WSJ Reports 'The Balance of Power is Shifting Back to Bosses' (msn.com) 87
The ratio of vacant U.S. jobs to jobless workers "has fallen from a record of 2 in 2022 to 1.1 in November," reports the Wall Street Journal — which adds that "the balance of power between employers and employees has shifted as the labor market has gone from white-hot to merely solid."
JP Morgan's five-days-a-week return-to-office mandate was only the beginning, with big companies like Amazon and Dell "tightening remote-work policies, shrinking travel budgets and cutting back on benefits... Companies are slashing perks such as college-tuition assistance and time off for a sick pet... " 76% of [U.S.] job growth in the past year has been in healthcare and education, leisure and hospitality, and government. In fields such as finance, information, and professional and business services, job growth has been far weaker. While a shift in leverage to employers might have shown up in layoffs or wage cuts in the past, now it is more subtle, often in changes to working conditions. For example, knowing that some workers will quit rather than return to the office, some companies are ending remote work as a way of trimming payroll. "Quiet quitting" — workers who slacked off rather than quit — has been replaced by "quiet cutting" — employers who cut jobs without actually announcing job cuts...
Michael Gibbs, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, said the new mandates might simply be a message to workers that times have changed. "Firms are trying to reset expectations," he said... [After refusing her employers return-to-office four-days-a-week mandate, Mayrian] Sanz, who now works as an independent business and leadership coach, said she applied for 25 to 30 jobs listed as remote but initially got no responses. When some hiring managers finally replied, they had a surprise: Jobs listed as remote would now be in-office. "They just say everything is shifting to going back to the office," she said.
Among tech workers, the share receiving perks such as paid volunteer hours, college-tuition reimbursement, free financial advice and mental-health programs all declined by about 4 percentage points in 2024 from 2023, according to Dice, a technology job board. Average bonuses fell by more than $800, from $15,011 to $14,194. Meanwhile, Netflix has quietly backed off from its unlimited parental leave in a child's first year, The Wall Street Journal reported last month. A company spokesman said at that time that employees have the freedom and flexibility to determine what is best for them.
The article notes that "The actual impact of return-to-office directives remains to be seen," with economists "skeptical" the directives make companies more productive and faster-growing: Many workers now being called in were already spending some time in their cubicles. Nicholas Bloom, a professor of economics at Stanford University, said most of the benefits of collaboration can be achieved with just a few days in the office, while some tasks that require concentration are better done at home.
Elsewhere the Wall Street Journal that looking for a job "is set to get less miserable this year," since roughly two-thirds of U.S. employers plan to add permanent roles within the next six months, "according to a new survey by staffing and consulting firm Robert Half."
And Computerworld notes that the IT unemployment rate is now just 2% in the U.S. (according to official figures from the US Bureau of Labor statistics).
JP Morgan's five-days-a-week return-to-office mandate was only the beginning, with big companies like Amazon and Dell "tightening remote-work policies, shrinking travel budgets and cutting back on benefits... Companies are slashing perks such as college-tuition assistance and time off for a sick pet... " 76% of [U.S.] job growth in the past year has been in healthcare and education, leisure and hospitality, and government. In fields such as finance, information, and professional and business services, job growth has been far weaker. While a shift in leverage to employers might have shown up in layoffs or wage cuts in the past, now it is more subtle, often in changes to working conditions. For example, knowing that some workers will quit rather than return to the office, some companies are ending remote work as a way of trimming payroll. "Quiet quitting" — workers who slacked off rather than quit — has been replaced by "quiet cutting" — employers who cut jobs without actually announcing job cuts...
Michael Gibbs, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, said the new mandates might simply be a message to workers that times have changed. "Firms are trying to reset expectations," he said... [After refusing her employers return-to-office four-days-a-week mandate, Mayrian] Sanz, who now works as an independent business and leadership coach, said she applied for 25 to 30 jobs listed as remote but initially got no responses. When some hiring managers finally replied, they had a surprise: Jobs listed as remote would now be in-office. "They just say everything is shifting to going back to the office," she said.
Among tech workers, the share receiving perks such as paid volunteer hours, college-tuition reimbursement, free financial advice and mental-health programs all declined by about 4 percentage points in 2024 from 2023, according to Dice, a technology job board. Average bonuses fell by more than $800, from $15,011 to $14,194. Meanwhile, Netflix has quietly backed off from its unlimited parental leave in a child's first year, The Wall Street Journal reported last month. A company spokesman said at that time that employees have the freedom and flexibility to determine what is best for them.
