Americans Are Growing Wary of Jumping Jobs 100
"Job hopping as a way to boost your earnings may not be as profitable as it was in 2022," writes Slashdot reader NoWayNoShapeNoForm. "Data from ADP, based on payroll data of almost 10 million employees, suggests the salary gain between 'stay' and 'jump' has definitely narrowed across all age groups, gender classes, industries, and company sizes." Yahoo Finance reports: New data from ADP released Wednesday showed that the median year-over-year pay increase for job switchers fell to 6.6% in September, down from 7.3% in August and the lowest growth rate since April 2021. The gap between pay gains for job changers and those of job stayers, which grew at a 4.7% pace in August, is at its narrowest since January and a far cry from 2022-2023 levels during the "Great Resignation." ADP chief economist Nela Richardson said that the narrowing gap in pay gains is a sign the labor market is "less tight ... less dynamic."
"The payoff for job changing is not quite as complex as it was earlier this year," Richardson added. "That points to some stability in this labor market."
"The payoff for job changing is not quite as complex as it was earlier this year," Richardson added. "That points to some stability in this labor market."
Intersting title (Score:4, Interesting)
That doesnt exclude toxic workplace, bad company, or location change. Just wages are settling. Why is it all these titles are job seeker oriented and nothing is put on the companies who compensate poorly?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should read my comment instead of jumping on a keyboard rant.
Re: Intersting title (Score:2)
I'm here to say that I have not read either the article or this thread yet.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm here to say that I have not read either the article or this thread yet.
And this, my friends, is the true essence of Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
And this, my friends, is the true essence of Slashdot.
No no no, my friend. THIS is the true essence of Slashdot.
Re:Intersting title (Score:5, Interesting)
A few years ago if I wanted to re-architect a system like I am doing right now I could've easily argued for a couple extra headcount and released them after a couple years of work. Right now I'm being told to make do with what I have.
My employer also seems to be doing better at trying to retain talent. I can't speak for everyone but my last raise was substantially higher than previous years and I was awarded RSU's. Both of which were definitely to try and keep me where I am. I suspect the money that previously might've been used to bring in new headcounts is instead being used to retain the talent we have.
Two years ago I could be guaranteed to get multiple recruiter emails from fortune 100 companies on a weekly basis. Now I see a few smaller recruiters trying to fish for contract work at a range of smaller local companies.
Re: Intersting title (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> "It took my current manager 6-8 months to find a management position after he completed an internal program intended to train managers"
It sounds like you honestly think this is excessive?
As a European that has been working in the US for well over 20 years, I remain amazed at the attitude of entitlement around promotions that many US employees appear to have. Many (especially millennials) seem to truly believe that they are automatically owed a regular promotion, and fail to understand that promoti
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you honestly think this is excessive?
The program he was in was specifically intended to train candidates to be managers and as part of the output of that process they were supposed to be guaranteed placement. I personally am not a fan of the program since it has cranked out some exceptionally poor managers. But, considering the political capital behind the program it is remarkable that a graduate of it took that long to be placed in a managerial position. Had he gone much longer he would've had to either accept a non-managerial position on
Re: (Score:2)
But he did get placed as a manager. Did the program indicate how long placement would take? If so, was that timeframe specified in writing? Perhaps that was a harsh final lesson imparted by the program.
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully they did shut down the program so no more cadres will be pumped out.
Re: (Score:2)
It's clear to me that many if not most employment agencies as standard practice.create job descriptions then post adverts for them, without ever having a client with actual vacancies.
I can only imagine that their real purpose is to simply build up their own database of resumes, for later exploitation or sale.
Re: (Score:2)
"growing wary of jumping jobs" = businesses are coming in line with what they should be paying, and less and less are looking for another job, using that as a factor. That doesnt exclude toxic workplace, bad company, or location change. Just wages are settling. Why is it all these titles are job seeker oriented and nothing is put on the companies who compensate poorly?
