News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class ... by Spooky23 on Tuesday April 24, 2018 @04:20PM (#16916166)
Tech is not a meritocracy. Many of us like to think of it that way, but the reality is that most of the jobs associated with tech are bullshit, and much of tech headcount is IT.

The last big place that I worked could easily cut tech headcount in half and hardly notice. A decade from now they can probably reduce headcount 80% in IT and 75% in the business.

The impact of global growth won’t impact jobs directly for awhile. When Chinese companies start pumping out superior product that westerners cannot even read the manuals for, that will be the big crack.

Re:Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class ... by rubicon33 on Tuesday April 24, 2018 @04:44PM (#16916387)
> The impact of global growth won’t impact jobs directly for awhile.

That's a definitive statement that is more nuanced than that. There are definitely people (myself included) who have been directly impacted by global tech outsourcing.

I won't get into the specifics but I can tell you that there are an increasing number of dev shops outside of the US that are specializing in solid communication. That's been one of the biggest problems and hesitations from US businesses. You need a manager in the other country, who is good. These companies are specializing in providing a excellent teams that at a fraction of the cost of a US team.

Re:Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class ... by Spooky23 on Tuesday April 24, 2018 @09:55PM (#16918154)
I didn’t mean to come across in such an insensitive way.

The perspective I was coming from was a little more meta. To date we’ve seen outsourcing of business functions and consolidation of job functions where technology advancements have reduced labor needs. VMWare eliminated datacenter hardware teams. AWS eliminated data centers. Modern clients eliminate all of the bullshit associated with Windows PCs.

We are getting to a point where business functions will go down the same path. This is an age of giants.

Re:Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class ... by dv_dt on Tuesday April 24, 2018 @05:10PM (#16916627)
> The last big place that I worked could easily cut tech headcount in half and hardly notice.

This is sometimes true, but you have to be careful about myths about occupied capacity (of people and machines). If 100% of the people are occupied, it's very likely that the company is very understaffed and can easily get into trouble too. When xx% of the people are idle, you might look next week, or the next phase of a project and a different slice will be idle, and this may be the fastest, most efficient way to get the work done for large or complex work.

Re:Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class ... by varjag on Tuesday April 24, 2018 @06:01PM (#16917035)
Not sure it works like that. If there's a surge of work, slackers go on slacking and you have to hire/rent people.
Re:Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class ... by dv_dt on Tuesday April 24, 2018 @06:22PM (#16917182)
But it consumes time and effort to hire/rent people and creates unnecessary churn to have people all running at 100%. The machine version of this is nicely discussed in a book written by Eli Goldratt called The Goal with a more people & project based take on it called Critical Chain. They're in novel form (there are more serious treatments available of the general Theory of Constraints), but it discusses why running each resource, person or machine, at 100% in an organization isn't actually the most efficient thing to do for an organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliyahu_M._Goldratt

Re:Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class ... by varjag on Wednesday April 25, 2018 @03:49AM (#16919359)
What often happens is consultants/temps are leased to fill in temporary gaps. Short term it's cheaper (and faster) than hiring for permanent positions.

And sure, people typically don't run on 100% capacity. What however seems to happen in many bigger orgs with vague performance metrics (as much of IT work is), some people do solid 60-80% productive work throughout the day, while some barely hover over 0%. So you have a kernel of workers pushing the cart and a bigger cohort of watercooler crowd. When peak load time comes the latter don't ramp up their productivity to 100%, but instead it's expected the employer should expand the staff.

Nothing short of impending layoff rounds seem to affect this dynamic.