The article notes that "The actual impact of return-to-office directives remains to be seen," with economists "skeptical" the directives make companies more productive and faster-growing: Many workers now being called in were already spending some time in their cubicles. Nicholas Bloom, a professor of economics at Stanford University, said most of the benefits of collaboration can be achieved with just a few days in the office, while some tasks that require concentration are better done at home.
Elsewhere the Wall Street Journal that looking for a job "is set to get less miserable this year," since roughly two-thirds of U.S. employers plan to add permanent roles within the next six months, "according to a new survey by staffing and consulting firm Robert Half."
And Computerworld notes that the IT unemployment rate is now just 2% in the U.S. (according to official figures from the US Bureau of Labor statistics).
Gee it's almost as if something changed (Score:5, Insightful)
Fun fact high interest rates are tailor-made the create layoffs. To get you fired. The way we control inflation in this country is by causing mass layoffs resulting in massive pay cuts and people burning through their savings and going up to their eyeballs in debt. Then we all work harder and consume less and the combination of increased productivity and reduced consumption is what is supposed to control inflation.
Of course with a almost complete lack of competition in America now thanks to decades of mega mergers and zero antitrust law enforcement there is little or no reason for companies to cut prices or even stop raising them.
Meanwhile the job market is perpetually getting worse. It's just a good thing everybody here on slash dot is so young and vibrant so that we don't need to worry about it when we get laid off..... That's only something that happens to those other guys never us.
Re:Gee it's almost as if something changed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gee it's almost as if something changed (Score:5, Interesting)
But you need to be careful, because with desperation comes desperate action if one believes they have nothing to lose.
Think what Luigi Mangione did when he killed that CEO. Sure he's going away to prison, but the authorities have been treating him like he's Osama Bin Laden and going to cause another 9/11.
Or how they're trying to get all merchandising promoting what happened off the internet.
I think people are simply watching what's going to happen first. And the desperate might decide that there's nothing to lose and go for the big scores, Especially if more do the same and then realize that there's more of them than of the billionaires.
The Secret Service might be able to protect Mar-A-Lago against a small crowd, but a bigger crowd and they'd get Trump off the roof and onto a helicopter while the masses start razing it to the ground like the LA wildfires. And then the other billionaires like Bezos and such? All in Florida.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Luigi thing happened once. It will not happen again. Security is too tight now
You live in a crazy fantasy world.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1% know that (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: The 1% know that (Score:2)
over changeing him may lead to him getting off! (Score:3)
over changing him may lead to him getting off!
Say they aim to high get an not guilty on a top change and then he walks.
Re: (Score:1)
you are a stupid fucking retard. learn to read. the OP made no such statement, you made it up out of thin air and then argued against it. you are what we call a stupid fucking retard, do better.
A+ treatment
Re: (Score:3)
Only stupid and insane people hope for a bad economy.
There are people who have gotten very rich selling short who would disagree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
You lose the same amount whether you sell the stock or sell short. Either way you are losing the amount of appreciation if the stock price goes up. In one case its the money you would have made if you had held on to the stock, in the other its money you have to come up with from somewhere else. The other difference is you have to own the stock to sell it, to sell short you can just place your bet.
You also sound like someone who has never seen a down market where every stock is a loser. But there are plenty
Re: (Score:3)
Rising tides raise all boats.
No, they don't. Far from it, if your boat is securely tied to the dock with a short rope at load tide the rising tide will sink it.
And that is a close analogy for a growing number of people. The tide is going up, but they aren't rising with it. Instead they are in danger of drowning.Take a look at housing prices if you don't already own a home.
Re: (Score:1)
Who, under what circumstances, is better off in a bad economy? What even remotely normal person is that?
I am not arguing with you in all contexts, but I figured I'd point out that in fact some people do better in bad economies. I imagine in the contexts you are thinking of your claims are valid and true. But let me add some more contexts.
I recall being told that Scentsy (a multi-level marketing company selling smelly candles) did better during recessions. The reason is more people are at home, depressed during such times and a nice smelling candle, sold by a neighbor who acts like they care about you during t
Re: (Score:2)
I'd point out that in fact some people do better in bad economies.
