Plenty of jobs out there, but people who get laid off may have to scale back their expectations and demands. One day you get to work on your passion project, get free meals and pet care, work from home, code in your favorite language and framework. A month or two later you start looking seriously at the boring jobs and unsexy workplaces.

I was in multimedia and online marketing in 2001, then the bubble burst and the company I worked at laid a bunch of people off. Lots of people I had worked with before got laid off from their jobs too. Companies went out of business. I went back to where my career started, in enterprise logistics, Oracle and Java. Good pay but not sexy or fun, no free meals or work from home. I felt bad for some of the younger and less experienced people I got laid off with, they didn't have the domain experience or network of contacts I had -- they had fallen backwards into cool high-paying jobs out of school when money was pouring into anything internet. One junior programmer had to sell his Ducati, get a bus pass, and ended up in retail at Borders.

The job market can accommodate a lot of people with tech skills, but many people who just got laid off, or will as the belt-tightening continues, will face a kind of culture shock. They got to work at Disneyland for a while, but now the options will look more like Office Space.

> One junior programmer had to sell his Ducati, get a bus pass, and ended up in retail at Borders.

And then Borders went out of business.

Interesting side note. I saw a Borders bookstore in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia just two days ago.

BORDERS @ Quill City Mall https://maps.app.goo.gl/7U4GRrmACvMXyy9y6?g_st=ic

Huh. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/why-there-are-still-bo... (2015)

I know that about as well as I know anything. I have 40+ years in the software industry and I have never seen an actual shortage of jobs available. I have seen the number of fun, cool, sexy, ridiculously high-paying jobs expand and contract. Right now, in this climate, I personally know about multiple small companies who can't recruit or hire programmers, openings infilled for a year or more for lack of candidates.

The numbers I could easily find back this up:

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3542681/how-many-jobs-...

The FAANG (or whatever we call it now) companies and startups represent the tip of the iceberg, the most attractive segment of programming and tech jobs. Those companies also have the most candidates to choose from, the most grueling interview process, and seem to have the most churn and turnover when economic conditions change. A job at Twitter or Meta probably pays a lot more and offers more perks and prestige than a job at a regional trucking company or retail chain, sure.

Downturns like this always hit the younger and less-experienced cohort of tech workers hardest. People fresh out of school with no experience will struggle. People with narrow skills, short experience at one company, or an exaggerated opinion of their actual value, will struggle. While the FAANG/startup companies that get attention on HN can optimize their hiring around leetcode and whiteboard trials, the rest of the tech world tends to value experience and fitting in with a team.

If you can only produce from an Aeron chair writing Clojure and shunning meetings then you will find the job market limited. As companies tighten up and lay off and focus on profits and retention programmers who want to get a paycheck have to adjust their expectations. A truck driver who will only drive a customized red Peterbilt 359 on one interstate route will similarly find their options limited, even in a market with plentiful jobs for truck drivers.

My recent discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33596779 was intended to push back on this sort of rosy outlook.

I suspect companies that struggle to hire have basic issues like a complicated or invasive application process, niche skillsets, an out of the way location with no possibility of remote work, or low pay. To be clear I don't mean low pay as in lower than FAANG, but pay so low that you have to wonder if the job is either abusive or something like IT help desk, not software development.

If these regional trucking companies and retail chains were serious about hiring, we'd see posts to HN, Reddit, LinkedIn, and everywhere else like: "I'm the hiring manager at a regional trucking company/retail chain. We've been struggling to hire developers for over a year. If you have over two years experience as a developer in any capacity, email me your resume and I guarantee you a 30 minute phone interview. Pay is a little low but we take care of our employees. We're not used to remote workers but we will make it work for the right person."

Have you seen posts like that? If not, why do you think that is? How are these companies trying to find employees?

It only takes a search to see that there are jobs available. They don’t name them “jobs for the ex Twitter” though, so maybe that is what you’re asking.

In talks with multiple companies looking to hire me at the moment - can confirm there’s plenty of jobs to go around.

You need a “skill set” for any skilled job. The wrong skills will of course limit your options. Acquiring and maintaining marketable skills comes with the territory, not specific to tech.

I wrote plenty of jobs out there. No bullshit, easy to confirm. Not everyone will qualify for those jobs.