That's, true. One can either cast this as disloyal greedy employees unfairly abandoning their long suffering employer as this headline insinuates, or one can see it as employers obeying market forces and paying more for resources in a market where those resources (i.e. labour) are becoming increasingly scarce leading to less job-jumping, which is nothing more than free market capitalism at work. I suppose it will always remain a mystery why corporate media always chooses the former bias when discussing the
Re: (Score:2)
The stats are misleading too. The average salary bump from switching includes people who switched due to toxicity, office mandates, or because they could see the company was going to fail. They may not have been looking for significant raises, or may even have taken a lower paying job in exchange for better conditions. People do that all the time, e.g. going to 4 day weeks as they come up to retirement.
Re: (Score:2)
"growing wary of jumping jobs" = businesses are coming in line with what they should be paying ...
It seems incredible to me that you would interpret the data this way. Here is an alternate view using the same data:
"growing wary of jumping jobs" = businesses have homogenized their low pay.
Or
"growing wary of jumping jobs" = businesses don't want or need top talent anymore.
Or, never mind. Look around you. Do you not see that about 10% of America has been priced out of society itself? The unit price for life is too high and/or the pay is too low.
Two sides (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Two sides (Score:2, Interesting)
It hints at a faltering economy. 4 years ago, jumping jobs had no risk, even if you failed you could just get another one and survive on your savings for a few months as most Americans had at least 1-2 months worth of wages in savings.
Per the latest data, that buffer has all but evaporated, the majority of Americans currently has less than 2 months in wages saved, because inflation, the majority of businesses are in a hiring freeze because inflation, despite having jobs âoeopenâ they are not filli
Re: Two sides (Score:5, Interesting)
From 1959 to 2024, the average savings rate for Americans has been about 8.4%, or about a month of savings. Every couple of years, there's a burst of articles about the horror that most Americans would have trouble coming up with $600 in cash for an emergency. With the exception of a spike during COVID due to being unable to spend stimulus money, Americans in that time have never averaged two months of savings by having about 18% of their annual income in the bank.
Re: Two sides (Score:5, Insightful)
From 1959 to 2024, the average savings rate for Americans has been about 8.4%, or about a month of savings. Every couple of years, there's a burst of articles about the horror that most Americans would have trouble coming up with $600 in cash for an emergency. With the exception of a spike during COVID due to being unable to spend stimulus money, Americans in that time have never averaged two months of savings by having about 18% of their annual income in the bank.
This is because of easy credit, not any political party. As you mentioned the data goes back to 1959. Americans have generally become richer, more assets, better pay, more discretionary income (money you have after all taxes, rents, bills and living expenses) but this is outweighed by the fact that Americans have more debt than ever. Cars, bigger houses, all owned by the bank, put everything on the card (gotta get them worthless points) no-one saves for anything any more and all that credit has to be paid off. People putting money away are looked at as if they are odd. So when an unexpected bill or cost comes around, they're forced to put that on credit too, which leads to a vicious cycle of having to borrow just to pay off your debts.
Worse is debt for consumption, buying holidays and what not on credit.
The real question isn't how many months savings the average person has... rather it's how much debt they have that needs to be serviced within 30 or 60 days. On that metric you'll find many Americans are not living paycheque to paycheque but are actually one paycheque behind that. One month's disruption to their pay cycle will land them in an enormous amount of debt especially as Americans don't get a severance payout if they're terminated due to no fault of their own.
Re: (Score:2)
... but this is outweighed by the fact that Americans have more debt than ever. Cars, bigger houses, all owned by the bank...
don't forgot college education, and yes that includes "real" degrees, not just "whatever SJW made up degree I want to say".
Re: (Score:3)
Average medical student debt upon graduation is now up to $265,000, and that doesn't include non-educational debt. That's most of a house, and they won't earn "doctor" wages until between 5 and 8 years later, because residency pay is far below what we usually think of as doctor wages. Residents typically get $50,000 to $80,000 for often 80+ hours a week. In the meantime, if they're lucky, they're paying off interest, and many of them can't even completely do that. By the time they're out of residency, they'
Re: (Score:2)
I beg to differ. You claimed that four years ago, "most Americans had at least 1-2 months worth of wages in savings." You went on to lament that "the majority of Americans currently has less than 2 months in wages saved." You blamed it on inflation, but the average American has, with the exception of a few months in the middle of the lockdown, never had even two months in wages saved up.