For most people the "economy", bad or good, has almost no impact. If you have a job and don't lose it, the health of the overall economy usually has no immediate impact on your life unless you are on commission. In fact, a "good economy" benefits only the small number of people whose earnings are tied to it.
We saw the political ramifications of that reality in the last election. GDP, corporate earnings and stock prices all increased. But the benefits of all that were observed only by a small number of peo
Re: (Score:2)
Is he better off in a good economy where houses are being built (and need new plumbing) people are working, making money, can afford to hire a plumber rather than DIY when something breaks, and so on?
That depends on the plumber doesn't it? If they already have enough work it doesn't matter what the economy is doing, they can't take on more. And you are assuming a good economy means the plumber's customers are better off. That is not necessarily the case.
The cliche that a "rising tide lifts all boats" is just that. We elected Trump because the rising tide (as measured by gdp) was not, in fact, lifting a lot of people's boats. Instead the anchor of rising prices was dragging them under.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Rising tides raise all boats.
A friend of a friend's boat was hit by a freak high tide and sank because the line was too short. (They were away).
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Fun fact high interest rates are tailor-made the create layoffs.
Oh look this bullshit again. You just never stop with it do you? Despite the economics being explained to you that layoffs have nothing to do with it nor are they the goal you persist have have persisted since the COVID pandemic.
Are you out of materials? Is that it? All you're capable of is copying and pasting your same bullshit over and over again into any thread where you think it will be relevant?
Re: (Score:1)
Fun fact high interest rates are tailor-made the create layoffs.
Oh look this bullshit again. You just never stop with it do you? Despite the economics being explained to you that layoffs have nothing to do with it nor are they the goal you persist have have persisted since the COVID pandemic.
I don't get it. It at least makes sense.
rsilvergun is a raging fucking moron (Score:1)
Right, there's some kind of grand conspiracy to "rob" you of positive moderation.
Re: (Score:2)
We stopped caring about you when it became clear you didn't put any effort to understand the discussion. I've given up on you. That's why my post looks like a troll. Expect nothing but troll posts from me to you on this topic going forward. You have after all earned it with your actions.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it. It at least makes sense.
What part makes sense? That there's an evil conspiracy to put people out of work and create a recession all in the name of economic gain? That's what rsilvergun proposes time and time again.
Playing with the interest rates has the end goal of reducing spending power, not making people loose their jobs. A couple of jobs are lost in the crossfire, but the end result is a more stable economic system that keeps you from mass job losses later. I'm giving you a decent explanation because you may still be teachable
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. But you don't seem to understand cause and effect. Slowing hiring and layoffs are not the goal, they are a casualty of the actual goal: Stable economics which serves to ensure you actually will have a stable job going forward.
But sure, enjoy short term stability at the expense of long term viability. It's not like there aren't countless examples of the opposite going horribly wrong. Leaving inflation high while promoting spending is an economic death spiral.
Re: (Score:2)
If the change is from the election, then things are about to change again. Trump's actual policies (mass deportations, clamping down on immigrant work visas, tariffs) will all reduce the number of people available to fill the open job positions. This will very decisively make the pendulum swing back in the direction of workers.
The WSJ may get this one wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
The reasons why:
1. Demographics - More people leaving the workforce then those entering. Baby boomers retiring and picky Gen-Z workers not wanting to work for certain employers.
2. Mass Deportations. At the low end of the job market, they may be a huge number of openings. Either that or Fruits and Vegetables will rot.
On the other hand:
We could see a severe recession or depression if the proposed tariffs go into effect all at once in a quick manner. In this case, the number of job openings will plummet, and there will be more people looking for work then jobs available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The WSJ may get this one wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Fruits and vegetables are unlikely to actually rot since the deportations won't happen that quickly.
Trump says he wants to deport immigrants. However, all those migrant farm workers prop up the multimillionaires in the California Central Valley. That's Trump's base. We'll see if Trump is willing to stick it to his base. If you thought the red cities of central California were upset with Newsome and the water scarcity that decreased profits, wait until migrant farm worker raids completely kill those farms.
Of course, this will never happen. Trump will find a way to issue agricultural retirement of H1B visas that allow him to continue demogogery against non-whites while at the same time allowing his base to earn millions off the backs of those non-whites.
