01-15-2013 08:43 PM
"More new tech jobs have emerged since the end of the past recession than during the same recovery timelines following the dot-com bubble burst and the early-1990s recession. What's more, the unemployment rate among technology professionals is now half that of the national average — with especially low unemployment rates for database administrators and network architects. What's not clear, though, is how many unemployed techies aren't being counted because they've abandoned job searches."
01-15-2013 10:22 PM
One area that is missed is the fact that many of these "jobs" are not jobs but wishes. Just the result of managers teaching the horse to sing.
01-15-2013 11:58 PM
Also the salaries were sky-high during the bubble, I don't even count them when computing how far things have fallen.
I'm probably making 1/3 now of what I made at the peak of the bubble.
Some of that is apparently natural variation, I've seen a lot of fluctuation over 30 years and more, but since the bubble burst around Jan 2001, it's been down, downer, and downest. So if there are 3x more jobs now, it just means they need 3x more underpaid wienies to get any work done.
01-16-2013 12:01 AM - last edited on 01-29-2013 02:26 PM by lesleyp
It's not 2013 that's dead, but us.
Because folk living in urban areas may be reduced to homelessness, or to squatting in abandoned public buildings, subway tunnels, and caves, as in Greece and Italy.
We may be looking at a dystopian future, to a film Blade Runner milieu. Sans the exciting tech and space travel.
01-22-2013 01:02 PM - last edited on 01-29-2013 02:26 PM by lesleyp
"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:
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:
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.
01-22-2013 01:27 PM - last edited on 01-29-2013 02:27 PM by lesleyp
"salaries were sky-high during the bubble"
Average and median salaries rose only slightly during the Y2K panic, though individuals' experiences varied widely, and the crash caught up with different people at different times, ranging from 1999 through 2002.
Looking back, it appears that most of the hullabaloo about high compensation were publicity gimmicks. (I particularly recall an article from a west-coast paper about former STEM workers repackaging food at a food-bank, helping sort donated clothing at a thrift store, selling their cars and condos and moving in with relatives, attending networking events, and expecting the depression to pass over and good times to return within a few months... only, for most, they never did and depleted resources/assets/wealth were never recovered or rebuilt.)
There has been a small recent up-tick in compensation, but I get the impression that for most people, compensation is down 30% to 60% from what it was in 1999. It's difficult to tell from the aggregate statistics published by BLS which don't reflect the effects of increased bodyshopping, by which I mean that they still do a straight projection from hourly and weekly wage to annual salary to income over a decade, while I suspect longitudinaly studies would show a lot of people employed for a series of shorter gigs, with periods of low or no compensation between them, and then much more extended periods of non-employment after age 35 or so.
Recruiters certainly haven't seemed to be trying very hard since 1990.
01-29-2013 01:19 PM - last edited on 01-29-2013 02:30 PM by lesleyp
I dislike most articles on this topic, but especially the dishonest fraudsters who try to dominate the discussion, who, through ignorance and failure to do homework or fact-checking, or for personal aggrandizement, misrepresent STEM job market conditions, and then try to lock out even government data, which has been cooked to make things seem better than they are but still totally under-mines the fraudsters' case.
When looking at economic indicators it is best to look at them over time to see whether things have improved or worsened. Are unemployment rates "high" or "low"? Are prices "high" or "low"? One cannot tell without looking at the historical context. Are they higher or lower than in good times of the past, higher or lower than in bad times past?
In this particular case, it could be a matter of selectively blocking out data to misrepresent, or it could be failure to fact-check, or failure to research enough to gain perspective. It is very likely that the reporter was given the latest report and the editor told him what angle to take, and then the editor composed the headline after. There are now and have been reporters at the same publication who know better.
As a matter of fact, it was one of the same publication's former reporters who told me how to obtain the government data, after I asked him about things that seemed to have been left out. That reporter had done a number of articles on the general topic -- some tilted a little this way and some tilted a little that -- but he was at least minimally conscientious, didn't always pass along press releases lightly edited as though they were objective articles, and after receiving additional information from confirmed sources, made corrections to the articles posted on-line. And he certainly wasn't continually trying to blow sunshine up our skirts; he was reporting, not fabricating, not influencing, not propagandizing. This is how all media should behave.
01-30-2013 08:59 AM
There are invidious incentives for those media outlets that are mostly supported by specialized vendor ads. You should never expect the facts, much less the truth, from any publication entitled Windows.
To assess the potential veracity of a media outlet, look at its advertising. Follow the money...
Occasionally an outlet may publish articles from a 'curmudgeon' or dissident, just so it can claim to be 'fair and balanced', but that's just a Noh mask.
Insofar as statistics actually do portend, the trend is not our friend.