It's important to put this in perspective.

1- layoffs are happening primarily to non-technologist roles

2- even with the layoffs, we're still no where near head counts for 2019.

Companies are taking advantage of the macro situation to clean house. It serves a dual purpose. Get rid of low performing employees and clean up any non essential functions, while also pleasing investors.

> even with the layoffs, we're still no where near head counts for 2019.

So then the question is where did all these people come from in just 2 years?

I just want to say I find it very enlightening to see my previous post have dual interpretations because I wasn't precise. It really explains why ancient literature can cause so much grief!

To clear it up, I did mean that despite the massive increase in workers, with today's layoffs most of them have not yet reverted back to their pre-pandemic 2019 headcounts.

Where did all of these workers come from? Overall as an industry we did not actually substantially increase our headcount. We're about at par. Why?

- People did retire/leave the industry due to 2020 layoffs/Covid - Big tech, who had the largest "influx" actually just vacuumed people from other non-big tech (e.g. banks, mid-size, startups, etc.) - Much of the headcount growth was actually in non-technology positions, especially HR, marketing, sales etc. because many companies wanted to capitalize on pandemic growth

Where did what people come from? I read OP’s comment as meaning that there were more people working in the field in 2019 than today. So, it is a question of where did all those people go in just 2 years? Presumably a lot died in the pandemic. Others fled the cities and perhaps still work in tech but do so in a more rural location. Perhaps many returned to their home countries.

Not OP but many notable companies have nearly doubled headcount since 2019 (Google, Snap, etc). Surely OP meant that where did this influx of workers come from.

And I think the answer is that this is the population that would work for big tech if they didn’t have to move, or if they didn’t have to work long hours, or whatever. (IMO the last few years have been cushier at big tech than usual).

> Presumably a lot died in the pandemic

Deaths weren't a big labor market driver. Around 1 in 300 Americans died from covid, but only a quarter of those were working age, and tech skews even younger. Long covid could be another story.

That said, I read the comment the same as vineyardmike. More people are working in tech today than in 2019, and that's beyond if the 2019 trend had held.

> I can’t say I understand why trillion dollar companies are doing mass layoffs

Most companies finance new projects with a combination of three things. Own capital, investor money and loans. Right now interest rates are high, I'm European so I can't speak for the US, but in some areas of the Eurozone the interest rates hit 12% a month ago. At that point it becomes impossible to utilise the loan part, because it's just too expensive. The investor money are similarly either slowing down or disappearing, not so much because they aren't around or that they don't have money, but because they are waiting to see what happens. This is fuelled not only by the loan part of the equation, but also by the inflation and global supply lines pushing the costs of projects to a point that has eaten a healthy chunk of the would-be investor profits, or put in another way, investors don't want to risk their money for 5% return when it was a 50% return a year ago. Lastly there is the own capital, one way to maintain this is to cut the work force, which aligns with how you need a smaller work force as things slow down.

Where do people go? Well, typically they find new jobs. Some change professions entirely. Some retire. A few unfortunate people break down and head down dark paths. But really, it's not unlike layoffs in good periods, there is just more of it with fewer opportunities.

> it still even possible to get a tech job in this downturn?

As with most things this depends on your situation. What is your educational background, your skillset and your history of work. I can't speak for the US, but here in Europe some countries you could double our amount of good programmers and still need more.

> good paying

As with everything, this depends on the amount of people who can do what you do, but compensation doesn't necessarily go down during harder periods. But it does mean you'll likely have to justify what you do to earn it more than you did before.

> Own capital, investor money and loans.

What's the difference between own capital and investor money for a company?

It's a good question, and it's frankly so complicated that I'm not sure I can explain it. Basically own capital is the operational capital that is on your company's books that your company can budget and spend. Investor money aren't.

This can play out in a lot of different ways, and many of them are probably a little different than what HN is used to, but in many cases, especially in investment banking, it's common for investors to buy into projects rather than into companies. Of course the projects are likely going to be multiple companies as legal entities, but basically, they are a lot like school projects in which one computer is great at doing the project and the other owns a computer to do the project on.