The question was about how many months of savings th
Re: (Score:1)
I think you're responding to the wrong person, I did not make such claims. For many decades the "average" American has had sufficient savings for ~2-3 months out of work (8% or ~$4000 for the lower-average income which is sufficient if you live an average life, Obama got this from 8 to 12%, Trump got it from 12 to 18% with peaks of 30% after the Trump tax credits and COVID stimulus). Only in the past 3.5 years has that declined significantly where the average American now has ~$1500 (~3% of their annual inc
Re: (Score:2)
That is, for many decades in the 1900s. [tradingeconomics.com]
Average savings had been declining from the mid 1970s through the mid 2000s. The lowest amount in the last 60 years was in 2005, when the average savings dipped to around 2%.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. I mistook you for OP. I apologize.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans have generally become richer, more assets, better pay, more discretionary income (money you have after all taxes, rents, bills and living expenses)
Bullshit. The wealthy have become wealthier. Including them in the statistics makes it seem like the average has gone up, but it hasn't.
Ever tried to survive in the "non-professional" work force? It is utter fucking misery and has been getting worse over the decades. Wages are so low, that homelessness is on the rise. Go ahead and quote me numbers saying that I am wrong and I will testify that I have seen a large uptick in homelessness around myself personally and within view of cameras that are traveling a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can believe your spreadsheets. I will believe my own experiences and calculations. The minimum wage has not moved in several decades and yet prices have, and yet somehow or another, you seem to think that the lower paid personnel are doing better than they were. Whatever.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
During the Trump years, there were peaks of up to 30% (when the tax credits kicked in, the COVID stimulus a few years later admittedly punted it to ~20%). The Obama years had steadily improved those rates from 8% to 12%, but during Trump it never went below 15% after the tax breaks. Since Biden came into office it has gone straight down and is currently BELOW 4%.
Re: (Score:2)
The Trump tax cuts went into effect in Jan 2018 when the savings rates was 5.7%. By Jan 2020 the savings rate had only gone up to 7.2%. [tradingeconomics.com] Never was it 15% due to tax cuts.
It was the Covid restrictions and the Covid stimulus payouts that made savings peak above 30%. That was inevitably temporary. After that peak quickly went away it was inflation and high interest rates that mad
Re: (Score:2)
From 1959 to 2024, the average savings rate for Americans has been about 8.4%, or about a month of savings.
8.4% of what? Their yearly earnings?
With the exception of a spike during COVID due to being unable to spend stimulus money, Americans in that time have never averaged two months of savings by having about 18% of their annual income in the bank.
I guess I'm just poor white trash. I've NEVER had 18% of my yearly earnings in the bank. I've lived basically check to check from my first job until now, and I"m in my late 40s. I've a college degree and I work in the IT field. Dunno man.
"Where are all these jobs that pay so much more money than the person NEEDS to live?"
--All Poor People
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the savings are measured based on annual earnings, so 8.4% in the bank for someone making $30,000 a year means about $2500 in the bank.
Guruevi claimed that it was common to have two months (17% of the year--I misremembered what 1/6 is in decimal) of annual earnings in savings in the bank, which has never been the case save for a few months in 2020. That you've never had that level speaks to you being, well, average. Most people are only an emergency or two away from financial crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in Alabama. Here is a basic layout of life costs per month here for just one person:
mortgage: $1,000
home insurance: $200
electricity: $150
city/water/trash: $100
car payment: $300
auto insurance: $150
gasoline: $200 ($50 each week)
phone: $125
medical insurance: $500
food: $600
TOTAL EACH MONTH: $3,325
TOTAL FOR THE YEAR: $39,900
In order to pay out $40,000 each year, you'd need to make (in Alabama) $49,800/yr
So no. If you make less than $50k per year, you aren't ABLE to save any money, unless you own your home,
Re: (Score:2)
It hints at a faltering economy. 4 years ago....
