"As of the end of Q4 of 2012, the unemployment rate for [computer science and mathematical] professionals was 3.3%, holding steady from Q3..."
...compared with 1.8% in 1983, 1.5% in 1990, 2.7% in 1991, 2.6% in 1992, 2.7% in 1993, 2% in 1994, 1.8% in 1995, 1.3% in 1996, 1.1% in 1997, 1.2% in 1998, 1.8% in 1999, 2.2% in 2000, 3.6% in 2001, 4.9% in 2002, 5.5% in 2003, 4.2% in 2004, 2.9% in 2005, 2.4% in 2006, 2.1% in 2007, 2.6% in 2008, 5.2% in 2009, 4.1% in 2011, and 3.6% for 2012.
So, it's between 2 and 3 times the unemployment rates for these occupations during times of full employment.
"The unemployment rate for DBAs is 1.5%, lowest among all tech-job categories..."
...compared with 3% in 2000, 2.6% in 2001, 2.9% in 2002, 6.6% in 2003, 2% in 2004, 4.4% in 2005, 0.4% in 2006...
"For software developers, a relatively new category in this survey, the rate is 2.9%..."
...compared with 4.6% in 2010, and 3.6% in 2011
and, for software engineers, 1.7% in 2000, 4.2% in 2001, 4.7% in 2002, 5.2% in 2003, 3.3% in 2004, 2.4% in 2005, 2.1% in 2006.
"followed by computer systems analysts at 3.3%..."
...compared with 1.9% in 1983, 1.5% in 1990, 2.6% in 1991, 2.7% in 1992, 3.1% in 1993, 1.8% in 1994, 1.9% in 1995, 1.3% in 1996, 1.1% in 1997, 1.3% in 1998, 1.7% in 1999, 2.3% in 2000, 2.8% in 2001, 4.4% in 2002, 5.2% in 2003, 3.9% in 2004, 3.1% in 2005, 2.7% in 2006.
"Web [weavers, another relatively new category for this survey] (3.5%)..."
...compared with 5.1% in 2010, 4.8% in 2011Q1, 5.6% in 2011Q2, 3.6% in 2011Q3, 4.7% in 2011Q4, 5.9% for all of 2011, 3% in 2012Q1, 4.3% in 2012Q2, 3.5% in 2012Q3, 4.2% in 2012Q4...
"Network and systems admins...4.3%..."
...compared with 1.3% in 2000, 2.1% in 2001, 6% in 2002, 5.3% in 2003, 3.4% in 2004, 3.9% in 2005, 2.5% in 2006...
pointy-haired "computer and information systems managers at 4.3%..."
...compared with 1.6% in 2000, 3.3% in 2001, 5.6% in 2002, 5% in 2003, 4% in 2004, 2.5% in 2005, 2.1% in 2006, 1.3% in 2007, 2.1% in 2008, 4.2% in 2009, 1.6% in 2010...
"programmers have an unemployment rate of 4.6%..."
...compared with 3.1% in 1983, 3% in 1990, 3.5% in 1991, 3.1% in 1992, 2.7% in 1993, 2.1% in 1994, 1.8% in 1995, 1.6% in 1996, 1.6% in 1997, 1.4% in 1998, 2.3% in 1999, 2% in 2000, 4% in 2001, 6.1% in 2002, 6.4% in 2003, 5.8% in 2004, 2.3% in 2005, 2.4% in 2006...
"among computer support specialists, the rate is now 4.9%..."
...compared with 3.4% in 2000, 4.2% in 2001, 5.4% in 2002, 5.4% in 2003, 4.6% in 2004, 3.4% in 2005 and 2006...
and, for computer hardware engineers (which are not included in the aggregate figures for computer science and mathematical occupations) 1.8% in 2000, 2.9% in 2001, 6.5% in 2002, 7% in 2003, 2.1% in 2004, 1.4% in 2005, 1.5% in 2006, 9.3% in 2007Q1, 1.5% in 2007Q4, 2.5% for all of 2007, 1.5% for 2008, 13.9% for 2009Q1, 0.2% for 2009Q2, 1.9% for 2009Q3, 4.6% for 2009Q4, and 5.2% for all of 2009, 14.3% for 2010Q1, 5% for 2010Q2, 2.8% for 2011Q1, 2.2% for 2011Q2, 1.9% for 2011Q3, 2.2% for 2011Q4, 2.3% for 2011 over all, 4.4% for 2012Q1, 0.5% for 2012Q2, 2.8% for 2012Q4 and 1.9% for 2012 over all... which nicely shows the volatility of this data-set.