Let's say I'm really good at building offshore windmill farms. I'm also great at selling them for a nice profit once they are build, but a 40% profit on 10 is still just 14. You're rich on the other hand, but you're not really sure how to grow your fortune. Now if we pool my 10 and your 100 and the banks 100 together, then we can turn those 210 into almost 300 in the same amount of time that I could turn my 10 into 14. The 10 is own capital.

Even if you were to invest in my company directly, it would still make sense for you, and the other investors to keep some operational capital on the budgets. Both because it's healthy, and because it allows the company to move in on opportunities before they are sold to investors. Maybe there was an opportunity to turn the 210 into 1000, but you had to act NOW. I could put my own 100 up, and then slowly sell them to you, or other investors, over the following year.

And so on. It's much, much, more complicated than this, and then you also have to add the real complexity of all the bureaucratic "magic" that goes along with finances.

Maybe ask SBF that question.

I think it might be SBF asking the question.

I believe own capital would be reinvested profits in this case as opposed to equity from selling stocks.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I guess it’s good to never get too comfortable.

Which part of euro zone has an interest rate of 12%

To the pub, have a nice cold pint, and wait for this all to blow over.

Cheers

According to this: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/... , there are 174,400 computer programmer jobs in the United States alone.

Not everyone being laid off is a programmer; in fact, I suspect that much of it is in recruiting, HR, and such.

And there are tons of "related jobs" - https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...

Many people who get laid off go to work where most everyone else is working, and "unsexy" companies you've never heard of.

174,000 is really a lot less than I imagined.

Look at the related jobs section in that link: there are separate counts for software developers, web developers, db admins, systems analysts, etc.

Yeah, it's a very specific "class" which almost certainly doesn't include much of what HN would consider "programming tech" jobs.

> Where does everyone go after mass layoffs?

As affected one, I can say with a full confidence - straight to the beach

Tech companies had a bubble when COVID 19 was first talked about. People stayed at home and used social networks. Now that COVID 19 is under control, the bubble burst and layoffs happened because people went back to work and stopped using social networks. Thus less advertising income. Less income means layoffs.

It's interesting that our layoffs were just delayed 2.5 years, though out of overinvestment rather than necessity.

One fear for the broader economy is that there's a lot of money that wasn't made in tech this year that was made last year. Not just layoffs, but a drop in RSU values. When essential workers were laid off in the spring of 2020, it was easier to absorb the economic hit and provide government support because they didn't make that much. Now we have tech workers cutting back massively on discretionary spending after seeing their TC drop by 25% (or 100%).

Normally I'd ask where tech workers spend their money and try to short that, but the main answers I have are housing and Teslas.

I think the real answer is more pedestrian. High income people largely spend in the same places, they just spend more.

They still buy clothes, but maybe at Nordstrom instead of TJMax. They still take vacations, but maybe they upgrade to economy+ and get the hotel room With a view. They buy groceries, but maybe shop organic and get real cheese instead of Kraft.

I'd image many laid off individuals retire if they can... or go part time, lower paid, ect.

I have seen some go to contracting firms. Sure, some projects are getting shelved. But a lot are just getting restructured to be cheaper on the labor part or provide more headcount flexibility for the company. There really is a lot of talent shuffling and reshuffling that happens.

In the 2000s, many younger people (sub-30s) moved to the bay area to participate in the boom.

When things went sideways, many returned to their home state and/or moved back in with their parents. The local San Francisco rental market subsequently crashed.

There is no time from the 2000s on where the SF rental market crashed; median rents dropped slightly after the 2008 financial crisis as they did nationally, but bounced back faster than the national trend.

Ah, my recollection is definitely different. It was absolute madness for a while. You'd show up and there would be a line of 30+ people all waiting to see the same place. You'd also need to be armed with a "rental resume" along with the dreaded application fee to even be a contender.

When things burst, that all went away.

This was pretty interesting:

https://medium.com/@mccannatron/1979-to-2015-average-rent-in...

My brother went to work for Home Depot, helping them manage a crumbling tech infrastructure. Its unsexy and your work will never be visible to actual customers but it’s rewarding in its own way.

Walmart has over 1000 job openings with the phrase “software engineer” in the title. Not all tech jobs are at tech companies

Eng isn't getting laid of anywhere close to the volume of "HR" types and ops roles.

Or they go back to country (If on an indentured servitude work visa and then get into unsexy jobs:( )