4 years ago we were in the middle of a Global Pandemic without a vaccine. I don't think that's a good time period to use for a metric.
Re: (Score:1)
Take the 4 years before then. Even during the pandemic, the economy was pretty good, it was set to recover from the artificial (global) stop. Note the stop was GLOBAL, everyone at the same time was affected, so recovery is just 'leave it alone and open your business', which in the US was not done, even after we knew the mechanics of the virus, the Biden admin continued lockdowns.
Re: (Score:2)
There were so many exceptions for "essential" work that we never had real lockdowns. (China did - I'm definitely not advocating that) The "mechanics" of the virus was that it was novel; unlike the flu, we did not have any natural immunity to it, so it was very serious until most people had become exposed, either to the wild virus or to the vaccine. After the vaccine was widely available, we should have opened back
Re: (Score:2)
" last 3 years of jobs numbers was fake" Sounds like a Fox talking point. The jobs numbers are always adjusted after the fact due to more data. Sometime they go up, sometimes they go down.
Re: (Score:1)
" last 3 years of jobs numbers was fake" Sounds like a Fox talking point. The jobs numbers are always adjusted after the fact due to more data. Sometime they go up, sometimes they go down.
The economy is going to fail really soon now - What Fox and the crypto-conservatives bawl about whenever their mortal enemy is in office.
I saw my first SHTF any day now the day after old sleepy Joe was elected. I mean - they could be right - Any day includes when th eUniverse experiences heat death and proton decay trillions of years from now.
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, have you looked at your savings, your investments, the price of eggs. If you are not affected by the current economy, you must be a really rich Democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
My savings and investments are doing great, thanks for asking! The price of eggs is up, a few weeks ago I could get them for $2.39/doz and now they suddenly jumped to $3.69/doz. The price hasn't changed on the fancy cage-free brown eggs (also $3.69) so I just buy those instead, if I'm going to pay more I might as well get better eggs. Is the price change significant to my budget? Not really. I eat eggs nearly every day (on a keto diet) and 40 cents/day vs 60 cents/day doesn't register above the noise f
Re: (Score:1)
Everything you just said puts you in the top 10% of income. Sure, let them eat cake, typical Democrat.
I actually have kids to feed, I have a good income myself, but you can't increase your income if there are no jobs, just increasing your income at the lower end (minimum wage hikes) drive inflation as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you just said puts you in the top 10% of income. Sure, let them eat cake, typical Democrat.
I actually have kids to feed, I have a good income myself, but you can't increase your income if there are no jobs, just increasing your income at the lower end (minimum wage hikes) drive inflation as well.
No jerbs? If the Democrats are wealthy, and you are not, maybe it's time to listen to them.
Now I'm no Democrat, nor Republican,(registered independent) but I think you might be sooo very close to a come to Jesus moment.
Protip. Grifters are everywhere, and when they point out the enemy for you, they can convince you to support things that are not in your best interests.
It's how when I drive through the countryside, I see the "Take America Back" and flags telling them it's time to fight, on the most
Re: (Score:1)
Democrats fall in two categories: the ones in charge/promoters - all evidence points at ~10% of the party - they are extremely rich, not by virtue, but by having big government benefit them. Look at Bernie Sanders, never held a real job, never really 'good' at anything he did, got kicked out of a commune, promotes socialism/communism - owns 3? mansions and is a millionaire - on a government salary. The big CEO's you people like to disparage, all Democrats, then there are the people that vote for them, milli
Re: (Score:2)
My savings and investments are doing great, thanks for asking! The price of eggs is up, a few weeks ago I could get them for $2.39/doz and now they suddenly jumped to $3.69/doz. The price hasn't changed on the fancy cage-free brown eggs (also $3.69) so I just buy those instead, if I'm going to pay more I might as well get better eggs. Is the price change significant to my budget? Not really. I eat eggs nearly every day (on a keto diet) and 40 cents/day vs 60 cents/day doesn't register above the noise floor on my budget. If it does for yours then I'm sorry. You might be better served working on increasing your income instead of bitching about the price of eggs on /., but you do you.