Read the BLS disclaimer, again, and report it.
"Typically, we will not publish percents or medians for occupations or industries with a base of less than 50,000 for annual averages and 75,000 for quarterly averages. However, estimates based on such small denominators may appear in these unpublished tables. (For example, you might check the labor force level to see if it meets these criteria before using the unemployment rate. The labor force -- the sum of the employed and experienced unemployed in an occupation or industry -- is the denominator of the unemployment rate calculation [which means that it neglects those involuntarily out of field and those not currently -- within the 4 weeks preceding the day on which the household was queried in each of the 3 monthly surveys in each quarter].) If you are particularly interested in estimates for relatively small population groups, you might consider using annual average data whenever possible [which are OK for historical tracks, but useless for tracking current job market trends]. The annual data are based on 12 months of interviews and thus are more robust. These data are from the Current Population Survey (CPS), the monthly household survey that provides information on employment and unemployment in the US."
"the unemployment rate among tech pros remains considerably lower than the overall national average..."
...as do the unemployment rates among CEOs (1.8%), physicians & surgeons (0.4%), dentists (0.6%), veterinarians (0.6%), college profs (2.1%), judges (1.7%), lawyers (1.3%; and they're suing the law schools for fraudulent misrepresentation of employment prospects), medical scientists (1.1%), HR clones (0.8%), pointy-haired CIS managers (4.3%), reporters (4.4%), editors (4.4%), machinists (5.6%), locomotive engineers (1.2% for the year, a much more reliable number than the quarterly)...
OTOH, actors (31.6%), directors & producers (10.2%), food prep (10.2%), brick-masons (15%), carpenters (15%), roofers (11.3%), construction laborers (17.3%), oil roughnecks etc. (7.3%), tool and die makers (8.9%), farm and fishery and forest workers (14.8%)...
see the graphs:
http://www.kermitrose.com/jgoEconData.html
The point is that each profession has a different *full employment* unemployment rate, and a different common unemployment rate. You're comparing apples to fish. And BLS figures don't track those involuntarily out of STEM fields and those who have given up seeking STEM work, who are considered to not be part of the STEM "labor force" even though they certainly are part of the USA's STEM talent pool.
Executives at "Companies like MSFT" should, in light of their long history of employee abuse and low quality products (in addition to the excellent products and firms they took over and wrecked), have a difficult time recruiting, should have to pay more, be more generous with relocation and training and retirement packages. See also:
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/microsofts-13-worst-missteps-of-all-time-210521
So the feds should issue fewer visas and establish some minimal intelligence, talent and skill-level standards, and, in light of numerous espionage, intellectual property theft, and terrorist incidents, should run proper background investigations on every visa applicant (student, tourist, business, guest-work, green card...).
...as the Bush-Clinton-Shrub-Obummer economic depression continues.
P.S. "Per Dice, 42 months have gone by since the most recent recession officially ended in June 2009. In that period, 180,600 tech jobs were created."
Dice, unfortunately, refuses to differentiate between bodyshop services gigs, and paid captive-geek positions in "IT" departments of firms whose emphasis is on other activities,
vs. real, long-term employment developing software products.
I wish Dice would correct this, but I've been asking or nearly a decade, and the only improvement I see is that they split out the "NOT" clause to allow it to be a little more extensive, and thus allow filtering out more of the bodyshoppers. All it would take, as far as interface, would be a single addition to one pop-down list, and, of course, conscientious compliance by advertisers to be truthful about whether they were real software product firms, bodyshoppers, or want "data processing" or "IT" workers in a firm whose aim is not to produce software products.
It would also be nice if they brought back reporting ad statistics by programming language and operating system families.
