wait a few years 4) h1b - how many more Indians can we get
Re: (Score:2)
I am assuming you are relaying this story in an attempt to paint Obama in a bad light? If he's really after estate taxes, all Obama has to do is nothing. Because in 2013 the tax rate will automatically change to a 1 million dollar exemption with a tax ra [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point of this post? You aren't fooling anyone. It's so shallow, you don't seem to even be trying. So what's the point?
The powers that be (Score:2)
It's not hard to see why the ruling class prefers Romney. He's one of them (Desert Bagels anyone?) and he's made it very clear he will cut taxes on high income earners and slash government spending to make up the difference (
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I doubt this. I think that Romney is being set up by the RNC to fail. Look, the RNC leadership knows what's coming. The economy isn't going to get magically "better" or start to grow in any *significant* way, ever. By the time we get to either debt forgiveness, or debt payback, the energy resource problem starts rearing it's ugly little head (i.e. ever declining energy return - not quantity), energy prices rise globally, and down the world's economies go again.
Who the hell wants to be the party in
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you see if Obama is selected there is uncertainty over what the future holds, while if Romney is selected there is uncertainty over what the future holds.
I hope that clears up the question for everybody.
political uncertainty? (Score:3)
However, hiring overall will remain soft in coming months, particularly with the presidential election in the United States and economic turmoil in the European Union.
It'll be interesting to see if this really is perceived as the problem. At least with the US, we'll see or not see big shifts in the markets after election day which is a means to test that particular part of the claim.
Re: (Score:2)
However, hiring overall will remain soft in coming months, particularly with the presidential election in the United States and economic turmoil in the European Union.
It'll be interesting to see if this really is perceived as the problem. At least with the US, we'll see or not see big shifts in the markets after election day which is a means to test that particular part of the claim.
Alternatively, shit hits the fan in financial institutions, and it'll be 2008 all over again before the elections.
Re: (Score:3)
Whoever wins the next presidential elections in the US, it will make no difference.
Sure, but keep in mind that with large businesses and financial institutions, which puppet gets elected matters less than the uncertainty of not knowing which puppet gets elected. Mr Market hates uncertainty.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn you, time paradoxes!
Entitlement problems (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the biggest problems that I see with people who are still without jobs is that they wouldn't accept anything less than what they were making before. I know plenty of contractors from AT&T who were making $45/hr in 2006 with only Network+ and Security+ certification and a little bit of vim experience. Since the market reset itself, a couple of those guys simply refuse to take anything less than their pre-recession salaries, but they will complain to high heaven about not being able to find a job.
On the other side of the spectrum, I know plenty of kids straight out of college who expect to make $45k/year with their fresh MIS degree, and won't accept anything less. One example--it's been two years since a guy at my gym graduated college--he's still working at the same gym as a personal trainer--and won't even get his foot in the door by taking a job in the industry because they won't pay him (as an entry-level worker) what he "expects" to get paid.
Finally, and this is not a knock on our military IT people, but a lot of guys who are getting out expect to make $100k+ just because they had a high-tech job and were making $50k as an E5 (that includes a housing allowance). IMO--and I did eight years in the USMC--most of the military has a very comfortable life in terms of benefits and pay compared to the civilian world. Simply put, a lot of military IT jobs have no direct equivalent in the civilian sector unless you are willing to stay on base as a contractor, or move to DC.
My advice to these three groups: take whatever job can get. At least you will be working, and will remain marketable. The industry--hell, the entire marketplace in general--is still re-adjusting after the crash. There will likely be another crash + recession very soon. Don't expect to be flying high like we were in the Web 2.0 crash.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a flipside to this. IT workers *have* been traditionally underpaid since around 1995 and the first wave of large-scale internet boom. Our salaries gained a bit and almost approached "worth it" around 1999-2000, but then the big dotcom bubble hit in 2001 (the people I'm talking about worked for real businesses, not stupididea.com, but were all still affected). From then on as the markets have gone through periodic mini-recession cycles and layoff seasons, the net result has been no raises. Most p
Re: (Score:2)
well IT does not need college / the loans that (Score:3)
well IT does not need college / the loans that come with it.
It need a trades / apprenticeship system that no only is quicker then a 2/4 year college it also give people real job skills.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. I've seen this pattern so many times, it's ridiculous. I've walked friends through the process of finding places to work, but they feel it's undignified to be paid less than the guy who's been there for a while.