It is a curious thing, is it not? The egg barometer. Perhaps the Avian Flu has something to do with this? https://www.npr.org/2024/09/27... [npr.org] Then again, maybe the conspiracy people can come up with an interesting tale of how it was purposely introduced to drive prices up.
The poultry industry would very much like to be putting out cheap eggs.
But to savings and investments. Financial discipline and intelligence leads to them doing well. Even during times like the subprime loan crisis, which almost plunged
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, have you looked at your savings, your investments, the price of eggs. If you are not affected by the current economy, you must be a really rich Democrat.
The sky is falling - the sky is falling! Fscking Demoncrats! and leeburls! Y'all sound like a broken record - perhaps we need some good old Republican price controls like Those that Republican God Richard Nixon implemented. If you didn't want a post covid period of inflation, you should have just not used the socialism based stimulus checks. That's how this shit works. Run the money printing presses, and you eventually get a period of inflation afterwards.
And while inflation was to be expected, it was p
Re: (Score:1)
Okay, how about the price of housing then, the price of food, the price of EVs, the price of everything has gone up an average of 25%.
That is putting pressure mostly on the poor class which people like you love to take pity on. But yeah, let them eat cake. Fuck you, seriously, you people care for nothing but power.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, how about the price of housing then, the price of food, the price of EVs, the price of everything has gone up an average of 25%.
That is putting pressure mostly on the poor class which people like you love to take pity on. But yeah, let them eat cake. Fuck you, seriously, you people care for nothing but power.
I love you some of us can't even have an intelligent conversation without some gutter talk.
Tells me all I need to know about you. There is a pretty significant chance that your problems are largely your own making.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure about Americans typically having savings in the bank that they don't have today? But that, IMO, is irrelevant here. This study confirms what I've suspected for a while now. The job market is a lot more competitive and it's tougher to find a "good job" than it was a couple years ago.
Regular job hopping for a big pay increase was just a "rule of thumb" for careers like I.T. because any given employer tends to only hand out raises to keep up with a rising cost of living. But as you gain years
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.frbsf.org/research... [frbsf.org]
You see the things in red, that means people are dipping into their savings to afford 'necessities'.
The problem with jobs is the same problem in your household, you can't afford to buy 'whatever you want', you need to get people on a discount. Most jobs have jobs open but are also in a hiring freeze or layoff. https://intellizence.com/insig... [intellizence.com] - they are just signaling the job needs to be filled but they cannot afford it due to current monetary policies having exhausted thei
Re: (Score:1)
You are making a mistake. The authors did not say anything about necessities; they don't differentiate between types of spending. To quote:
"Finally, consumers could use debtâ"such as credit cards and personal loansâ"to further support their current spending habits, although the current elevated interest rate environment means that the cost of using credit is higher than in the decade preceding the pandemic recession."
Looking at FRED data shows that median income has risen slightly faster that CPI
Re: (Score:1)
Looking at BLS data shows that it has not in the past 3.5 years, which is what we're talking about (the Biden admin). Yeah, since 1984 wages have risen, but people are not voting on the great job Reagan did.
Re: (Score:1)
I looked back and the whole discussion covers all sorts of time spans. Nowhere did I see anything that indicates it is limited to Biden admin. I will agree that there is a slight, and it is only slight, gap between wages and CPI for last couple years. However, the broad claims you and others have made that it is a continual thing with nothing but bad news is completely wrong. In fact, latest employment figures from yesterday were a surprise because it showed much stronger than expected employment.
Re: (Score:1)
And historically, the Biden admin has pumped those numbers and the gap is significant at ~8% annually.
Let's compare between 2007/2008 and today? Per BLS and Congressional Budget Office adjusted wages were $76,443 on average when Obama took office, it had risen relatively consistently after Jimmy Carter left office until then, it was at ~$57k (which also went down during his historically bad presidency). Q4 of 2023 we are are back at $59,384. So since Jimmy Carter left office, we have inflation adjusted, imp
Re: (Score:2)
Since employers always want younger and cheaper and experienced, there must be some level of churn, whatever "stable" means.