Re:The WSJ may get this one wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
When people's economic fortunes are better, they worry about the welfare of other humans and even animals. Look at the demand for cage free eggs. At some point there will be a demand for fruit farms that have some sort of certification for how they treat their laborers. Right now, people are too focused on prices, but that's not going to be eternal. Or at least it's not likely to be. Historically people have moved toward more empathy to fellow man even if it comes in fits and starts.
Re:The WSJ may get this one wrong (Score:4, Informative)
They did rot in the UK after the brexit transition period ran out.
Re: (Score:2)
Strawberries for fresh consumption have to be hand-picked. They are a relat
Re: (Score:2)
While the transition period was merely 11 months, it was preceded by a negotiation period. Basically, the referendum took place mid 2016, the article 50 was officially triggered 9 months later, the transition period ran out on the last day of 2020. That is, in terms of time, pretty similar to a full term for a president of the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
Produce rotted in the UK when we tried it. Prices went up too.
For the people at the bottom end of the job market, it didn't help. They don't want those jobs, wages went down relative to inflation, but prices rose.
Nope (Score:3)
"WSJ Reports 'The Balance of Power is Shifting Back to Bosses'
No, it's really not.
Look at the return-to-work edicts the managerial class has issued recently, and look at what a flop it's been.
Right now it's a tug-of-war, but the number of people willing to go into an office and sit at a desk all day to do work they could be doing from the comfort of home is dropping every day. My company saw the tide turning and fully embraced WFH, and everyone loves it.
If they tried to make me come back into the office, I'd be giving my notice in the reply.
As I've said repeatedly, I've set foot in my last office.
Re: (Score:1)
Business cycles.
This country hasn't seen a real recession since 2008 and that one was pretty short and not too bad on the scale of things. 17 years of economic boom times has made many people forget what bad times are like, if they ever knew.
There -will- be another recession and another and another after that and so on forever. And when the next real one hits anyone who never experienced bad times like all Genz and many millennials is going to find out the hard way what's important in life. Hint: it isn'
Re: (Score:2)
While I do agree with you, the office does have some advantages. I believe coming in once or twice every week is healthy.
At the same time I see no reason why you should come in every day, or even every other day. Right now though, with housing being the mess it is, it is going to take a while to see where the new hot seats of innovation show up. We will still see some office work, this is unavoidable.
Re: (Score:2)
While I do agree with you, the office does have some advantages.
I've yet to find any advantages or benefits that offset all the things I lose by coming into an office.
I believe coming in once or twice every week is healthy
And if that works for you, then have at it. I'm perfectly fine if people want to go into an office, it's just not for me anymore. I posted this list before, but this is why I prefer to work at home:
I like sleeping in an extra hour every day.
I like not having to commute.
I like the flexibility to relax during the day while still working.
I like not having to bring food to work or paying inflated prices at loc
Need more unions! (Score:5, Informative)
Need more unions!
Yes, it is, for good reason (Score:1)
What is a business for, in any country? Not to make you happy. I am not going to get into the discussion of how the social and economical aspects have to work together or they will both flop (which is why I hate anyone who thinks their party is the only way). Instead, all I will mention is that companies are there to make money. Not just in the US either. Regulations may be different but the goal is the same. I was a low level manager at a company and when they started letting people WFH, efficiency dropped
Re: (Score:2)
source: "believe me,
Re:Yes, it is, for good reason (Score:5, Interesting)
The company I'm at currently grew drastically during COVID and most of the staff is WfH. The company grew supporting companies transitioning to WfH for the pandemic, who have almost entirely stayed on that model and we continue to support them.
What's interesting is that the offices with the most draconian policies that must be really 'fun' places to work are the ones demanding RTO and growing their physical office space, just like you'd suspect.
If you're doing electronic clerical work and need a phone... a laptop, a second screen, and VOIP mean you can work from anywhere with decent Internet. Why waste office space on you? Why add hours of commute to your day when a happier employee is more likely to be fresh and productive? Why worry about perks like free coffee, or employees being late due to weather, or missing days due to a sick child?
I hear kids and pets in the background on phone calls all the time now. Who gives a shit? As long as you're the type of person who can sit down and work without the threat of a supervisor catching you slacking to keep you on task, and you're doing work that doesn't require physical presence, WFH is far superior for both employee and employer.