I have seen JR / level 1 / entry-level jobs that w (Score:2)
I have seen JR / level 1 / entry-level jobs that want a lot of experience so are there even real entry-level jobs out there.
Re: (Score:2)
I am one of those techs that does not settle and it simply for one reason. Cost of living. If I am forced to suffer a tech job that will pay me 20k a a year or less for my abilities and experience, why bother put up with the stress. I could simply go work commission based retail or go back into the catering business. I have been in the workforce for so long and worked in so many different fields that I find that it is just plain silly to "accept" what they are offering. IMO all techs that see jobs that unde
Re: (Score:2)
Uncertainty is a conservative talking point (Score:2)
It's the gut-level certainty of most small business owners that things will get worse that's keeping them from hiring.
Expectations (Score:4, Interesting)
He did not understand the sad truth of corporate salaries today: It no longer matters how long you have been with the company, or how long it has been since you last had a raise - the only thing that matters is what is on your job description and what other companies are willing to pay for that role in your area. If you want a raise, then you have to get your job description changed to represent a larger scope of responsibility and a role that is worth more money. My employee was on the right track - he wanted to change his job title - but he failed to understand that it isn't the title - it is the job description and the scope of the role that matters.
Corporate life sucks. We are all replaceable, and we are only worth whatever it would take to replace us with some poor, unemployed worker that would take anything as long as it provides benefits and pay better than COBRA and unemployment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Weird. Out here in SoCal, I was bluntly told by a recruiter that they look strictly at "title" and "pay history" to make those sorts of decisions, but only if you get through the skills filter first. "Yeah, so what you spent the last 5 years writing perl, python, and java applications, your job title doesn't reflect that and neither does your salary. So, we're going to offer you a jr. programming position at bottom market rates because that's a raise from your current salary, and you're going to like it,
Re: (Score:2)
He did not understand the sad truth of corporate salaries today: It no longer matters how long you have been with the company, or how long it has been since you last had a raise - the only thing that matters is what is on your job description and what other companies are willing to pay for that role in your area.
Weird. I do not think I would run a business like that... but that may be why I am not a wealthy business owner. Why would a person's salary at YOUR company depend on what other companies are paying? What if they were overpaying? I guess you would be forced to overpay too or else do without help.
I guess what I am saying is that a business should offer what it is worth to them. The only time they should be looking at what other companies pay is when they can not figure out why they are not getting the help t
That's not good (Score:2)
Private Hiring Back to 2008 Levels (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I didn't go into management, and I didn't corner myself into a braindead corporate bullshit thing like CCIE, CISSP, being an Oracle DBA, etc. I've remained a *nix hacker doing cool things with a variety of good tools. Some days I'm writing infrastructure code in C and Perl, or helping developers scale application server code. Or maintaining Linux systems with automated deployment tools, or working on network infrastructure issues.
And I'm making well over the $100K mark. Salaried, full time, F1000 compan
Re: (Score:3)
I'm confused. On one side you tell people to go where the jobs are and on the other side you say that the only way to get over 100k is to go in specific roles. You do realize that in the big zones (California, Massachusetts and new york come to mind) , if you have over 5 or 6 year experience, don't completely suck and make under 100k you are getting screwed even if you're a code monkey, right?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The only way you are ever going to go over the 100k mark and above you need to specialize in an area that is hot and always remain hot.
This just isn't true. Here, for example, in the Bay Area, salaries for mid-level-and-above developers of all types are higher than $95K/year. People with 5+ years of experience have no trouble finding jobs $100K/yr. And for those of you thinking that it's merely a cost-of-living adjustment, I can tell you it's not. I lived in Ohio for 7 years and the cost-of-living differential is somewhere between 10% and 15% but the salary differential is between 30% and 80% (or more).
The issue is, as one poster above put
Re:im making more than i did in 2008 (Score:4, Funny)
Congratulations on your first job.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
You now are not you five years ago. I think they mean that someone with X years of experience got $Y in 2008 and now they can expect about the same.
Re: (Score:2)
While some business do care (they want Romney so he will either shift tax burdens back to the poor, or screw the poor by making the country focus on onepercenters like himself), many others really do not care which party and policy comes into power. They just want to KNOW which so they know how to structure their moving forward positions.