That is the norm. When there's equilibrium, employers demand the government pay for more training (triggering wage-stagnation). When there's an under-supply, wages increase as businesses compete against one another.
Less to do with employees (Score:4, Informative)
Most people respond to incentives.
Re:Less to do with employees (Score:5, Insightful)
Often there are other benefits to remaining with an employer too, like increases in PTO accruals. Some public sector employers even allow one to remain on employer medical plans after retirement, if having provided a sufficient number of years of service with the employer first. That last benefit tends to be on the order of something like fifteen or twenty years.
If employees see room for career growth within one employer and if that employer doesn't treat them like a liability due to having to pay salaries, then it can be rewarding to remain within one employer for quite some time. It's when employers don't provide opportunity for growth and treat employees like liabilities to be shed as absolutely as soon as possible that the employee has every incentive to chase salary and position growth wherever it may be found.
Re: (Score:2)
Often there are other benefits to remaining with an employer too, like increases in PTO accruals. Some public sector employers even allow one to remain on employer medical plans after retirement, if having provided a sufficient number of years of service with the employer first. That last benefit tends to be on the order of something like fifteen or twenty years.
If employees see room for career growth within one employer and if that employer doesn't treat them like a liability due to having to pay salaries, then it can be rewarding to remain within one employer for quite some time. It's when employers don't provide opportunity for growth and treat employees like liabilities to be shed as absolutely as soon as possible that the employee has every incentive to chase salary and position growth wherever it may be found.
I have always recommended that when first entering the job force, that young people job hop. I doubled my Salary in the mid 70's to early 80's, at which point I settled into my planned career with my planned employer.
Yes, carrying insurance after retirement, then using that insurance as a "Part D" secondary provider after going on Medicare is a great feature. Much less a pain in the ass. One less thing to deal with.
And that's the strange thing about this article. If you aren't in danger of a layoff, o
Re:Less to do with employees (Score:5, Insightful)
Retiree here.
That whole PTO accrual thing is crap. With employment-at-will, the accrual rates can be changed at any time. For example, if the company gets into a rough patch, or the CEO and board decide that they can still attract applicants with reduced vacation accruals.
The whole point of increasing accrual rates over time is to incentivize you from leaving and going to another employer. However, the only way to get ahead when the job market is in the employees favor is to job hop. Employers are hoping that the extra vacation time will stop the attrition due to better offers elsewhere, and for the most part it works in the employers favor.
Most first world countries have statutory mandates which state a minimum amount of vacation time. For example, the UK has 28 days per year for all wage earning employees.
Will this change in the US? Probably not. The business lobby (think : US Chamber of Commerce) will fight tooth and nail to prevent statutory vacation time from becoming law.
Re: (Score:2)
Really it depends on who is employing you. If you have good employers you don't really have to worry about your negatives.
At the current company I work for I feel like I do pretty well both for pay relative to what I do and vacation time and I find it very doubtful conditions will change any time soon. I might be able to do a bit better in terms of money if I moved but I also genuinely like the people I work for and well, if I have to be at some place for 40 hours of my week most weeks of the year it's rath
Re: (Score:2)
Retiree again.
I worked for a "good employer" for a long time. I started with them in 1989. I had 5 weeks of vacation per year just before the 2008 great recession. The employer in question lost a big customer, got into a bunch of debt, had a huge downsizing, and cut benefits to the bone. Lesson I learned: I was stupid to stay on with that company after the economy improved. I should have changed jobs bit I didn't. I was finally laid off in 2014 when I was 54 years old. It was very difficult to find another
Re: (Score:2)
Gotcha, you've got a contrary anecdote.
Yes it's possible for a good employer to turn into a not so good one and yes that means it's time to leave. This doesnt mean everyone who is happy with their employment is doomed to have it turn bad on them.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be careful quoting numbers like this. Most people count annual leave separately to bank/public holidays. My employer certainly does. So, I'd say the min. is 20 days, not 28 (we get 8 bank and public holidays in the UK) and I've never had a job with fewer than 25, even for new hires. But you made me look it up (thank you), an
Re: Less to do with employees (Score:1)
Wages have dropped over the last 3.5 years, not risen.