Re: (Score:2)
source: "believe me, bro".
fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
Same source everyone discussing it has. Fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
literally the point dumbass.
Re: (Score:1)
your point is no different. I bet you blindly believe anything you like as a fact without checking how that issue was determined to be a fact. Variables can and are often skewed, altered or incorrectly used among other things.
Re: (Score:2)
read my posts again, accompanying dumbass to the previous dumbass.
whatever you are reading into it, you put there yourself, dumbass.
Re: (Score:1)
lol. It's called economics, look it up. Don't like it, I can give you any reason you give me not to like it and turn it on psychology and pshyciatry. But I bet you are all for stats about how people should be treated. Choose your battle wisely, not ignorantly.
Re: (Score:2)
what the fuck are you even talking about?? god you are even dumber than I thought in my previous replies.
fuck off with this AI-bullshit you are spewing.
Re: (Score:3)
Many businesses went under during the pandemic. It wasn't because people weren't productive when they worked from home, but because people changed their spending habits. A few late projects won't kill any business that is well-positioned, but changes in the spending habits of their customer base absolutely will. I think you may be using the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc." Your employer went belly-up after people started working from home, but that doesn't mean that working from home is t
Productivity will go back down (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
There was an increase in productivity when work from home started. Force your employees to return to the office and that productivity gain will vanish. Plus you have now turned your employees into adversaries, adversaries who are embedded inside your company...
after giving them an effective pay cut and forcing them to spend their time on commuting instead of finishing off that important project in time or looking after their well being.
From 2023 (Score:2)
In September of 2023, Tim Gurner, founder and CEO of the Gurner Group, had this to say about workers: [independent.co.uk]
“We need to see unemployment rise. Unemployment has to jump 40, 50%,” said Gurner, because “arrogant” workers aren’t productive enough for his liking. “We need to see pain in the economy. We need to remind people that they work for the employer, not the other way around.”
In this case he was talking about Australia, but clearly it could apply to any business [msnbc.com].
The WSJ says (Score:3)
Definitely possible, but it's like RTO. A lot of companies will probably never go back to full time, or even more than voluntary, office work. They might have team meetings a couple times a year, most of my friends are like that now, but even that isn't cheap.
Plus a LOT of people were hired a hundred (or more) miles away from any office. I know a few people who aren't in the same state as their employer.
Even in places where it's theoretically possible, a lot of employers let leases go and sold all the furniture. What's the point of getting a new Triple-Net lease and having to deal with all the headaches (HVAC / plumbing / cleaning maintenance, furniture, security, consumables like coffee, and more) of a traditional office? Large employers would take a hit in the profit margin bringing people back to the office.
For hiring and firing people... I hate to say it but all of the F500 companies I have contacts at are still missing staff and struggling to keep the overworked people they have from fleeing.
Re: (Score:2)
However, I think that number is a bit misleading in terms of "balance of power." Right now, it's still really hard to hire *good* people. There are many people employed as technologists who aren't really capable of doing their jobs. We are still in somewhat of an employment bubble where employers are settling for whomever they can get rather than the skills they actu
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, a far right newspaper that exists to serve the interests of the Wall Street says something in the interest of employers. Shocking.
While there is no doubt that the WSJ leans right, their reporting and analysis of business and business trends tends to be mostly accurate, while acknowledging that extrapolating always has large error bars ("it's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future"). It should also be noted that not all employers and employees and jobs are alike, and broad brush summaries do not account for any specific cases.
Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
And remember, it is literally the fault of anything in the world except the ultra rich parasite class that the American Dream is a fading myth.
sick pet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds stupid... and it is. Burn your own sick days, or take them to the vet after work.
Though honestly I'm on the fence about bereavement leave. Some pets - mainly dogs, but occasionally cats - are surrogate children in a very real sense. They become part of the family, and when they die it really hits you emotionally. I could handle giving someone a day to get their shit together after a pet dies. ...as long as we differentiate between animals like dogs and those like hamsters. If it's not an ani
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been a cat owner all my life. I don't have much time for cat haters, but there is a huge qualitative difference between dogs and cats. A pet dog is emotionally dependent on you, like a small child. A cat can enjoy your company. I'm not going to claim the tears don't threaten to well when you have to put your car down, but it's just a massive difference.
There are people out there so emotionally dependent on their cats that they build a good portion of their identity around them. I think it is a sig