Re: (Score:1)
You are 100% wrong. Just look at FRED sometime instead of spouting random crap.
Though I will say that there is a blip when CPI rose faster than wages in 2021/2 but now wages are rising faster than CPI.
Re: (Score:1)
WHEN? From the start of the Biden admin to now, hourly wages dropped from ~28.5 to ~27.5 according to Bureau of Labor Statistics, this wage is not even compensated for the 25% inflation.
Bureau of Economic Analysis identifies that real per-capita disposable personal income (using chained 2017 dollars) has decreased by 9.04% between the first quarter of 2021 and the first quarter of 2024
Re: Less to do with employees (Score:2)
I really think itâ(TM)s from a drying up job market. Roles are harder than ever to find. Thereâ(TM)s an air of stay put to hold on to the coming recession rather than risk jumping, and employers want to give next to no increases in headcount due to austerity measures.
I can imagine businesses waiting to see if the trump tax cuts are coming and they need to cut hard across the board to maintain the ever growing need for increased net income/dividends/investment. If they arenâ(TM)t kept the exec
There could be another reason... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Job hunting is not like it was just 4 years ago.
Yes, a lot of things are not like they were 4 years ago, thank goodness. Do you know what 4 years ago was?
Re: (Score:2)
4 years ago was the biggest quarterly drop [eyeonhousing.org] in the US GDP going back to at least the 1960's. Demand had plummeted due to Covid, but the economic consequences were not yet felt as the government fired up the printing presses to keep paychecks coming, whether or not people were working. But the resulting inflation had not yet kicked in.
What a great economy that was! It really was exactly like the moment after Wyle Coyote runs off the cliff but hasn't started to fall just yet.
Re: (Score:2)
OOh, I know...
4 years ago was the biggest quarterly drop [eyeonhousing.org] in the US GDP going back to at least the 1960's. Demand had plummeted due to Covid, but the economic consequences were not yet felt as the government fired up the printing presses to keep paychecks coming, whether or not people were working. But the resulting inflation had not yet kicked in.
Bingo! While trying to use the Democrats as the proximate cause of the recent inflationary trends:
1. It was going to happen, just like the Post Vietnam war inflation.
2. Those checks were paid out under who's watch?
3. Shit happens, and stimulus checks had a function, so whichever party is in power that is the path forward.
Re: (Score:1)
It's likely that it's inflating worker shortage numbers as well.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/f... [cbsnews.com]
Re:There could be another reason... (Score:4, Interesting)
Job hunting is war. You have to do recon on the company making the offer. You have to evaluate the level of job, the unit that is hiring and how much juice/need does the "principal" have, and get as much intel beforehand. That's why most real jobs come from your "network" of people you know.
No kidding (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost like interest rates were raised a few points and kept that way until the job market tightened up. Color me shocked.
This.
This is exactly what standard macroeconomic theory predicts -- well, except that standard theory predicts that to halt inflation you probably need to keep the rates high until you trigger a recession. Instead, we're suffering a slight slowdown in the rate of expansion, enough to soften the labor market just a bit, though the 4.2% unemployment rate is still extremely good, especially given that we're maintaining it while labor force participation reaches near record highs. And now the Fed is beginnin
The bigger issue that most seem to have missed (Score:3)
Over the past 30-40 years, there has been an obvious issue where those who change jobs see their pay and skills go up faster than those who stay at the same job. Now, even for the same position, in many cases, the new hires will actually get paid higher than those who have been with the company for years. This shows that those in management/HR know that they need to pay better to get new employees, but then, they don't properly adjust current employees so they get paid better than the new hires(who often won't even have the skills to do the job well).
So, that's the problem, when people feel they need to switch jobs just to get paid a competitive level of pay for what the job actually is.
time to go UNION! (Score:3)
time to go UNION!
Re: (Score:2)
time to go UNION!
Don't think I want a union, a layer who takes some of my pay for something that I think isn't worth what they take.
However, I do think a "professional group" (think of something like the AMA for doctors) would be a good thing. I'd be happy to join that and throw $25 a year at them to help promote laws and changes to laws and policies that would benefit the IT professions. My first attempt at a name would be "Professional Information Technology Association", but I'm sure we can come up with a better name. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Right... Unionization only guarantees more money for the heads of the union. The benefits of it for "rank and file" employees really depends on the situation.
I knew people, many years ago, who were union workers for grocery stores. They'd get into situations sometimes where they actually had a negative paycheck, owing the union dues even though they didn't work (out sick or what-not). Meanwhile, their pay was minimal enough as a bagger or checkout clerk so there was no real proof the union did them any good
Re: (Score:2)
time to go UNION!
Don't think I want a union, a layer who takes some of my pay for something that I think isn't worth what they take.
However, I do think a "professional group" (think of something like the AMA for doctors) would be a good thing. I'd be happy to join that and throw $25 a year at them to help promote laws and changes to laws and policies that would benefit the IT professions. My first attempt at a name would be "Professional Information Technology Association", but I'm sure we can come up with a better name. :)
I would be fine with that as long as they don't regularly increase my PITA dues to become a larger PITA.
Re: (Score:2)
What you may have missed is that while good employers will raise pay to be competitive for good talent, there are far more employers who pay as little as possible, or as I mentioned, those who have been with the company get paid less than the new hires who don't know as much. Unions would help, but the smaller employers will then be non-union where people get paid less than those working for larger corporations, but if you live in a rural area, you may not have the option of going to work for a place that
We are seeing an increase in layoffs (Score:3)
And when that happens, folks are less likely to jump ship, and be burned.
Corporations are also colluding to keep labor costs down. So that large employers are not offering incentives to draw employees because many are contemplating layoffs and down sizing.
Redefining Stability. (Score:2)
Tens of thousands laid off in the tech industry. CEOs taking this time to retire rather than try again. And now we’re going to sell a lack of job hopping opportunity as “stability” in the job market. By the time we get around to dropping the partisan political bullshit, that not-a-recession leaders keep bragging ain’t happening, will be a full blown Depression.
So sick and tired of the ignorant lies. Any lack of opportunity in the job market, is NOT a sign of stability.
This is just the effect of high interest rates (Score:2)
It's basically balancing the books on the backs of the working Americans. Austerity. You work harder for less and that's supposed to somehow make
work longer hours for less pay? Time to start an u (Score:2)
work longer hours for less pay? Time to start an union to get paid OT for that added time!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You make it sound as if this is all some carefully thought out conspiracy. Grow up and leave childish things behind. There are times when the economy expands and there are times when it contracts, and most of the time it just tinkers along. Real median income has risen slightly faster than inflation since 1980s and basically continues to do this.
You don't want to admit it but people can afford more - at better quality! - than in past decades. Maybe you and your family got left out but things are better now
Makes sense (Score:2)
I think it's all those listings that require a college degree and ten years experience for a fifteen dollar an hour job. Yeah, I'll just stay here, thanks.
In a way I see this as a positive thing. Perhaps companies are slowly learning to keep the tribal knowledge they currently have in house, rather than continuously pulling in kids who have never had a real job.
ageism and ridiculous interviews (Score:2)
If I've become wary of jumping jobs it is because of two things in the tech industry, ageism and interviews.
Chances are that you'd like to hire someone younger than me for less money.
Chances are that you expect me to solve your most difficult business issue, in real time, on a whiteboard, in a meeting with a dozen people I've never met before today, as just my first interview for the day. And I get to do this 6 more times today. And then when I've succeeded at all of that you will ghost me.
Sorry, its not me
Pretty simple- it's declining pay deltas (Score:2)
In 2022, when inflation was hot and market wages were rising quickly, companies were generally not increasing wages for existing employees as fast as the market was rising. It was pretty common to get a 20% or more raise by simply jumping ship to another company.
By now, most of the folks who were ready to jump for more pay have done so and more of the existing employees have caught up. As a result, the pay benefits of switching jobs are much more modest. Unless they are very unhappy with working conditions